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.
The intelligence behind this is the following:
-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.
-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.
-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.
Sounds reasonable to me. One of the worst things you can do for the planet is to have children. Why is this notion so shocking?
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
I recommend this website. Everyday some panic ensues somewhere, I suspect it will never end.
What did they call it….? In hindsight it seemed very effective…… Gulag, Concentration Camps…. something like that. Very effective. Just check.
So this is what is wanted?
Well, fuck you too!
I’m tired of all of these nutcases worshiping the planet. These people care more about the planet than they do for human life. We are the top of the food chain. The planet was made for us. I’ll tell you what. All you people that think population control is the answer go ahead and murder your families and kill yourselves while you’re at it, and leave the rest of us alone. This whole agenda (global warming/overpopulation/etc.) is a load of crap.
This girl’s so full of crap I bet she can’t see straight.
If China’s one child policy is so great, how come China still has significant population growth?
Russia, Norway, Denmark, and even the UK have much lower population growth rates.
Cripes, what in idiot.
http://indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=ee&v=24
Turns out, she also blogs for the Huffington Post.
’nuff said.
Ms. Francis has been swimming towards the deep end for several years – looks like she arrived.
Gotta love philosphical ideas from a financial analyst.
“If China’s one child policy is so great, how come China still has significant population growth?”
Well, communism at work !!
“If China’s one child policy is so great, how come China still has significant population growth?”
Well, communism at work !!
On paper everything looks so good.
LOL!!
This is very simple. The Libs know the Religious Right will out breed the Gays in a few years. Not to mention the fourteen million blacks we’re short from abortion. (I wounder if one of those children would have cured cancer.) Anyway. Considering the Illegals have children in other countries and that we extend voting right after they arrive their population will not suffer.
This is a plan to eliminate white middle-class conservative america, and turn the rest into serfs.
I’d like to see her tits then she can go.
Hey dfrancis@nationalpost.com,
just because you can’t get laid doesn’t mean you need to take it out on the rest of the world.
Why don’t you do us all a favour and kill yourself. Think about how many tons of carbon won’t be spewed because of you, you sheep in saints clothing.
5, Ah Yea, I wouldn’t call 0.66 “significant”. The United States where people are having fewer children has a higher growth rate than China per your link. So the Chinese policy is working to some extent.
The Chinese do have a population problem but China’s one-child policy doesn’t apply to everyone. Affluent people or people holding at least a graduate degree are given exceptions to the one-child policy. The poor can either buy their way into having a 2nd child, or they’re forced to go through abortions.
BTW, Asian cultures favor having a son since it is the eldest son’s role to take care of the parents when they become old. Due to this mindset, there is also a large number of abortions due to the baby being a girl (since girls traditionally are required to help the husband with his family and not hers).
China’s population growth may slow down though since in a generation or so, there will be many lonely Chinese guys looking for a wife but no Chinese gal around to marry. What you do see now is a lot of Chinese guys are already looking for wives outside of China due to this growing problem.
Am I the only one who likes the idea of reducing births … It’s better than the pre-Babylonian way (kill the elders -> loot) Of course no gvt has the right to dictate a birth control policy (Unless we embrace Malthusian belts), but having the modesty to refrain from over reproducing its selfish genes is noble … in a way
Another big problem for this to work is that we should think twice before having sex (unless sterilized) which is not likely to happen.
Lobbyist would hate this idea and it will never happen in the US of A because can you imagine how many bobbles would pop if we reduce growth!?
Over population has been predicted for a century or better. So far, the future that we are now living in has failed to match earlier dire predictions.
If the models and assumptions failed before, why do we keep believing their present conclusions.
#2, #4, #11 know what I’m talkin about.
The Financial Post is not Canada’s national newspaper.
Diane Francis is a well respected writer in Canada even when she writes from the right. Her expertise is generally socio-economic areas.
I really like the way the wing nuts attack the author instead of the message. Typical.
That overpopulationisamyth.com site repeats the old cliché that everyone in the world could fit in Texas. Might be mathematically true, but they’d all be dead, since there’d be no space to grow food, and no water supplies.
The other fallacy that people fall for is to observe that there’s no obvious GLOBAL population problem at the moment, and infer that there is no reason to be concerned about population at all. Some look at Europe, see dropping populations there, and say “the problem is fixing itself”. However, you need only look at the parts of the world that ARE over-populated and/or expanding rapidly to see the consequences of this. Sure, people are surviving, but at what cost? What do we know about the quality of life in Burkina Faso or the Gaza Strip? What we know is not good.
Trying to control worldwide population is like trying to control worldwide climate.
… Nature will take its course.
Ok, so which 3 billion people should we kill (or not allow to reproduce)?
On one hand, if 100 million Americans (regardless of ethnic background) were to disappear, it would have a great effect on energy usage and carbon emissions.
Compare that with 100 million Africans – who don’t have electricity.
On the other hand, these 100 million Americans are also generating a lot of the wealth in the world – the 100 million Africans are not.
As it is, 1st world (western) populations are in decline. 3rd world populations are increasing. But since those populations are also immigrating to the west, we don’t notice the decline. And when those populations immigrate to the west, they immediately start consuming at western levels.
The overpopulationisamyth site seems to care about whether the human population can keep increasing. Does anyone really think it’s a good idea to plow under the entire planet and wipe out all other species for our own benefit? Surely that can’t bite us in the ass.
I wouldn’t support a government policy limiting women to one child, I would support some kind of incentive program, or at least remove the incentive to have more kids. Removing the child tax credit might be a good start. Abortion covered by the government would be good too.
The bible says “be fruitful and multiply”. Haven’t we succeed there? Can’t we cross that objective off our list?
I heard the stand-in for Michael (Weiner) Savage talk about the evils of liberal population control last night. I think we see the new conservative boogeyman.
I’m just waiting for Sarah Palin to tie population control into her claims of “death panels” and the health care bill.
That we have a world wide overpopulation problem and that it is killing the planet is as obvious as the fact that there is no God.
Ms. Francis may or may not be a nutjob, but the premise is correct. Even nutjobs can be right once in a while.
Sure, the earth will of course limit population by the usual methods of flood, famine, disease, etc. But wouldn’t it be much better to be preemptive?
I find it interesting that women are always the target for population control. Why not limit a man to fathering one child? Then snip snip.
Either we do it the painless/fun way with proper family planning and birth control, or the messy painfully horrible way with starvation/war/mass murder.
We all have to decide.
But hey! We have 20,000 nuclear weapons that could solve the problem in less than a minute!
So we don’t have to day anything right now…
I mean no disrespect but hope Republicans would follow what the sign says.
For God’s sake, do it for the future of our children.
I challenge anyone to take this argument to Afghanistan and have them make the first move. Once their population growth is in line with ours… it drops from a fertility rate of 5.6 to 1.6… then we can both see about reducing further.
I suggest you put your affairs in order before you make the suggestion.
It’s not “Canada’s National Newspaper”. It one of Canada’s national newspapers!(The Globe & Mail being another) Big difference. Geez, get your info straight before Dvorak Uncensored becomes another Huffington Post or Fox news.
If she really feels so strongly about this then why isn’t her brains splattered over a wall somewhere?
Typical liberal.
the funny thing about chinas’s policy is it will wipe only the chinese population…
as their culture prefers to have at least one male child, they are gonna wind up with a very mismatched population…. ooops