World Wide... One Child Policy

[BridgeTroll]

These sentiments have been around for a long time.  According to this author... the solution to the problem of global warming is very simple...


http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

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

Diane Francis, Financial Post 
Published: Tuesday, December 08, 2009


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 "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.

Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it. Medical and other scientific advances have benefited by delivering lower infant mortality rates as well as longevity. Both are welcome, but humankind has not yet recalibrated its behavior to account for the fact that the world can only accommodate so many people, especially if billions get indoor plumbing and cars.

The fix is simple. It's dramatic. And yet the world's leaders don't even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.

None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world's big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.

China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.

For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.

The point is that Copenhagen's talking points are beside the point.

The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.

dfrancis@nationalpost.com

[Captain Zissou]

I may be off base, but it seems like a declining population would be unsustainable as well.  To me it seems like many would go broke if the population decreased.  
Fewer people equals less consumption, less consumption equals less demand, less demand equals loss of businesses.

[mtraininjax]

Since most land is inhabited now, not the same issues we had in the 1700s, it would seem to me that we will see yearly or monthly meetings of the "greenhouse" gangs. What I find amusing is how the mature nations that comprise North America, Europe and Asia can tell the middle east, South America and African nations what they can and cannot do to contribute to greenhouse effects. How their economies are in their infancy using raw materials to grow their countries.

Really, its no different from an US versus THEM scenario. How do you tell families they cannot procreate anymore? That their life of breathing oxygen is more important than an unborn or that nature is not allowing anymore births in the animal kingdom? Someone better snip the rabbits.

[BridgeTroll]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

Population control called key to deal

By Li Xing (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-12-10 07:37

COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

"Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth," so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.

Although China's family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China's population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.

The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".

Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: "Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton" whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles.

She admitted that China's population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.

"I'm not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I'm sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited," she said.

She said some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people's lives, she said.

This holistic approach that integrates policy on population and development, a strategy promoting sustainable development of population, resources and environment should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation, she said.

[Reaper man]

Psssh like that would ever happen here.  All the jesus "freedom loving" freaks would cry out "We need to make more jesus babies cause god told us to!  You can't deny our freedom to spawn 8 kids at a time!"

I do agree though that over population is a huge issue and it needs to be taken cared of on a global scale.  At least the Chinese have it right.

[jaxnative]

Seeing that the officially atheist Chinese have contributed more to the population boom than anyone else maybe it's a problem of atheist freaks. 

Seriously though, a 2006 study at the University of Michigan estimated that 98% of worldwide population in 2025 will be in underdeveloped countries especially in Africa which still averages 5 children per woman.  The only thing that has dramatically slowed Africa's rate is the HIV epidemic.  Most European birth rates are negative and North America has stabalized.  The majority of population rise in these regions is due to immigration. 

If any government, organization, or entity, believes it has the right to control the only basic, discernable purpose of life, then it should be fought at all costs.

[buckethead]

Psssh like that would ever happen here.  All the jesus "freedom loving" freaks would cry out "We need to make more jesus babies cause god told us to!  You can't deny our freedom to spawn 8 kids at a time!"

I do agree though that over population is a huge issue and it needs to be taken cared of on a global scale.  At least the Chinese have it right.

So does thatmake you a Jesus hating, Freedom hating well adjusted person?

Hate breeders much?

[Reaper man]

Seeing that the officially atheist Chinese have contributed more to the population boom than anyone else maybe it's a problem of atheist freaks.

One, they aren't all atheists over there.  From my understanding the Chinese practice a number of faiths.  Secondly, these freak atheists as you claim saw their overpopulation problem and decided to fix it.  Where's the problem there?

If any government, organization, or entity, believes it has the right to control the only basic, discernable purpose of life, then it should be fought at all costs.

We'll see if you hold the same opinion when our population gets to a point where it's impossible to have the resources to sustain all of us.

So does that make you a Jesus hating, Freedom hating well adjusted person?

Hate breeders much?

I would say I'm more of a hater of Christianity in general (and most other forms of organized religion).  As for the freedom thing, I support it as long as it's reasonable. If the goverment limited my freedoms for the benefit of humanity in the long run, I'd gladly support it.

And just for your information, if I do have kids, there's no way in hell I'm having more than 2.

[buckethead]

IIRC, the Nazis were limiting the freedom of Jews for the betterment of humanity... I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin".

I welcome you to have as few children as you see fit.

[Reaper man]

IIRC, the Nazis were limiting the freedom of Jews for the betterment of humanity... I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin".

Uhm, I think there's quite a difference between limiting one's freedoms and mass genocide. ;p

[buckethead]

IIRC, the Nazis were limiting the freedom of Jews for the betterment of humanity... I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin".

Uhm, I think there's quite a difference between limiting one's freedoms and mass genocide. ;p

You said you would gladly support any restrictions by a government on your freedoms if it was for the benefit of humanity. Are you suggesting that the Nazi party did not think their actions were appropriate? Did they not believe they were being reasonable and benefitting humanity?

What I think you meant to say was that you support any restrictions of your personal freedoms that You find reasonable, so long as it is for the long term benefit of humanity.
That isn't how such things are decided.

[sandyshoes]

Whoa...I'm almost tempted to get out my soapbox on "breeders" and "inbreeders".  Nyah.  You figure it out.

[BridgeTroll]

Uhm, I think there's quite a difference between limiting one's freedoms and mass genocide.

Im glad you see that distinction...

[civil42806]

Psssh like that would ever happen here.  All the jesus "freedom loving" freaks would cry out "We need to make more jesus babies cause god told us to!  You can't deny our freedom to spawn 8 kids at a time!"

I do agree though that over population is a huge issue and it needs to be taken cared of on a global scale.  At least the Chinese have it right.

Well one could define the differences as a religious one.  But quite frankly its more between the relationship of the individual and the state.  Does the state own the individual, certainly in china and other countries thats the case, but thank god not here.  If thats attractive by all means advance that attitude, the eugenics fans would love that.  But most of the first world is barely replacing themselves, most of europe and japan is in decline.  The real issue is in the developing world, so maybe those koran thumping muslims or whatever the hindus thump may be more relevent.

The more ironic issue is that" Diane Francis" has two kids as you might guess posters are asking what one will she off to maintain her philosiphy.  My guess is that she never would have thought those rules would be applied to her, just THOSE people you know the ones.  The ones that don't go to the right schools, eat the right food, don't live in the right place, don't participate in the right social activities.

[chipwich]

Since it takes two people to produce an offspring, then two people should produce two offspring in order to keep the population stable.  Essentially each person reproduces his or herself.

Since wealthy nations have a stabilized or declining birth rate, I do think it is up to developing nations to limit the amount of children they produce.  I could care less about most religious views that tell you to be fruitful and multiply.  They should just have much less children.  Let's spend global warming money on condoms, birth control pills and safety-nets for those people so they don't view children as a retirement investment.


Rich nations must cut down their carbon and consumption footprint.  Resources are scare and much of the world would still like to develop too.  Nations like ours can lead the way for other nations to about efficient, sustainable development.  In exchange for our cost of cutting emissions and resources, it is only fair to ask developing nations to be responsible and push birth control as much as possible.  As nations develop and become wealthier with more social safety-nets, children move from becoming assets to become liabilities that you spend money and time on educating, entertaining, nurturing and developing.

In our rich nation, someone really needs to send an over-consumption tax bill to the Duggar family, John & Kate, and Octo-mom.  I don't believe in breeders.  Those people act like dogs and cats having litters of babies.