Tag: Responsible Parenting & Smaller Families

  • ESTHER AFOLARANMI AND THE MEANING OF BASIC JUSTICE FOR ALL.

    ESTHER AFOLARANMI AND THE MEANING OF BASIC JUSTICE FOR ALL.

    By Esther Afolaranmi. Esther is a Law Graduate from Bowen University, and will be working with the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project at the University of Denver this year. Esther has career interests in corporate/commercial law practice, real estate management, family law and a keen interest in human rights. She enjoys and excels at being the voice of the voiceless.

    A comparison chart of Current Family Planning vs. Fair Start Family Planning. The left side lists negatives of current planning; the right side highlights positive outcomes of fair start planning for welfare, equality, and environmental protection.

    Climate crisis infographic
    Cheerful African Ethnicity Infant Carrying Healthy Water for a dehydration concept

    Here is what Esther had to say:

    Climate restoration involves the process of reversing the damage caused by climate change and restoring the natural systems that have been impacted by human activities. The concept of birth equity depicts that every child born into a society has an equal chance at life, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.

    The idea of linking climate restoration with birth equity as a legal obligation is what we propose. We suggest that in order to address climate change and restore the planet, we must also consider how we bring new life into the world and ensure that every child has an equal chance at a healthy and sustainable future.

    An Open Letter to ReproAction and the Center for Reproductive Rights: Abortion Rights Can Override Governmental Authority

    This approach acknowledges the fact that certain populations, such as low-income communities and communities of color, are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. By prioritizing these obligations, we can work towards addressing these disparities and ensuring that every child has access to the resources and opportunities needed to thrive and that’s what the Seeds for the Future Project is about.

    The Seeds for the Future campaign aims to address food insecurity, harsh climatic changes, wealth injustices, children’s rights and family size at grassroots in Uganda.

    Infographic about Fair Start family planning, highlighting climate impact, reduced extinction risks, 600% return on investment, findings by Nobel laureate Heckman, and the benefits of smaller families for sustainability.

    We reckon that implementing this concept as a legal obligation (though some may choose to give as charity) would likely be challenging. It would require significant changes to our legal and social systems, as well as widespread support from policymakers and the public. We are ready and committed to championing this cause.

    This is what our partner Robert at Rejoice Africa Foundation said on these matters:


    Drought, hunger , food insecurity, disease , population increase due to climate crisis . People are dying younger than they were dying in past centuries. The Global North is continuing to turn their deaf ears, listening to songs of suffering global South and they only give empty pledges. Global North organizations , donors and foundations have continued to fund nonprofits registered in Global North who come to Global South to generate reports without working on the root cause of the climate crisis .

    Additionally, it would require addressing underlying issues such as poverty, systemic racism, and environmental injustice, which are complex and deeply ingrained in our society. By working towards a more equitable and sustainable future for all children, we can build a healthier and more resilient society for generations to come.

  • Amanda Almeida Talks Family and Love

    Amanda Almeida Talks Family and Love

    Amanda Almeida is an author who lets her heart out and into her work. In her several books – Silhouette, Final Letter, and Weakness – she brings readers into the feelings we will all recognize but from points of view that will make them seem new.

    Here Amanda discusses the impacts of her decisions to break free from the family molds that confine how many others live in order to write her own life story, and to show us her profound and self-authored vision of family and love.

    Her freedom has freed others – ecologically, socially, and in terms of how she shows others what is possible.

    Her freedom is infectious.

    Listen in:

    Amanda Almeida talks family and love.
  • Addendum to the Open Letter sent Jan 29th, 2023 to Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Regarding India’s Human Rights Obligations in Developing New Family and Population Policies

    Addendum to the Open Letter sent Jan 29th, 2023 to Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Regarding India’s Human Rights Obligations in Developing New Family and Population Policies

    March 19, 2023

    • On India’s Independence Day on August 15, 2019 India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi called on the central and state governments to implement policies to control the country’s population growth rate: “Population explosion will cause many problems for our future generations. We have to be concerned about population explosion. The central as well as state governments should launch schemes to tackle it,” Modi said in his Independence Day address before the nation’s iconic Red Fort in Delhi according to NDTV. The prime minister also called on Indian couples to have smaller families and praised Indian citizens who have already embraced smaller family norms, saying that having fewer children is “an act of patriotism.”
    • This tracks recent activity in India’s Supreme Court dealing with the central government’s obligation to develop family reforms. See https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/supreme-court-notice-to-centre-on-population-control-plea/articleshow/93945701.cms
    • In November, 2022, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the petitions seeking directions to control the population, saying it is for the Central government to look at the issue of population control. The Supreme Court also said that it was not an issue where the court should interfere.
    •  
    Line graph showing global population (in billions) and CO2 (relative) from 1800 to 2050. Both lines rise slowly at first, then sharply increase around 1950, with population slightly above CO2 in recent decades.

     

    However, in November the Court also ruled that under India’s Medical Termination of Pregnancies Act, 1971 (MTP Act), and its related rules, all women are entitled to safe and legal abortion, regardless of their marital status. This enables legislation that would seek to reduce family size. 

    At the same time, India shows great disparity in equality of opportunity among children. A recent study used two rounds of Indian National Family Health Surveys and concepts of Inequality of Opportunity and Human Opportunity Indices to measure inequality arising out of unequal coverage of full immunization and minimum nutrition for Indian children. The results suggest overall high level of inequality of opportunity with substantial geographical variations. Changes in inequality of opportunity in the two services during 1992-1993 to 2005-2006 were mixed with some geographical regions outperforming others. The findings also call for substantial policy revisions if the goal of universal full immunization and minimum nutrition has to be achieved. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/41487420

    Modi’s call for a smaller family policy can thus be recast as a promoting equity, through measures which mimic calls for reforms to U.S. tax policy using devices such as “baby bonds” which create savings accounts for children, and could be used to incentivize delayed fertility. 

     

    An Open Letter to ReproAction and the Center for Reproductive Rights: Abortion Rights Can Override Governmental Authority

    More specifically: 

    1) Cut all benefits to wealthy families who don’t need the funding. 

    2) Use those savings as cash incentives to power up family planning and early childhood investment systems to a) target child abuse by amending the child abuse law, b) incentivize delaying having kids until parents are really ready, and c) promote more sustainable and equitable families for all regardless of income, as well as fostering and adoption – changes that have twenty times the impact on climate emissions, relative to short term fixes. Those changes – made as part of recognizing our sacred constitutional right to nature –  would create massive long-run savings and catalyze sustainable development. We could start to give all kids a Fair Start in life. d) Back comparable Indian programs to Smart Beginnings (in the U.S.) up in time to focus on family planning, and based upon redistribution of wealth in ways that give all kids a Fair Start in life.

     

    Two panels compare family planning types. Left: diverse family illustration with bright colors, labeled Fair Start family planning with positive points. Right: grayscale crowd in a city, labeled Economic growth-based family planning with negative points.

     

    UN data shows the family planning incentives are effective:  See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3578697/, and can be scaled and inserted into existing policy regimes, including in India: See https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd_2021_wpp-fertility_policies.pdf

    These policies better conform to international law. While the Cairo Consensus endorsed a limitless right to have children, see https://www.whp-journals.co.uk/JPS/article/view/678, the actual binding sources do not: See https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/5715?show=full. And as such they evade the problem of a limitless right to have children treating future children as property: See https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djglp/vol17/iss1/2/

    Moreover, these policies can override conflicting rights and policies because family planning is the first norm from which others derive, accounting for the creation and existence of persons, from whom governance and all of its practical norms derive:  See https://bolognalawreview.unibo.it/article/download/13299/12829

     

    Infographic explaining Fair Start impacts: Smaller families are 20x more effective at reducing climate impact. One million species face extinction. By 2100, population may double. Early childhood programs offer 13% ROI; family planning yields 600% ROI.
    Be effective.

    These policies reverse established externalities in Cairo and other measures which create costs for some while benefiting others:  See https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2009/0817/economic-scene-is-population-growth-a-ponzi-scheme

    The actual policy changes would flow from 1) the UDHR and International Bill of Rights, and a correct interpretation of Article 16, see https://fairstartmovement.org/fair-start-file-update-to-un-human-rights-council-petition-our-overriding-right-to-nature-and-equity/, to 2) mandate scaled  family planning entitlements, like baby bonds, through India’s current family incentives progam. In an effort to encourage Family Planning (FP) adoption, since 1952, the Government of India has been implementing various centrally sponsored schemes that offer financial incentives (FIs) to acceptors as well as service providers, for services related to certain FP methods. 

    The target for such FI’s would be birth into conditions compliant with the Children’s Rights Convention: See https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr/vol25/iss3/3

    One way to fund these programs involve climate “loss and damage” reparations, see https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/11/01/loss-and-damage-what-is-it-and-will-there-be-progress-at-cop27/, which ideally will go to benefit the future generations – through measures that improve birth conditions – most harmed by the crisis.

  • The #TelltheTruth and Pay What You Owe Campaign: Target George Monbiot to Do Better or Defend What He Does in a Debate on April 18th

    The #TelltheTruth and Pay What You Owe Campaign: Target George Monbiot to Do Better or Defend What He Does in a Debate on April 18th

    George Monbiot tweeted recently that anyone claiming he and other leading environmentalists did not do enough to stop the climate crisis must not be familiar with his work. That’s a haughty claim.

    Fact: George Monbiot, like many prominent environmentalists who framed what “protecting the environment” meant over the last few decades – a time crucial for saving many in the future from the climate and related crises – ignored and thereby decoyed people away from the most effective solution: Treating every child’s right to an ecosocial Fair Start in life as the first and overriding human right, one that overrides property rights.

    Instead he chose to privilege his own biological children, relative to the scores of children dying in infancy in the Global South, the children whose climate now threatened by the system George upheld. Family planning entitlements could have avoided that. In practice George is anthropocentric, nor ecocentric.

    George has long opposed family reforms that would ensure children are readied for the future, and instead chooses to use his platform to talk about food. He’s misusing his platform, doing what many vegan funders do – choosing to convert a miniscule fraction of the world to diets while benefiting from the growth that on balance does much more harm to animals.

    A comparison chart of Current Family Planning vs. Fair Start Family Planning. The left side lists negatives of current planning; the right side highlights positive outcomes of fair start planning for welfare, equality, and environmental protection.

    He just assumed that family planning policies – all based on parental autonomy – were part of a menu of choices governments could use to improve outcomes. He never realized that no government is legitimate if it is not empowering its people, and that word “empowerment” is not rhetoric – it means something and is measurable. George may be an environmentalist relative to conservatives – but that is not the standard by which he should be judged. The Children’s Convention – or who we should be – is the standard, and George never advocated for ensuring all children birth and development conditions that comply with it – a move that would have blunted the worst of the climate crisis.

    Instead he chose a system that benefitted him at cost to others. He chose to aim the suffering at the future, rather than at those who created it.

    Unless someone is willing to claim that people should not be empowered equally to control the rules under which they must live, then they must admit they made a critical mistake by not using that baseline (seeing creation of persons as the first human border of human power and freedom, or compliance with the Children’s Convention that ensures minimum levels of welfare, equity, biodiversity through climate restoration, and participatory democracy) in the past, a mistake that harmed many.

    TAKE ACTION: Urge George to admit this mistake and pay what he owes, or to defend his position in an online debate at Lewis and Clark University on Aril 18th, 2023. 

  • Freedom Without a Fair Start In Life For All Kids? No Such Thing.

    Freedom Without a Fair Start In Life For All Kids? No Such Thing.

    When we talk about freedom we are really concerned with relative self-determination (some level of capacity to consent, or level of choice), which would logically start with an account of our deontological population ethics – including egalitarian thresholds for entry into the world that free us from others – because all systems derive from some level of obligation. The climate crisis has taught us that the borders of human power are not lines on a map, but the creation of humans into the nonhuman world. We would thus have to start with a creation norm, or first and overriding principle / universal family planning policy, that looks to comprise systems of governance where population growth is directly inverse to absolute self-determination. This would look like systems akin to 0123…0, with point zero being the absence of power (nonpolity or nature), self-determination being relative to point zero, and offset equally as new persons enter, up until division or subdivision of the system is required.

    That norm would precede and thus override all competing norms and rights, including property rights that would otherwise block the redistribution of wealth and resources children need to be empowered enough to offset others equally over the phase in which they enter our systems.

    Even if we reject the demanding norm above we can ask anyone making any sort of claim what minimum levels of: 1) welfare, 2) equality of equality of opportunity, 3) ecological biodiversity and health, 4) ability to meaningfully impact the rules under which one must live, and of 5) efficiency in terms of ensuring high levels of personal development, they would require for each child born.

    Most will give answers that show they have little, if any conception, of ensuring any levels for any child. After all, having kids is private stuff – the business of would-be parents.

    People posing for picture

    This is not about traditional notions of population as counting people, but power relations created between people – and with their ecologies – as they are born, and a unity of value (one that far exceeds what Ronald Dworkin saw) that is within reach during this process.

    Put another way, try to think, say, or do anything that does not derive from some set of theoretical or actual power relations, relations that would have had to derive from whatever norm created the people between whom those relations exist. Not possible. So we always start everything with an ecosocial fair start in life – and the ecocentrism of starting at zero – in order to maintain the capacity to consent to the power of others. Older theories of justice missed this, never dealing with actual relations because they ignored the creation of those relations. Without this account we cannot be free because we cannot account for our obligations to others, and their obligations to us. Those ignoring or blocking this account inevitably contradict the values they exhibit in their own lives, refusing them to others. They are preconstitutional and a threat to freedom, and can be targeted – as described in this Newsweek writing – as such.

    And yet this accounting and reform are absolutely doable, and through means that are themselves just.

    Young men planting trees

    That right to a fair start precedes and overrides all others because we have to first empower each new person equally, and from the time that it was feasible to do this – around the middle of the Twentieth Century – it should have been the baseline for assessing all costs and benefits. The right comes before nations can assign property rights that otherwise derogate from fairness.

    Unless someone is willing to claim that people should not be empowered equally to control the rules under which they must live, then they must admit they made a critical mistake by not using that baseline (seeing creation of persons as the first human border of human power and freedom, or compliance with the Children’s Convention that ensures minimum levels of welfare, equity, biodiversity through climate restoration, the efficiency of maximizing each person’s potential, and participatory democracy) in the past, a mistake that harmed many.

    This is not altruism. Free people will want the capacity to consent, as equals, to the influence others would have over them – including incoming citizens. They will not submit to sharing democracy with those not prepared by the conditions of their birth and development for self-rule.

    In practice this looks like redistributing wealth as climate reparations to pay young women to collectively plan their children with delay and smaller families, with that being done as the praxis of the first and overriding human right as recognized by the United Nations. It would look like avoiding babies dying in the workers’ bathrooms at U.S. slaughterhouses. Wealth at the top was built at cost to freedom by using ecosocially unsustainable family policies that for decades slowly converted town halls to shopping malls via growth and a lack of investment in kids. Those at the top owe the difference in value, with that amount to be used to reverse the process and create natural participatory democracies in the future, the most effective way to protect the most vulnerable.

    Family having coffee and eating snacks together in their kitchen

    Many concentrations of wealth and power fund distracting nonprofits that appear to do good work but are actually blocking effective reforms that challenge the power structure. There is an easy way to test these nonprofits – do they advocate for using the Convention, climate restoration, birth equity etc. as a family planning standard? I have seen funders choose organizations that refused to do this, and have been wasting millions of dollars letting growth undo their own work, rather than fund a mostly-volunteer organization whose work would benefit billions of people, but which threatens the growth funders want and rely upon.

    I have sat with the heads of foundations (the wealth of which was built by externalizing ecosocial costs on others) who were passing control – in nepotistic moves – to their own children, and who would rather see the missions of the foundations fail than turn to Fair Start reforms.

    Aerial view of busy intersection

    Free people will fight for a restored and democratic future, and against the shill organizations and those funders behind them that hide this truth about the baseline for costs and benefits, as well as the white supremacy that the hiding – including refusing to ensure birth equity – entails. To think that one is obligated to follow the law when they were created for shopping malls (and media covered falling fertility rates shows that we all were created as such) rather than town halls is called the “constitutive fallacy” – basing one’s obligation to follow the law on top-down instruments like written constitutions rather than bottom-up family reforms that actually empower people without disempowering others, and in an objective and measurable way. The acts of mass violence we see today could very well be driven by this disempowerment, and ending them may require the sort of empowerment family reforms can ensure.

    TAKE ACTION: WE ARE AT A CROSSROADS – BACK THE SEEDS FOR THE FUTURE EFFORT TO BEND THE ARC OF GROWTH TOWARDS JUSTICE.

  • Dr. Breeze Harper Issues Her Statement on the Need for Fair Start DEIJ Internal Reforms.

    Dr. Breeze Harper Issues Her Statement on the Need for Fair Start DEIJ Internal Reforms.

    Today the Fair Start Movement is releasing the assessment of Dr. Breeze Harper on the need for internal DEIJ reforms at the Fair Start movement, and the organization’s response to the findings and advice.

    We are honored to have worked with Dr. Harper, found her to be the best consultant we had worked with to date, and agree that we have work to do, and commit to making the changes described below by May, 2023. We have begun by augmenting our Board and leadership with the promotion of attorney Esther Afolaranmi, and the platforming of fundraising projects by organizations in the Global South, and will continue to make changes.

    We highly recommend Dr. Harper to other organizations, as she was able to digest our complex need and provide sound advice quickly, advising changes that many others find fitting.

    Plant growing in a desert

    Statement from Dr. Breeze Harper:  

    I have worked with Carter Dillard with FSM as a consultant over the past several months. Through our collaboration, I have helped FSM better articulate their intentions and outcomes more equitably— particularly through a more decolonized lens. My suggestions urge FSM to frame the concept of equitable family planning through:

    ● Alternatives to Eurocentrism, materialism, and utilitarianism methodologies

    ● Alternatives to [un]conscious white saviorism and paternalism

    ● Acknowledging that we live in a Plantationocene (as opposed to the more popular Anthropocene)

    ● Indigenous and Afrofuturism Methodologies, Ontologies, and Cyclical Systems

    ● Putting the leadership of Black, Indigenous, and other non-white racialized women and other gender minorities at the forefront, equitably redistributing resources to them as leaders in this movement, and prioritizing their decision making-power.

    ● Removal of “smaller families” language/requirement and shifting to language such as ‘equitable families’ which is more about restorative justice vs. quantity and quotas.

    ● It is important to highlight Carter’s positionality: He acknowledges his multiple levels of privilege as a white cisgender man born into wealth. Also, because he is childfree, he does not carry the embodied knowledge and challenges that parents face every day. The impact of his positionality is that he is unable to fully comprehend, reflect on, and represent communities most negatively affected by inequitable systems – Black, brown, indigenous, and other nonwhite people in the universal reforms Fair Start proposes.

    In response to Carter’s awareness of his positionality, he has disclosed this: “While not a parent I developed an interest in reproductive ethics while working for the federal government, and did the base research and fundraising that led to the publication of his book, Justice as a Fair Start in Life, and much of the modeling, campaigns, and messaging of Fair Start.” Carter believes even the childfree are obligated to constitute just societies because the norms that create them foist costs on some to benefit others, and to orient from such norms and systems (as opposed to striking back at unjust power and going to prison, for example) is to endorse and support that inequity.

    Fair Start Movement

    Response from the Fair Start Movement leadership and Board:

    The Board and Executive Directors are grateful to Breeze for her work, and will be implementing her recommendations for the most part, though the recommendation on altering our messaging on family size presents the greatest challenges to our work and is discussed at the end.

    We acknowledge the Eurocentric nature of the work and modeling, the continued process of colonization, and are in the process of looking for alternative models as you suggest, including Indigenous and Afrofuturism Methodologies, Ontologies, and Cyclical Systems which can be promoted as preferable alternatives to the atomizing and self-determination based Eurocentric human-rights model we use now. We are looking at those focused collectively on human duties and obligations, ones that would not have created the crises that beset us now. We have begun to make progress in this regard, assessing group circle organizational models. To the extent Fair Start can defeat colonization using its own atomizing premises, without harming the alternative mode, we will continue to promote it separately. This is especially crucial because starting from individual rights as building blocks can protect the vulnerable from group dominance, as in the context of FGM, other anti-patriarchy advocacy, or extreme child abuse of the youngest of children, for example and we are keen to ensure that  – to empower while never disempowering – here in the context of existential justice that creates oppression ending empathy in children via improved birth and development conditions.

    We will attempt to use Plantationocene where possible, other than where it would cause reader confusion or where impossible to convey particular meaning. We appreciate the thickness of the concept in capturing the oppression and inequity in something largely caused by colonizing forces.

    We acknowledge the need to increase the leadership of Black, Indigenous, and other non-white racialized women and other gender minorities at the forefront, equitably redistributing resources to them as leaders in this movement, and prioritizing their decision making-power. We decline to remove white leadership currently in place and may preserve other white leadership including self-identifying males in a minority position going forward, because we want this message to come from a diverse set of voices, but with express statements of positionality – as you have included – that make clear the power dynamics at play. In this regard we will highlight Carter’s role and positionality, as you have begun to do. We will be altering Board membership as part of this process.

    We understand the importance of removal of “smaller families” language/requirement and shifting to language such as ‘equitable families’ which is more about restorative justice vs. quantity and quotas. We have long wanted to abandon quantitative thinking in favor of purely qualitative approaches can imply equity between generations and the “just savings” requirement that entails direction for family choices. Equity can imply sustainable or regenerative family policies because it can imply one’s equal share of political systems (including decolonized forms of organization). And it can conceivably imply children-rights otherwise necessitated by a “smaller family” requirement if we abandon nuclear and other atomizing forms of families in favor of collective models. But as you have agreed, there are regional differences in how the changes in modeling we promote might be applied, and regions that think and word these issues exclusively in terms of population and the inherent dangers of exponential growth linked to family size, and we do not want to exclude those differences. We also have to achieve our deontological goal of creating a first principle that all could truly practice universally, here and forever, and one which triggers property rights-override for things like climate reparations, and as consumption rises such a rule becomes impossible without some visions of sustainable family sizes. We do however think we can achieve this by focusing on high consumption white families, like the Baldwins, and will focus there.

    Carter and FSM leadership hold the dismantling of oppression of all beings as a core tenant of FSM’s mission, and decolonization and total liberation as the move to consensual relations between all sentient beings, now and in the future. We admit that many of us were beneficiaries of the ecosocially unjust family models Fair Start attacks, the ones many rich white men exploit to enrich themselves and their children at harm to others. They do so, benefiting from ecocidal growth, the acceptance of free markets in the absence of participatory democracy, and extreme birth inequity, things many decolonization organizations do not challenge. As such, FSM continues to purposefully platform BIPOC and PGM activists across the globe in order to elevate their voices in the movement for liberation and to bolster their regional projects through FSM’s platform.

  • Florence Blondel Tells Her Story of the Most Effective Work One Can Do

    Florence Blondel Tells Her Story of the Most Effective Work One Can Do

    Florence Blondel is a leader whose impact far surpasses most of the work being done in sustainable development today, work that is being undone by policies that choose climate-destructive growth over fundamental justice for future generations.

    Here Florence tells some of her story, and hints at a better future – one that is possible if we can all focus on what will best define the future: Liberating young women around the world.

    Now listen to Florence:

    Florence Blondel on liberating women.

    Multiple studies have shown that choosing smaller families easily has the most impact on environmental crises like climate change. From Paul Hawken’s book Drawdown, to previous studies on climate change, population size has been shown to be the primary driver of the climate crisis That’s also the case for the downstream impacts of climate change like ocean acidification, and for other forms of ecocide, like the loss of biodiversity / mass extinction of other species. Thus, sustainable family planning is the most significant act that we can take to reduce our impact.

    By 2100 world population could vary by billions of people, depending on whether the average woman in the world today has one child more or one child fewer in her lifetime. A simple statement from the Secretary General could have a huge impact on the direction we go.

    Our current family planning systems provide no minimum standard of wellbeing for future children, allowing children to be born into failing state systems because their parents cannot care for them. That exacerbates inequity, and ensures rich kids stay rich and poor kids stay poor. The most effective way to improve child welfare and equity, at the same time, is through a cooperative family planning model pegged to the standard of a fair start in life for every child.

    Take Action: Visit Florence’s website to learn more about her work: https://florenceblondel.com/

  • Forget Left v. Right. Here Is How to Test Who Exactly Threatens Our Future, Based on the Things We All Value.


    Forget Left v. Right. Here Is How to Test Who Exactly Threatens Our Future, Based on the Things We All Value.

    There is a subtle a mistake in our thinking and work that is exacerbating the climate, inequity and other crises we all face today. 

    To ensure justice and freedom for all, our thinking and work would have to start with family planning policies that create birth and development conditions for all children consistent with the Children’s Rights Convention. 

    It is who we should be.

    In light of today’s crises, this requires climate restoration via birth equity family planning entitlements, or a zero-baseline model based on minimum levels of welfare, equity of opportunity, biodiversity, and participatory democracies in which all power is decentralized and growth and the property rights necessary for it are conditioned on empowering each child equitably. 

    Two panels compare family planning types. Left: diverse family illustration with bright colors, labeled Fair Start family planning with positive points. Right: grayscale crowd in a city, labeled Economic growth-based family planning with negative points.

    Without that we are not limiting the harmful power people have over one another, but rather are relying on a system that benefits us at cost to others, and creates an illusion of freedom that enables things like the oppression of the climate crisis.

    We can resolve the mistake by simply taking at least one action to move towards ecosocial birth equity, and a future that fulfills what human rights and democracy requires.

  • Don’t Get Scammed: Ensuring All Children a Fair Start in Life is the Most Just and Effective Work One Can Do

    Don’t Get Scammed: Ensuring All Children a Fair Start in Life is the Most Just and Effective Work One Can Do

    Want to Promote Freedom, Protect Children and Animals, and Reverse the Climate Crisis, All at the Same Time? Change Family Policy.

    The Fair Start Movement is the most just and effective work one can do. Our work began at Yale and Oxford Universities, is frequently promoted by Stanford University, has been subject to multiple peer-reviews, and has appeared in the New York Times, Newsweek, Salon, and the Washington Times, etc., and many other publications. There is no legitimate form of ethics that does not first ensure children minimum levels of wellbeing. Fair Start gets us there.

    The Mistake

    In the middle of the Twentieth Century world leaders made a terrible mistake, choosing to base the right to have children on parental autonomy, or personal ethics, rather than interpersonal ethics designed to ensure children birth and development conditions that comply with the Children’s Convention. This was done so that wealthy families would not have to pay to ensure those good conditions for poor children, and per one Nobel laureate, to ensure profit-producing but unsustainable population growth.

    That move caused ecological overshoot and fundamentally created the climate crisis, and the massive inequity, that is literally killing children today. Growth has literally undone attempts to mitigate the crisis, and the birth inequity it causes is the most prominent and impactful form of colonization at work in the world today.

    It externalized the costs of the extreme wealth we see today, against the most fundamental baseline for true cost / benefit analysis. Many have tried to hide that baseline, because its use in assessing the climate reparations described below would mean wealthy families and nations would have to pay substantial amounts.

    When confronted with this reality, some concentrations of wealth and power have tried to hide what was done, and who is at fault. They have also engaged in concerted counter-measure media campaigns to convince audiences that the world is underpopulated. In fact many nonprofits have exacerbated this process, lying about their progress and creating a false sense of security by omitting the impacts of growth, and thereby putting millions at risk.

    The Fix.

    Climate reparations are a chance to reverse this mistake and ensure Convention compliance through climate restoration and birth-equity family planning entitlements, which pay that specific percentage wealth made – through growth and otherwise – by externalizing costs against a baseline of ecosocial child development consistent with the Children’s Rights Convention.

    Also, because a fair start in life is the first and overriding human right, we can override the property rights that protect wealth at the top to fund this process. In the race of life a fair start always comes first. It is the first form of justice. The process of getting there is more about power than population (and actually creating just power relations rather than just theorizing them), and will avoid much of the mass violence we see today – which flows from the mistake, or what some see as a massive power grab, using bad family planning to enrich some at cost to others.

    We cannot be inclusive without this change. We are otherwise not empathetic enough, giving kids what they need under the Convention, to constitute legitimate communities. And as such, we are never actually limiting the power others have over us. We should not be forced to live in a world impacted by children who did not get what they needed growing up just because wealthy investors want to use them as cheap labor and hungry consumers. That is oppression on all levels, and free people will target those behind this process to end the it, and to limit the power others – those with whom we share the world – have over us. They power up, bottom up.

    TAKE ACTION:

    Donate to FairStartMovement.org – the most just and effective work one can do.

    • Engage in the #WholeTruth campaign to urge leaders, nonprofits and businesses to tell the truth about their approach to families, and the impact it has and will have on whatever they claimed to do, or will do.
    • Call in (rather than out) those who refused to invest enough in family planning that complies with the Children’s Convention, including the climate restoration and birth equity in envisions. That refusal signifies not being sufficiently other-regarding to constitute just communities that actually empower, and thereby liberate, us all.
    • Test people and institutions to see whether they are fundamentally unjust and a threat to freedom: Will they sign a letter to the the Climate Conference of the Parties urging them to support fair starts in life over growth-based profits?
    • Or choose from dozens of other actions listed here to ensure fundamental fairness.