AndersonFilmAnnotation8


 * Film Annotation #8**
 * Mother: Caring for Seven Billion**
 * Word Count: 2047**

The film is //Mother: Caring for Seven Billion//, directed by Christophe Fauchere and released in 2011.
 * 1.** **Title, Director, and Release Year?**

The film argues that there are too many people in the world and something needs to be done about it now. //Mother// did a great job of bringing up the many facets of the population issue, not just that there are too many people. The film went into depth about the cultural issues surrounding population, including a discussion of whether coercive methods are helpful or not. It also brought up the current economic model of everlasting growth and how that is not sustainable. Changes need to be made if the planet and //Homo sapiens sapiens// are going to survive.
 * 2.** **What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film provides a great deal of history and background behind population issues. Although people have been aware of the dangers of overpopulation for a long time, it was not until the 1960’s and 70’s that mass culture and media began to pay attention to those dangers. The film showed Paul Ehrlich, whose books brought attention to overpopulation, discussing said dangers (like running out of resources, including food, and accumulating too much waste). Environmental problems, as well as the population problem, are even worse today than they were in the 1970’s. Malthus had linked the availability of food and population by the 1800’s. While the merits of his conclusions can be argued, it is pretty easy to see that Earth does have limits, as well as agriculture, and the population cannot keep growing without eventually hitting those limits. The film explained that the Green Revolution had been thought by some to be a way to “buy time” until the overpopulation crisis could be properly taken care of. That did not work. The overpopulation crisis is way worse now and we either need a new Green Revolution (which, considering the social and environmental effects of the Green Revolution, is probably not a good idea) or a drastic reduction in population. One reason why the population has grown so much—actually, besides the increase of access to food, the other reason—is better health care and sanitation. In more-developed countries, people are no longer dying of childhood diseases. It is considered a rare tragedy when a child does die. Even in less-developed countries, healthcare and sanitation have expanded dramatically and have led to people living longer, healthier lives. Many cultures value large families, leftover from a time when few children made it past the age of even five. These values put us in trouble now that people are living longer due to better health care and nutrition.
 * 3.** **How is the argument made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film draws out many different problems relating to the environment and population. Economic problems include the model of ever-increasing growth. People need to consume more in order for the economy to continue growing. According to the film, “many economists think that the solution to all of today’s problems is consumption” and “we’ve got to change the system” to solve this problem. Also, as the film pointed out, many things that increase a country’s GNP do not increase its citizens’ happiness and wellbeing. For example, Technological problems drawn out would more centered around the behavioral sustainability problem of believing that technology will solve everything. Overpopulation does, however, put a strain on infrastructure, which causes a whole other set of social problems. Education problems include many young people being uninformed about overpopulation issues. Even in America, teen pregnancies are a problem. While this is usually disrupting for the teenagers’ lives, it is also a sustainability problem since the generations are shorter. I did this demography experiment for environmental science in high school, which involved assuming that women of different populations would have certain numbers of children during certain years of their life. I forget the exact results, but the population with each woman having more children at a younger age definitely grew the fastest. I believe that the population where the women had fewer children at a younger age grew faster than the population where the women had more children at an older age. In real life, this is basically how it works. Shorter generations equal more people on the planet, especially if people are living longer. In less-developed countries, such as India, child marriage is another problem (complete with a wide range of social and gender issues) that leads to shorter generation, since, as the film pointed out, the girls will often start having children as soon as they reach sexual maturity. Education in general has been shown to decrease population growth. Well-educated women are more likely to marry and have children later, more likely to be empowered and feel as if they have a choice as to whether they want children or not, and more likely to decide that they want a career instead of a family. According to the film, seventy percent of the children not going to schools are female. Many behavioral and cultural sustainability problems were also discussed in the film. One thing that many people probably do not think of that was mentioned in //Mother// is that many developing countries have aging populations. Since people often retire and may get benefits from the government after a certain age, some countries see this as a threat and are actually encouraging people to have more children so that these countries can have a larger workforce. Other cultural issues include stigmas surrounding birth control (including education about birth control), people who do not want to have children, and traditions dictating that it is good for people to have more children.
 * 4.** **What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

Overall, I found the whole film very persuasive and compelling. It was very well done. I really enjoyed how the film took on such a huge problem for today’s world in so many respects and portrayed in it a way that did not leave the viewer coming away from it feeling depressed. My favorite part of the film was when the filmmakers went into people’s houses in less-developed countries and talked with the families, especially the women. I guess I have some sort of fascination with cultures alien to American culture, but the imagery really captured my eyes. When I watch TV in general, I often do not pay a lot of attention to the screen; I go by what is being said. I have a really hard time enjoying subtitled films because of this, although a little subtitling is okay. The fact that this film was able to draw my visual attention to it as well as my auditory attention shows how great I found this part. Also, even though I already know a lot about population, which was one of the reasons why I really wanted to watch this film and annotate it, I learned some new facts and insights from the film, as well.
 * 5.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

Although the film discussed adoption for families that want more children than they feel they should have, it did not go into the details about how difficult and expensive it can be for families to adopt. I definitely think that adoption is a good route for people to take, since there are children whose parents have died or are otherwise unable or unwilling to care for them and otherwise those children might not have as good of a life. I also would have liked to have seen more coverage of China’s one-child policy. Since male children are valued more in that culture, couples will sometimes abandon girl children in hopes that the next child will be a male. The girl children are then sometimes adopted by families from other countries; I actually have a second cousin who was adopted from China. The adoption process is still long and difficult. I know that her adoptive parents were worried that, by the time they were able to adopt a child, their own children would be much older. As a result of China’s one-child policy, the gender ratio in China is a bit skewed. I would definitely have appreciated more coverage of this and how the culture towards gender could be changed. The film did a great job of covering the cultural aspects surrounding birth control and contraception in general.
 * 6.** **What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I felt that this film could reach out to a very broad audience. Viewers do not need to know a great deal about population or environmental problems in general to understand the film.
 * 7.** **What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film could have explained a little more how connected population and environmental issues are. It did a great job, but there was still that assumption there that the viewers would know exactly what environmental problems are linked to population, and why these problems are problems, something that might not be obvious to the average viewer.
 * 8.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

Unlike a lot of environmentally-themed documentaries, //Mother: Caring for Seven Billion// actually did a great job of providing solutions. People realized as early as the 1960’s and 70’s (actually much earlier, but this is when most people started realizing that population was getting to be a problem) that the population could not keep growing forever and something needed to be done. As a result, people have been working on this issue for years and some solutions have been found. One solution that I agree would be effective is to change cultural views towards people who decide that they do not wish to have children. I speak from personal experience; I used to tell people that I was not going to have any children, ever. Some people would act as if I was from Mars or something, as if it was super-strange that someone would not want their own children. I realize now that life is long and circumstances may change, so I no longer tell people that I will definitely never have children, besides no longer wishing to alienate myself from all people. I do enjoy working with children, and intend either to have part of my career be programs for children or adopting or otherwise caring for children. Another solution that was presented in the film was using entertainment to send messages about population to girls in developing countries. This had influenced one girl so much that she refused to marry a wealthy older man in favor of getting an education. I had never heard of this before and find this innovative tactic very interesting. The film also argued that “we’re going to need a different compass” other than GNP to measure wealth and success in nations. Wisdom, human diversity, natural diversity, and fairness between people of different socioeconomic classes were all presented as possible new “compasses”. Overall, I felt that //Mother// was very informational and educational and really demonstrated how widespread the effects of our economy and population growth are.
 * 9.** **What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

I already know quite a bit about this topic (which is why I did not cite information that I have seen in multiple places, since at least to me, what I have said was either in the film or is common knowledge; I apologize if anything I have said here is not common knowledge). I remembered reading an article in //Scientific American// several years ago about this topic and decided to go to the RPI library to get its proper citation as well as review what it said. It states that family planning is sorely wanted by women in many countries, at least by the women. In fact, when asked what type of aid they wanted most, “men requested jobs, but the women’s number-one priority was family planning” (Potts, 90). World population recently reached seven billion people, according to some [|sources]. I found another [|article] in the //New York Times// that explains why it is impossible to know exactly how many people are on the planet at a given time.
 * 10.** **What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

Potts, Malcolm. “The Unmet Need for Family Planning”. //Scientific American//. Vol. 282 (January 2000): 88-93. [] []
 * References:**