Difference between revisions of "Population and the Environment: Analytical Demography and Applied Population Ethics/Co-evolution of population and environment - perceiving climate change and its impacts on reproduction and migration"
m (AmyPChen moved page Population and the Environment: Analytical Demography and Applied Population Ethics/Co-evolution of population and environment - migration, reproduction & climate to [[Population and the Environment: Analytical Demography and Ap...)
Revision as of 16:46, October 11, 2018
October 13, 2018
4:00 pm - 4:15 pm
Caroline Bledsoe (Northwestern Univ.)
Among the biggest puzzles in studies of climate change is why so many people support policies and politicians that appear to undermine their own best interests. These have been identified across the world, including in the US, where advocates for science in climate studies and action find themselves locked in battle with climate-change deniers. While these things can be addressed under classic rubrics of rationality, questions of meaning, nature, and what we tend to take for granted are equally important. Through what cultural frames – whether expressed through local, international, legal or scientific idioms – can we best grasp how people are responding to what we might see as dangerous climate change and the best solutions to it? While easy answers to these questions are illusive, findings from analogous studies – child fosterage, Western contraceptive use, and migration from West Africa to Europe and the US – may be brought to bear to address some of the principles on which they seem to rest.