Thursday, December 10, 2009

"One child per female" to save the planet

Words fail me. And, this from the Financial Post and from a female "journalist". At first I thought this was something that the magpies in Copenhagen were voicing aloud. Not so.  Maybe I need to visit an optometrist, I don't think I read it right.

via Drudge: .....-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.

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate.


  1. The resulting demographic catastrophe would bankrupt every nation on earth. These population-control idiots have absolutely no understanding of macroeconomics.

  2. They have no understanding of demographhics today! Most EU nations, Canada, Russia and Japan have below replacement birthrates today, and will face demographic crashes in the near future (2020's).

    China's "one child" policy has created a huge demographic imbalance which will see their population crash in the 2030's.

    Perhaps the real reason for making this suggestion (and offering trumped up numbers [maybe supplied by the CRU]) is the democratic and relatively free market societies of the United States and India still have replacement level or higher birth rates, with the US having a projected population of 500-550 million by mid century.

    Young Americans will be able to buy cheap real estate in a depopulated Canada by the 2040's, assuming they choose to live near enclaves of bitter old "progressives" who supported the Liberals, NDP and Greens in their youths...

  3. Maria,

    Once again you have demonstrated that you obviously don't read (or perhaps read, but do not understant) many documetnts, articles, or books that accurately describe macroeconomics or geopolitics, let alone anything other than ExxonMobil advertisements on environmental issues.

    If you and Scary, think population reduction through voluntarily reducing birth rates is such a horrible thing for the environment or the global macroeconomic situation should look at the current global economy. Who has the most important and fastest growing economy (but not yet the largest economy) in the world today? Think about it for a while....




    What has China had in place for the past generation? .... think a little harder....



    A one child policy - that has been more or less effective, if heavy handed. (Hut hey, Harper soundly criticized them on their human rights policies... hmmm - pot, kettle, get to know one another)

    Has the one child policy ruined their economy? Nope. It can actually be argued that this policy has driven significant improvements in their standard of living and enhanced the growth of their economy.

    Given the environmental and pollution disaster that China is experiencing today, what do you really think they would be experiencing if they had another 300-400 million people that had to house, clothe, and feed themselves?

    In the end, we live in a finite world. Based on available data and as demonstrated by the ongoig manmade catastrophes and, likely the climate change induced, natural catastrophes we are currently seeing everywhere around us, it is quite obvious that we are exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet to sustain the current population, let alone a growing population that wants to consume and pollute like people in developed economies do.

    I would postulate that the only possible reasons why someone would want to continue on the current destructive path of unlimited population growth is that they are ignorant, believe in the Rapture coming within their lifetimes, or they are selfish asses. Which of these three groups would you align yourself with?

    Also, would this comment have been treated any different by you (or other people with similarly narrow views of the world) if it was made by a male journalist? God/Allah/Vishnu/Buddha/Mother Nature/etc... forbid that the comment might have been made by a politician or, even worse, a scientist well versed in the topic of climate impacts from consumption.


  4. At some point the politics behind this scam become more than odious. Consider a moment that China wants carbon credits for all the children they abort. If everything goes as planned, we will be paying them to do it.

    Nice eh?

  5. Furthermore... why is it when a leftist gains an an inch they drive straight for the genocide?

  6. Where's Waldo - I have some pressing stuff to do most of today. However, come back tomorrow to check here. I will have enough proof to show you that what you think is "voluntary" is often not the case. China with their one child policy (which helped to kill millions of female babies, as Chinese prefer sons to daughters) are now with insufficient brides for their largely male population.
    If one values freedom, then the freedom to choose whether one wants one kid or a dozen, should be left in the individual's hands, not the State.

    And John... I know it's you.

  7. Where's Waldo:

    Check back in 20 years when the pampered only children of China reach their most productive years. You'll see euthanasia of the highest order to stem the economic decline.

    The fact is, you are not taking into account the lag that happens of about 30 to 40 years. We had a baby boom in the 50's. Our best years economically were the 80's and 90's. Once they begin retiring (next 20 years) we will have serious problems.

    If you want proof, look at Japan. Decades of population stasis leads to economic stagnation.

    It's kind of funny that all Progressives seem to want is a halt to progress.

  8. Maria,

    I never said that I agreed with the way China implemented their one child policy. I said that people needed to make voluntary choices to reduce the size of their families. In essence, we have done so in the wealthy countries on a completly voluntary basis.

    I believe that people around the world need to have a thorough understanding of the facts about population, wealth, health, the environment, and the economy to make a decision about their family structure. Without education and open minds able to assimilate the information we have at hand, we are doomed or at least in for some very difficult times.

    I believe that takes the edge off of any rebuttals you might have regarding the approach to population control that China is using. Totalitarian approaches will not work unless we are so far along the downward spiral of evironmental and societal collapse that radicals and fundamentalist firebrands are successful in taking control. Thankfully, we are not far enough along to let people like Palin and Beck gain any traction outside of a very small segment of society. They have a right to speak, everyone also has the right to disagree and oppose them through civil means.

    Also, who is John?

    UsualSuspect, please provide evidence to your position that China has asked for GHG credits for the aborted fetuses.



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.