Skip to comments.The real inconvenient truth: The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy
Posted on 12/10/2009 9:06:35 AM PST by omega4179
The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate.
Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
(Excerpt) Read more at financialpost.com ...
Canada first ~ wait 40 years or so ~ we’ll see what happened there.
Well then why are we wring our hands and trying to stop H1N1? Why are we worrying about the death toll of AIDS in Africa? Why do we constantly read articles telling us that the infant morality rate is greater in the US than other countries and we need to fix it? Why, why, why?
Go read the comments....they’re great!
Anti-God, anti-Life RADICALS....all of them!
Yes, The Canadians have her number with amazing comments,compared to the usual garbage on news comment pages.
Here’s the way I see it...2 christian adults will make 1 child vs. 2 muslim adults wil make 10 children. You do the math.
Kill the Humans, and their Culture.....
Seriously, I think we should look to use technology to expand humanity on this planet and into space. I would love to see 1 Trillion humans living in this solar system by the end of the next century or two....
To all those who think to world is overpopulated, why are you not taking the most proactive solution to heart and setting the example by offing yourselves before you procreate?
I just don’t see any difference between progressives and 1930s Germany.
Population control? Maybe that’s why we have wars, catastrophies and disease?
Holdren’s guru: Dispose of ‘excess children’ like puppies
Science chief acknowledges Brown as inspiration for career in ecology
Wouldn’t it be a better idea to maybe have a vasectomy or practice birth control?
You are correct. There aren’t many differences. The source of their ideology is the same: satan.
This woman needs to take a dirt nap.
Will agree if the Kennedys and the Muslims agree,
But what about the taxes they squeeze out of every human being born? What will happen to the tax rolls! The HORROR!!
We need to have MORE babies baby!
It's for the
children baby walruses.
Nope. Need to completely remove themselves from the equation. They're beliefs are humans and human consumption is bad. They need to put up or shut up.
Why is universal health care the number one goal of most of the countries in the world, if the primary purpose of health care is to sustain and extend human life?
And we’ll still have to rent them at Redbox.
The Pope may disagree.
The culture of death.
It was meant for all the non-Catholics.
But seriously that allows the government to control who lives and dies. In the UK the cancer death rate is much higher than here. They tell the lie that they want to provide health care to those who don't have it, but they just want to control everyone's health care access.
One more proof that the true goal of Marxism is human extinction. Also, that is why I personally believe that Marxism is Satanically inspired, right along with Islam.
Who let this loonie have a pencil?
My general observation is that whenever our World is called “the planet” Malthusian eco-babbling is soon to follow. These people are filled with self-loathing and regard humanity as a pestilence The very mention of the P-word makes me instantly tune-out of the conversation.
Dear Diane Francis:
Yeah, you’re right. Other people should not be born, other people should not get to own a car, nor should they be allowed consumer durables or non durables. Additionally, anyone that makes too much money should have it taken from them (permitted that they should be allowed to be alive that is), speech that is offensive to you should be outlawed, the church should be banned, animals should get to vote, animals should not be eaten, and no offensive smells or sounds should be legal either.
Diane, did I cover everything that OTHERS, not including yourself of course, should be subjected to? Surely, I’ve missed several important things that keep you up at night?
To same humans we must kill humans. We are a danger for ourselves. This is funny. Let all these green fools to commit suicide to save the planet.
Yeah, those Chinese are doing the environment a world of good:
"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?".
Diane can show her commitment by completing her “end of life” plan, and expiring.
All of this and more is inevitable with the press of population.
If the loss of your personal liberties is not of concern, perhaps you might consider the sheer inconvenience of being unable to find a parking place, enduring crowded highways, being turned away from your national Parks because of the flood of tourists.
I think we can say that because one can be concerned about the arithmetic growth of our population since I've been born does not imply approval of abortion. Nor does it endorse draconian measures to enforce a one child policy. On the other hand, here in the Germany state automatically pays out "Kindergeld" just for going through the biological act of bearing children. Why? Do we want to encourage more children? How badly do we want to encourage mothers to stay home with the children? In America we extend tax benefits to those having children. Why?
Does it make good sense to encourage overpopulation by immigration and subsidizing childbirth? Does the need to pay Social Security and Medicare to the aged require that we crowd ourselves into megalopolis from Richmond to Boston? Should we be looking for other ways to solve these problems besides swelling the population?
1930's Germany had a lot of cool uniforms.
What you have here, is a math problem.
Every single person living on the earth today could live in the state of Texas - and live is a larger space then most now.
The assumption there are too many humans is on its face absurd.
In the comments section:
“Dear Ms. Francis (Author), Save the planet. Shoot yourself!!! Or, since you prefer Caps (on births), I’ll propose Trades. For example, I’ll pay you to give me your “right” to one child, so I can have two. Together we’ll save the planet by reducing population AND ridding the world of offspring that thinks like you do!”
It shows you just how wrong such predictions can be; and if your intelligent enough, you might even see parallels in his hysterical predictions and that of the AGW cult.
I think I read somewhere once that the entire worlds population could fit inside Texas with less pop density than New York City...and the rest of the world as farm land could easily feed them all.
Dunno the truth of it, but think I read that once.
Unfortunately, Whack-Jobs, like this bimbo, are taken cereally in the brain-damaged leftist circles.
Okay, that out of the way, sometime back, I read an article about the “One Child Plan” in Commie China.
It raised a point I had never thought about in the past.
Under the plan, in 3 generations, no one would have brothers, or sisters. (Obviously). But neither would one have any aunts, or uncles, or cousins.
What a grey, dreary world that would be.
But, then again, isn’t that the whole goal of the Enviro-Fascists.
I suppose the real question is ... if the only way to save the planet is to reduce or eliminate the humans — who are we saving the planet for? I thought we were saving the planet “for the children” — now we’re just saving it for the hell of it? What’s the point if I don’t have any kids to enjoy it?
China’s record on human rights with regard to it’s one-child-policy is INSANELY INHUMANE ... but I guess it would be too much to ask for this idiot woman to mention that.
It wasn't a pencil. It was a Crayola.
Fortunately, the demographic indications are that the problem of overpopulation is self-correcting in economically advanced societies. Once relieved of the need for additional hands to perform relatively simple manual labor, and instead faced with the need for educating the next generation for the more sophisticated job opportunities opening to them, people generally find it preferable to have fewer children.
The various government subsidies you mention, like government subsidies in general, simply gum up the works and should be abolished.
Still much too high for long-term viable society -- I mean, look at the state of civilization in most cities.
This sort of "calculation" is as silly as a projection that a fever patient will undergo spontaneous human combustion next Thursday.
However, that is quite clearly not true that a law is required: Almost all of Europe is reproducing below replacement already; Japan, likewise. People in the US are having babies at a rate only barely above replacement.
Obviously, other factors come into play where birth rates are concerned: laws are not required. Increasing population is not a given in Western (or modern) society.
The real population growth is in 3rd world countries ... but that cannot be said straight out. As such, the solution to problems related to population growth must be directed toward those areas.