This research follows a structured method, consisting of several distinct steps and approaches. First, to better understand the content of the S72 document, the sociological background; It also analyses the pre-S72 scientific, technological and industrial environment, the environmental disasters, the nuclear tests and the social and legislative reactions they triggered, as well as the influence of environmental thinkers and philosophers, situating their schools of thought in their historical evolution, which led to the beginnings of the environmental activism that is also described. After analysing the context, it examines how these ideas are reflected in the final declaration of the conference. The content, language and vision of the human being present in the text of the declaration reflect the background and the whole context of the time.<\/p>\n
To identify the underlying anthropology, a study of the declaration content follows. Although the statement does not attempt to develop an explicit anthropological model, a vision of human beings and their relationships can be appreciated. For this purpose, a relational anthropological analysis was chosen, as it is considered appropriate for addressing the specific nature of the climate crisis. This crisis does not have a solely environmental origin and background but arises and develops within human relationships: between people, communities, institutions, and in their connection with the natural environment. It is, therefore, a phenomenon of individual and collective behaviour that requires an understanding of the human being both from the perspective of their conscience and responsibility (Chuvieco and Martin 2025<\/a>; Jonas 1995<\/a>) and from their condition of being-in-relationship with others (Buber 1993<\/a>). The relationship with transcendence is included because in Christian thought, and Catholic thought in particular, the relationship with a creator God gives meaning and reason for caring for the environment, which is part of that \u201ccreation\u201d granted by that God and deserves to be respected and cared for. This is one of the two anthropologies that are compared to find common ground.<\/p>\n Naturally, other types of anthropological analyses of the texts could have been carried out, some of them focusing only on one of the four approaches and certainly going into more depth but losing perspective in a view that we believed should necessarily be interdisciplinary, broad, and diverse.<\/p>\n Additionally, the relational vision of the human being is developed in diverse philosophical and religious traditions. In the type of anthropology proposed by the Catholic Church, the four dimensions are clearly present (Francis 2015<\/a>: \u00a760; Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2004<\/a>, \u00a7109\u2013114, 130, 132). Likewise, Jes\u00fas Ballesteros, in his work Personalist Ecologism, develops the inseparable relationship between care of nature and care of the human being. He thus reinforces the centrality of the person in their relational dimension and presents the human being as a dependent being and, at the same time, a guardian of nature (1995, 34\u201344). Along the same lines, Arne Naess, from deep ecology, emphasises the interdependence and expansion of the \u201cself\u201d to encompass the entire biosphere (Naess and N\u00e6ss 1990<\/a>).<\/p>\n There are also highly relevant authors who, from their own conceptual frameworks, develop a relational understanding of the human being in which these dimensions appear substantially, although not systematised under these categories. Among them, Panikkar (2021<\/a>) stands out, whose interreligious and intercultural philosophy also provides methodological and epistemological support for this study. His relational foundation of reality and his notion of radical interdependence allow us to understand that no human dimension can be understood in isolation. His \u201cCosmotheandric\u201d vision of ontological relationality integrates the cosmic, the divine (theos), and the human (andros) as interdependent dimensions. From this perspective, all human action has both an ecological and spiritual dimension, and harmony with creation is only possible by recovering a lifestyle founded on interdependence and communion.<\/p>\n On the other hand, relational anthropology also has an ecumenical scope, which is also important when we seek common ground for dialogue that helps solve a global problem. Olivier Cl\u00e9ment, drawing from the Christian Orthodox tradition, argues that human identity can only be understood through the integration of its bodily, psychological, and social dimensions (Obrdl\u00edkov\u00e1 2013<\/a>). J\u00fcrgen Moltmann, a Protestant theologian, emphasised that the human condition is defined by reciprocity and interdependence (Obrdl\u00edkov\u00e1 2013<\/a>). Likewise, Murad and Tatay (2025<\/a>) highlight the contribution of Orthodox ecotheologian Elizabeth Theokritoff, who proposes integrating Christian asceticism with a sustainable lifestyle. In the Islamic sphere, Seyyed Nasr warns that the ecological crisis is, above all, spiritual and requires recovering the sacredness of nature (Imran 2023<\/a>). In Judaism, Martin Buber conceives the human being as a being of encounter, whose identity is constituted in the dialogical relationship \u201cI-Thou\u201d (Buber 1993<\/a>).<\/p>\n For the reasons stated above, the analysis of the documents is structured around these four constitutive relationships: the relationship with oneself, with others, with nature, and with the transcendent. As we have seen, this form of anthropological analysis is not new, but it has never been applied to the comparison of United Nations texts with documents of the Catholic Church, specifically to seek points of agreement that facilitate dialogue. This is indeed new and forms part of the contribution of this work. Within the individual dimension, the value of the human being with respect to the environment, their capacity to impact and be impacted by the environment and, finally, their visions of self-awareness and freedom will be analysed. In the second dimension, the relational nature, the view of the other, equality, non-discrimination, justice in relationships, and the dynamics of interaction from the individual to the international level are studied. Thirdly, the change in the way people relate to nature will be studied, followed by an analysis of the content of S72 regarding the relationship between human beings, transcendence, and spirituality.<\/p>\n The result of the findings will then be compared with Christian anthropology as described in the CST, aiming to identify similarities and differences. The objective of comparing the texts is by no means to conclude which is the best or most accurate approach, but rather to seek points of agreement, even if the anthropological foundations may have different origins. This common ground will help in the search for a constructive dialogue. Since the comparison is between texts produced at different times, a certain asymmetry could arise in the conclusions. Limiting the comparison of S72 solely to contemporary DSI documents would be insufficient, given that at that time Catholic doctrine on the matter was still incipient, because the Catholic Church was slow to take a position on this issue. But likewise, the S72 document was analysed as a product of its time and the historical and cultural conditions in which it was drafted. Therefore, it would be unfair to omit the most relevant later contributions of UN documents, and for this reason, they are included in summary form so as not to distort the focus on S72 or overextend the article.<\/p>\n Additionally, the method of analysis and identification used to extract the elements of agreement and divergence between the documents will be made explicit. This method can be applied to subsequent UN documents to facilitate comparative analysis and the identification of points of anthropological convergence.<\/p>\n Bibliographical references on the anthropology of UN documents are rare, including \u201cOn the Anthropology of the United Nations System\u201d(Galtung 2019<\/a>). Within each of the influence factors analysed (social, economic, historical, scientific, etc.), as well as in the analysis of the currents of thought of the time, the works of previous researchers in this field will be mentioned.<\/p>\n Key background factors and their impact on the Stockholm \u201872 conference<\/p>\n After 1945, international institutions began to address environmental issues. This trend intensified in the late 1960s with the rise of pollution concerns and environmental movements in the West. In 1969, the North Atlantic Council formed the NATO Committee on the challenges of modern societies to address environmental problems (Barr\u00f3n L\u00f3pez 2004<\/a>). The OECD and UNECE also played an important role, setting up committees and organising environmental conferences (Borowy 2019<\/a>; Jan\u00e1\u010d and Ol\u0161\u00e1kov\u00e1 2021<\/a>).<\/p>\n The UN convened S72, led by Sweden, recognised for its proactive environmental policies (Kristr\u00f6m and Wibe 1997<\/a>). Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Conference, which was opened by Kurt Waldheim and Olof Palme. The conference brought together representatives from 113 countries and more than 400 organisations, but without the Soviet Union and most of the communist bloc.<\/p>\n Four elements are analysed to assess their influence on the Declaration\u2019s anthropological vision.<\/p>\n Social context World population grew from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 3.7 billion in 1972, causing rural-urban migration and affecting social structure, resources and employment (Spengler 1973<\/a>). This growth generated megacities with severe pollution and waste management problems. In the 1960s and 1970s, population growth and its environmental effects became critical in global discourse (Ehrlich and Holdren 1971<\/a>; Meadows et al. 2022<\/a>). Ehrlich (1971<\/a>) in \u201cThe Population Bomb\u201d warned of catastrophes due to population growth and resource scarcity, thereby initiating a global debate. The final declaration of S72 noted that population growth posed environmental problems, recommending the adoption of standards and measures (Procl. 5) and population policies approved by governments that respected human rights (Prin. 16). These discussions influenced global policies and future deliberations on the balance between development and environmental conservation.<\/p>\n Wars and the peace movement<\/p>\n The S72 emerged from a historical context marked by the Cold War and various other regional conflicts, such as the Vietnam War (1955\u20131975) and the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). As Giugni and Grasso state (2015), this period also witnessed an accelerated arms race and the emergence of a strong anti-nuclear movement due to the risks of mass destruction and increased environmental awareness. The S72 underlined the urgency of protecting human beings and their environment from nuclear weapons (Prin. 26). The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) sought to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy under international supervision (Colijn 2003<\/a>). The arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War posed a great danger to the global ecosystem, highlighting the importance of using science and technology to help protect the environment (Prin. 18). War conflicts, such as the Six-Day War (1967) and the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, had significant environmental impacts, including deforestation and chemical contamination (Arnaud-Haond et al. 2009<\/a>; Nam et al. 2016<\/a>), although these ecosystems recover later (Duarte et al. 2020<\/a>).<\/p>\n During the 1960s and 1970s, global peace activism, especially in the United States, emerged in response to the Vietnam War (1960\u20131975), with movements such as Students for a Democratic Society and Women Strike for Peace (Coburn 2021<\/a>; Harrison 1993<\/a>). Music also played an important role in promoting pacifism (Deaville 2018<\/a>; Norton 2011<\/a>). Figures such as Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, and John Lennon, among others, sang anti-war anthems, projecting the pacifist ideal on a global scale (Deaville 2018<\/a>). S72 reflected the concerns of the peace movements, stressing the need for international cooperation and the abolition of nuclear weapons (Prins 24, 26). These principles balanced the right to development of states with the need to preserve the global environment, marking the beginning of international environmental law (Prin. 21).<\/p>\n May \u201868<\/p>\n This movement marked a turning point in France and the West, challenging the established order and calling for social, political and cultural transformation. According to Bui-Xu\u00e2n (2019<\/a>), this period of student and labour protests rejected social structures that contradicted the aspirational values of society, evidencing a change in values (Capdequi 2018<\/a>); philosophically, thinkers such as Foucault, Sartre, Marcuse, Debord, De Beauvoir, Guattari, and Deleuze challenged society\u2019s norms (Pesta\u00f1a and Pino 2022<\/a>), and their influence was evident in the S72, which promoted human rights, equality, and global engagement, reflecting the principles of May \u201868. The Declaration highlights the fundamental right to a dignified life in a quality environment (Prin. 1), the importance of environmental education (Prin. 19) and international cooperation on environmental issues (Prin. 22). These principles align with the spirit of May \u201868, which emphasised social justice and global political transformation.<\/p>\n Vulnerable groups<\/p>\n Although the term \u201cvulnerable\u201d was not used at the time, it is introduced here to examine the evolution of the view of these groups in subsequent UN documents. In the West, the 1960s witnessed significant social movements, including Martin Luther King Jr.\u2018s fight for racial equality and social justice (Hodder 2021<\/a>). Although the S72 focused on the environment, it also addressed demands for social justice, development and human rights. Principle 1 of the conference condemns \u201cpolicies that promote or perpetuate apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial and other forms of oppression.\u201d The idea of dignity is present in this principle. Alvarez (1988<\/a>) highlights the value of man\u2019s fundamental right to freedom and equality, resonating with M.L. King\u2019s speeches demanding equal rights and social justice. Similarly, the \u201cBlack Power\u201d movement emphasised African-American self-determination and opposition to institutionalised racism in areas such as sports (Blackman 2019<\/a>; Inghram 2006<\/a>; Murphree 2004<\/a>), and although it did not centre on environmental issues, its principles found echoes in S72\u2019s condemnation of apartheid and its respect for \u201cvalue systems prevailing in each country\u201d (Prin. 23), illustrating how these movements shaped S72.<\/p>\n The text of the S72 omits \u201cchildren\u201d or \u201cthe elderly\u201d, yet the inclusive nature of the document suggests a tacit consideration of the welfare of children as future custodians of the planet. No explicit references to \u201cwoman\u201d can be found, reflecting the prevailing discursive norms of the time and the under-representation of women in positions of responsibility. During the 1970s, international for a prioritised development, environment and disarmament issues, relegating gender issues (Sarzynski 2021<\/a>). Any mention of indigenous peoples in S72 was also absent. This can be attributed to the lack of global awareness of their rights and the limited political representation of indigenous peoples in international fora. However, indigenous activists were already prominent in environmental protection, such as the Chipko Movement in India (Singh and Mishra 2019<\/a>). Agenda 21 (United Nations 1992<\/a>) was the first UN document to recognise Indigenous peoples as key actors in sustainable development (Chapter 26).<\/p>\n S72 addressed the challenges of developing countries, protecting their sovereign right to exploit their resources and recognising the links between underdevelopment and ecological vulnerability (Prin. 4). International assistance – both financial and technological – was needed to address these challenges (Prins 9 and 12). In addition, of note is the relationship between economic stability and environmental management (Prin. 10), advocating for growth-enhancing environmental policies in developing countries (Prin. 11). In conclusion, although S72 did not explicitly mention certain vulnerable groups, its focus on human dignity, social justice, and equality suggests an implicit consideration of their needs and rights.<\/p>\n Global economic developments<\/p>\n After the Second World War, Western economies experienced a period of growth, the French called \u201cLes Trente Glorieuses\u201d (Glorious Thirties), characterised by high employment and the expansion of the welfare state (Noriega 2019<\/a>), which favoured the emergence of new economic models. However, not all economists viewed growth linked to environmental degradation as a positive trend. For instance, Kenneth E. Boulding (1910\u20131993) introduced the concept of \u201cSpaceship Earth\u201d (1966<\/a>), challenging the idea of unlimited resources and perpetual growth. He insisted on the importance of responsible management of limited resources and the interdependence between the economy and ecology in a closed system. Likewise, Ezra J. Mishan (1917-2014), in \u201cThe Costs of Economic Growth\u201d (Mishan 1967<\/a>), criticised the idea that economic growth is synonymous with progress. Mishan stressed the importance of measuring economic success in terms of quality of life and human well-being. In the 1970s, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906\u20131994) introduced the idea of entropy in economics (1971<\/a>), arguing that growth based on non-renewable resources is unsustainable. Similarly, E.F. Schumacher (1911\u20131977), in \u201cSmall Is Beautiful\u201d (1973), criticised conventional economics and proposed \u201cappropriate technologies\u201d to benefit local communities, challenging the use of GDP as an indicator of well-being. The importance of technologies that directly benefit local communities was emphasised (Hazeltine and Bull 1999<\/a>).<\/p>\n These economists rejected unlimited growth and resource exploitation, promoting the inclusion of ecological criteria in economic analysis. S72 also highlighted the relationship between economic development and environmental protection, underlining the need to allocate resources for environmental preservation in the global economic context (Prins 8 and 12).<\/p>\n The role of the media<\/p>\n In developed countries, economic growth and technological advances accelerated media expansion, while in Africa, Asia and Latin America, progress was slower and more complex (Fourie 2009<\/a>). During the Cold War, the media played a key role as a tool of propaganda and disinformation, shaping public perceptions and ideologies (Bishop 2021<\/a>; Rodr\u00edguez-Andr\u00e9s 2017<\/a>). It raised awareness of social, political and environmental challenges, influencing human behaviour and values (Koutsopanagou 2020<\/a>; Shrum et al. 2005<\/a>). Events such as the coverage of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam showed the power of television on public opinion (Culbert 1998<\/a>). In the 1970s in Germany, the media emerged as a key political player, researching public opinion in order to influence public perceptions (Kruke 2004<\/a>). The use of nuclear energy was also a relevant issue; Gamson and Modigliani (1989<\/a>) highlight how the media discourse influenced public opinion on this use. The combination of television, the press and photography contributed to the formation of the environmental movement (Anguish 2015<\/a>), with in-depth coverage of environmental disasters that raised public awareness of pollution and the need for more effective regulation.<\/p>\n The S72 stressed that the media should promote educational information for the protection of the environment (Prin. 19). Dyring et al. (1973<\/a>) highlight the profound influence of the media in shaping environmental awareness and promoting sound environmental education. However, media representation of the Amazon and its indigenous peoples in the 1970s reinforced stereotypes and supported development policies that ignored their rights (Sarzynski 2021<\/a>). In short, the media significantly influenced the discussions, principles and resolutions of the S72, but science and technology also played an important role.<\/p>\n Scientific, technological and industrial context<\/p>\n Scientific, technological and industrial advances after World War II gave rise to unprecedented growth, but also heightened awareness of its environmental costs (Schumacher 1973<\/a>). Examples include the 1948 Donora smog in Pennsylvania, which killed 20 and sickened thousands and the 1952 Great Smog of London, which lasted five days, caused up to 12,000 deaths and led to the 1956 Clean Air Act (Davis 2002<\/a>; Guissani 1994<\/a>; Polivka 2018<\/a>). The Minamata disaster in Japan, caused by the release of mercury in 1956, poisoned thousands of people (Takaoka et al. 2018<\/a>). Other events, such as the radioactive leak at Windscale Piles (Penney et al. 2017<\/a>) in 1957 and the oil spill in Santa Barbara, California, in 1969, contributed to increased environmental regulation, including the US National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (Spezio 2018<\/a>).<\/p>\n Between 1951 and 1992, more than 1000 nuclear tests were conducted near Las Vegas, including Operation Plumbbob in 1957, which released radioactivity into the atmosphere, thereby seriously affecting public health (Peterson and Miller 2008<\/a>). In the Pacific, nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands and other regions also caused environmental and health damage. These events led the S72 conference to stress the need to globally review the environmental impacts of industrial and technological development, to protect the oceans and seas and to foster international cooperation in managing these effects. Furthermore, the conference underlined the importance of freeing human beings and the environment from the effects of nuclear weapons (Prins 6, 7, 21 and 26). Since then, the relationship between humans and nature has been seen as one requiring care and responsibility to preserve the environment, human survival, and dignity.<\/p>\n Influence of ecological thinkers and philosophers<\/p>\n The historical and philosophical context that led to the S72 is key to understanding the evolution of environmental thinking and practices. Movements such as romanticism, preservationism and conservationism were central to this transformation. In the late 19th century, the US advocated the protection of nature in its original state. Henry David Thoreau, who promoted simple living and harmony with nature and advocated civil disobedience against unjust laws (Thoreau 1893<\/a>). John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, campaigned for the creation of National Parks and protected areas. Ansel Adams, known for his photographs, defended the preservation of national parks in the United States (Chuvieco and Martin 2015<\/a>).<\/p>\n Conservationism, also in the USA in the late 19th century, advocated balancing exploitation and conservation for long-term benefit. Gifford Pinchot, first chief of the US Forest Service and Julian Huxley, the first director of UNESCO, played key roles in this movement. Aldo Leopold (1887\u20131948), with his influential work, \u201cA Sand County Almanac\u201d (1949<\/a>), introduced the \u201cland ethic\u201d, which argued for a responsible relationship between people and the environment. This vision was echoed in S72, underlining the human responsibility to protect the environment for future generations (Prin. 2). Leopold argued that the interdependence of ecology and economics is concerned with the impacts of human population growth (Meine 2022<\/a>). Rachel Carson (1907\u20131964) is best known for her book \u201cSilent Spring\u201d (1962<\/a>), which warned of the dangers of pesticides such as DDT. Her work urged society to reconsider its approach to nature and advocated a more committed environmental ethic (Prin. 6). Carson had a significant influence in the emergence of the environmental movement (Burns 2020<\/a>), while Barry Commoner (1917\u20132012), articulated the \u201cFour Laws of Ecology\u201d (1971<\/a>), increased awareness of the interdependence of ecological systems (Prin. 2) and criticised capitalism, calling for collective responsibility and the promotion of greater civic engagement in ecological issues. Just before S72, Van Rensselaer Potter (1911\u20132001), a precursor of the term \u201cbioethics\u201d, studied the relationship between humans, their environment and technology in his work \u201cBioethics: Bridge to the Future\u201d (1971), advocating the integration of science and ethics to balance human welfare and environmental preservation (Prin. 18). For his part, Arne Naess (1912\u20132009) developed deep ecology in 1973, questioning the anthropocentric approach of the S72 (Prin. 1), and advocating an intrinsic respect for nature. These thinkers and movements, amplified by growing media attention, contributed to a heightened public awareness of environmental concerns. S72 marked a significant milestone, as it formally acknowledged the global responsibility to protect the environment.<\/p>\n Beginnings of environmental activism<\/p>\n Environmental awareness was not only growing in academic and political circles but also gaining momentum in civil society (Caldwell et al. 1976<\/a>). These social movements, which emerged from conflicts, were seen as positive drivers of change (della Porta 2014<\/a>). In 1892, John Muir founded the Sierra Club in San Francisco, which soon became a benchmark for environmental conservation in the United States and inspired the creation of conservation groups worldwide. In the UK, the Nature Conservancy Council (1949) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (1961) promoted biodiversity protection, while Friends of the Earth, founded in 1969, focused on grassroots campaigning and political action for environmental change.<\/p>\n With the rise of anti-nuclear movements globally, nuclear energy began to be seen not as a neutral technology but as a subject of dispute and opposition. Protests against both nuclear weapons and the civilian use of nuclear energy became widespread (Giugni and Grasso 2015<\/a>). Greenpeace, founded in 1971 in response to nuclear tests in Amchitka, Alaska, marked the beginning of a global environmental movement despite failing to stop the tests (Harter 2004<\/a>). Similarly, Earth Day, first celebrated on April 22, 1970, was initiated by Senator Gaylord Nelson and mobilised millions of people in the US, becoming a milestone in global environmental awareness (Dietz 2020<\/a>). In the same decade, the women-led Chipko Movement in India championed forest conservation through non-violent protests, inspiring similar movements worldwide (Singh and Mishra 2019<\/a>). Wu and Wen (2014<\/a>) examined environmental activism in East Asia since the postwar period, highlighting the role of NGOs and the influence of political context and democratisation. Unlike in the West, these movements faced significant political repression. The principles of the S72 partly reflect the demands of these movements: the right to a quality environment (Prin. 1), international cooperation and collective responsibility (Prins 21 and 22), the protection of fauna and flora (Prin. 4), and the promotion of environmental education (Prin.19). The interaction between environmental movements and the Stockholm principles demonstrates the transformative power of activism in international politics (Giugni and Grasso 2015<\/a>).<\/p>\n The social, scientific, and industrial context, along with environmental activism, reflect an emerging, new relationship between humans and nature. At this point, the analysis turns to the anthropological debate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This research follows a structured method, consisting of several distinct steps and approaches. First, to better understand the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":62351,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[83],"tags":[34265,34266,8706,8707,3620,4347,131,132],"class_list":["post-62350","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-stockholm","tag-anthropology","tag-environmental-studies","tag-humanities-and-social-sciences","tag-multidisciplinary","tag-religion","tag-science","tag-stockholm","tag-sweden"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@dk\/116414381304754771","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62350","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62350"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62350\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/62351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n Population growth and development<\/p>\n