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

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

[Uncle Miltie]

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!”

[Brett66]

Diane Francis, part of the ignorati. Here's the first link after searching for “Paul Ehrlich” in Google:

Paul_R._Ehrlich

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.

[Domandred]

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.

[gigster]

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.

[SnakeDoctor]

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?

SnakeDoc

[Lorianne]

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.

[gigster]

"Who let this looney have a pencil?"

It wasn't a pencil. It was a Crayola.

[steve-b]

Excellent points!

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.

[steve-b]

less pop density than New York City

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.

[r9etb]

The problem with the premise of this article, and with your response to it, is that it assumes that population growth is globally increasing. The article suggests that a "world law" is necessary; you simply accept their assertion about the nature of the growth.

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.

[r9etb]

The problem with the premise of this article, and with your response to it, is that it assumes that population growth is globally increasing. The article suggests that a "world law" is necessary; you simply accept their assertion about the nature of the growth.

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.

[tiki]

Like we didn’t know, humans are so inconvenient...except for those who are enlightened by the truth of Gaia.

[Eaker]

Wouldn’t it be a better idea to maybe have a vasectomy or practice birth control?

No, these wackos need to lead by example. Let the bitch off herself and then I'll take another look at her bright ideas.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

It does seem schizophrenic, doesn’t it?

[IYAS9YAS]

Nope. Need to completely remove themselves from the equation. They're beliefs are humans and human consumption is bad.

Should read: Nope. They need to ... and Their beliefs.

I need more caffeine.

[stuartcr]

Right

[nathanbedford]

I have no problem with your reply except with your exception to my "premise." It is my understanding that world population is in fact expanding globally. But my concern is with the fact that the population in America has doubled in my lifetime and that doubling constitutes a threat to conservative constitutional principles.

I quite agree with you that much of the problem has been introduced through perverse immigration laws mostly set in place by Teddy Kennedy. As the third world becomes more wealthy, experience teaches that it will tend to moderate its population growth. As with the environment, capitalism is the best medicine for undesirable population growth.

My objection is to contraindicated subsidies and tax incentives to increase population as well as perverse immigration practices. Increasing population is not, repeat not, a good thing but it is not nearly as bad a thing as draconian one child policies such as we see in China.

[DuncanWaring]

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.

The same observation has been made of the 1.1-child-per-woman countries in Europe.

[r9etb]

I have no problem with your reply except with your exception to my "premise." It is my understanding that world population is in fact expanding globally.

The total number of people is, in fact, increasing ... but that growth is almost all in 3rd-world and/or developing countries. Almost none of it is in 1st-world countries.

But my concern is with the fact that the population in America has doubled in my lifetime and that doubling constitutes a threat to conservative constitutional principles.

Agreed. But as you say, that growth is currently fueled mostly by immigration, rather than by birth rates.

The premise of the article is that "one-child" policies are required to address is ... but the fact is that other, much different, approaches are more suitable for an immigration-driven population growth.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Your rights will be stripped away in the name of socialism. Not because of population growth. That might be used as one of the straw men to effect the confiscation of your liberties.

As far as “management” of population, China is in the midst of creating a demographic nightmare. In addition, forcing structural changes in human society that are contrary to human nature is going to have unforeseen consequences beyond what most could imagine.