The real inconvenient truth: The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy

Financial Post, Canada ^ | 12/08/09 | Diane Francis

[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.

[John.Galt2012]

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?

[Tijeras_Slim]

FREERIDER PING!

And we’ll still have to rent them at Redbox.

[TheSuaveOne]

The Pope may disagree.

[HereInTheHeartland]

The culture of death.

[stuartcr]

It was meant for all the non-Catholics.

[w1andsodidwe]

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?

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.

[TheSuaveOne]

:)

[Eagles6]

Un-freaking-believable.

[TexasRepublic]

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.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Aloysius88]

Who let this loonie have a pencil?

[Antioch]

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.

[Professional]

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?

-Dag

[concernedforusa]

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.

[DuncanWaring]

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation,

Yeah, those Chinese are doing the environment a world of good:

"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?".

[Professional]

LOL!!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Diane can show her commitment by completing her “end of life” plan, and expiring.

[nathanbedford]

Conservatives might want to consider how the flood of humanity affects their chances of preserving what Mark Levin refers to as the "civil" society. I contend that the doubling of the population in America in my lifetime is the proximate cause of the loss of many of our liberties. It is inevitable that with the crush of population people will turn to the government to defend them against their neighbors and that is why you are seeing cases which get quite silly such as the flagpole case involving the medal of honor winner. That is why you're seeing interest groups such as the Sierra Club will represent the teeming masses in our cities bringing lawsuits to strip ranchers in the West to their traditional grazing rights on federal lands. That is why you're seeing real economic hardship in California caused by the demand for water vs. the clamor for the environment.

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?

[DuncanWaring]

I just don’t see any difference between progressives and 1930s Germany.

1930's Germany had a lot of cool uniforms.

[edcoil]

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.