Worldwide One Child Policy

[SassyLady]

When the world quits having wars, or finds a cure for every ailment, this will become the new law. Will this be considered progress?


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.


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


I haven't researched how China imposes this law.........are people sterilized, children aborted, or imprisoned if they have more than one? To me, this is a scary concept.

[MtnBiker]

When the world quits having wars, or finds a cure for every ailment, this will become the new law. Will this be considered progress?




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


I haven't researched how China imposes this law.........are people sterilized, children aborted, or imprisoned if they have more than one? To me, this is a scary concept.

You are right, completely scary!

By the way, what is China's current male to female ratio?

Forced abortions, you bet.

This idea is completely absurd, anyone proposing such and idea is a nutburger.

[MtnBiker]

In fact this topic was brought up by a member here some time ago;

http://http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=15804&highlight=population (www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=15804&highlight=population)

here are some questions I brought up in that thread;


If there is to be an agreement on how many humans there should be occupying the earth exactly how would that number be realised? How many humans can occupy the earth and how do you know it? Would such an agreement keep current demographics of humans at a constant level or would there be ethnic cleansing so other ethnic groups could prosper?

How would population allocations be agreed upon? By what methods would population be limited? Forced contraceptives, forced abortions how do you keep people from procreating?

What would be the reprocussion of nations that do not conform to the agreement? Could the UN go into a country and put people to death until the correct number of allocated population is reached?

What would be the reprocussion to couples that have more childern than are allowed? Again, forced abortion?

Should we reverse smoking bans to dimish life expectancy?
Should New York city reverse trans fat ban to help dimish life expectancy?
Should we take universal health care off the table in the hope that life expectancy is lowered?

[SassyLady]

In fact this topic was brought up by a member here some time ago;

http://http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=15804&highlight=population (www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=15804&highlight=population)

here are some questions I brought up in that thread;

Great questions! I was so uncomfortable with this that I couldn't even think of such important questions.

I do have this one.......if I married Bob and had a child, technically we've both had a child. Let's say we divorce and each marry someone who has not had a child. Do both of those people now go without having children because their spouse has already had one?

See, it's questions like yours and mine that scare the hell out of me...........talk about facism! A one world order, planetary law...........all are totally facist.

[Trigg]

It's working so well for China that they have child kidnappings that are rampant all over China because people only want boys.

After decades of aborting girls the ratio is out of wack and finding brides is becomming harder and harder.


Wonderful solution. I wonder if they realize that the birthrate in ALL European countries is below replacement. The only industrialized countries that are replacing themselves are the US, Ireland, France and New Zealand.

[SassyLady]

It's working so well for China that they have child kidnappings that are rampant all over China because people only want boys.

After decades of aborting girls the ratio is out of wack and finding brides is becomming harder and harder.


Wonderful solution. I wonder if they realize that the birthrate in ALL European countries is below replacement. The only industrialized countries that are replacing themselves are the US, Ireland, France and New Zealand.

I read an interesting article about how birth control will eventually lead to the demise of civilization. Without new generations of people to work, produce and consume, the world economies will fail.


The world has limited land, labor and capital resources that conflict with unlimited wants for goods and services. More births may add to the wants of society, but their addition to the labor pool as future adults is of greater value. New generations of workers innovate, develop new technologies, and manage resources better than previous generations. The economies of the world in the aggregate are better able to care for children. Births and the rearing of children consequently should be revered. Economists have assembled ex-post information to support this hypothesis.

http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/cook-population.shtml

[sgtdmski]

Once upon a time when Social Security was first created there were 17 people working for every 1 person drawing Social Secuirty. Today there are 3 people working for every 1 person drawing Social Security, and by the time I retire in 20 - 25 years, that number will actually be below 2, I believe the figure is 1.7.

Yes, have less children, that is exactly what we need to do. Make sure that there are less and less humans on the planet, less people working, inventing, dreaming and making this a better place to live.

All these scientist who support this idea need to do us all a favor and just kill themselves, that would help alleviate the problem. They have been crying doom and gloom since the 60's, the 1760's that is. This is science's view:


"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". from Malthus himself.

However, science only studies that which is observable, you seen it is the inventor who uses his imagination that in the end creates new products, like genetically enhanced seeds that allow them to grow in less than ideal conditions, or the harvester that has helped reduced the number of farmers needed to feed the population.

Yes, it is time to get science out of predicting the future, they have been so wrong for so often that it is actually quite pathetic. Let us turn to the minds of the inventor, the "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to entrepreneur, the real mind of the future.

For what I do out of my desire for my own future, who knows the results it may have on society as a whole. Henry Ford was looking to revolutionize the world, but he did. Standard Oil wasn't looking to make everyone's life easier, but it did.

Science has utterly failed, let them study the past, and allow true minds to seek the future.

dmk

[SassyLady]

Science has utterly failed, let them study the past, and allow true minds to seek the future.

dmk

:clap::clap::clap:

[cat slave]

And just who thinks this could be enforced? It would be so insensitive and
politically incorrect and even genocide to limit family size of the most backward and poorest countries in the world.

Most humans think it is their gawd given right to reproduce all over the place
whether they can care for their offspring or not. Lets see the UN police that!

[avatar4321]

considering overpopulation is another one of those baseless problems, im not too worried. Besides, if liberals stay in control of governments for too much longer there is going to mass murder and tons of death anyway. Im not too worried.

[chloe]

I think they also tax them heavily if they have more then one child.

[HogTrash]

CAUTION!...Politically Incorrect Alert!...The problem is not the increasing world population, but the quality of the segments of population that are increasing.

The populations of the least intelligent and productive people are increasing while the population of the most intelligent and productive people are decreasing.

[SassyLady]

CAUTION!...Politically Incorrect Alert!...The problem is not the increasing world population, but the quality of the segments of population that are increasing.

The populations of the least intelligent and productive people are increasing while the population of the most intelligent and productive people are decreasing.

Very astute (hope that word doesn't offend you HT)!!! :beer:

[HogTrash]

Very astute (hope that word doesn't offend you HT)!!! :beer:It certainly was and no it doesn't. :beer:

[bullypulpit]

Nature shows us...time and time again...species which breed beyond the ability of the environment to support them have an disturbing tendency to die back.

Just sayin'...

[HogTrash]

Nature shows us...time and time again...species which breed beyond the ability of the environment to support them have an disturbing tendency to die back.

Just sayin'...Unless they have a nanny government that will redistribute the fruits of someone else's labor to aid in their survival and keep them reproducing even more.

One of two things could happen?...Either their numbers will increase beyond the point that they can be helped or the people paying the bills will get fed up and revolt.

[Noir]

I can forsee children become very rare in my life time.

If any of y'all have 20 mins to spare this is a very interesting talk on ageing,

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8iYpxRXlboQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8iYpxRXlboQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Trigg]

I can forsee children become very rare in my life time.



I hope that doesn't come true. What a depressing place the Earth would be with no smiling little faces.

I personnally found it very sad when I was in Rome and there were practically NO children in the parks.

IMHO children make the world a better place. Afterall why bother trying to improve anything if there isn't going to be anyone around to enjoy it.

[bullypulpit]

Unless they have a nanny government that will redistribute the fruits of someone else's labor to aid in their survival and keep them reproducing even more.

One of two things could happen?...Either their numbers will increase beyond the point that they can be helped or the people paying the bills will get fed up and revolt.

What...You scraped enough change outta yer couch for a a can of spray-paint to huff?

[Noir]

I hope that doesn't come true. What a depressing place the Earth would be with no smiling little faces.

I personnally found it very sad when I was in Rome and there were practically NO children in the parks.

IMHO children make the world a better place. Afterall why bother trying to improve anything if there isn't going to be anyone around to enjoy it.

Indeed to a level i concur, however, there is a choice to be had in the battle against ageing, we can either have a high death rate, or a low birth rate. Give the choice what would you chose?

[HogTrash]

What...You scraped enough change outta yer couch for a a can of spray-paint to huff?Your personal attack appears to indicate you didn't agree with this post of mine;


Originally Posted by HogTrash
Unless they have a nanny government that will redistribute the fruits of someone else's labor to aid in their survival and keep them reproducing even more.

One of two things could happen?...Either their numbers will increase beyond the point that they can be helped or the people paying the bills will get fed up and revolt.But, possibly because of your hatred, you neglected to state why you dissagree!?