PDA

View Full Version : Population Control



johvale
12-10-2009, 01:18 PM
The real inconvenient truth
The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy

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

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.


THE ARTICLE goes on to continue to talk about how positive it would be for us humans to continue to die off... WOW! So instead of continuing to study things like space travel and looking to live on other planets... We will just die off.... I think the whole basis of this climate change conference and healthcare leads to this. This I believe is the ULTIMATE GOAL.

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

Speedy
12-10-2009, 02:19 PM
Read the comments section though. She won over almost nobody.

Gingersnap
12-10-2009, 02:43 PM
I read this this morning - those crazy Canucks!

The U.S. is just at replacement levels in population through immigration. We certainly aren't breeding enough citizens to to stay at that level. The EU is well below replacement levels. The Russians are essentially putting themselves on the endangered species list through drunkenness and sexual indifference.

If Canadians are worried about population growth, they will need to turn their attention to all those "diverse" populations who are still breeding like rats.

Touting China as a "success" is about the stupidest thing I've read all day. The Chinese have managed to curb their population growth but at the expense of their female population. Millions and millions of girls have been killed to make sure that the "one child" policy is the one boy policy. China now has a huge demographic imbalance that is fueling an enormous female slave trade. Surrounding countries are seeing their daughters literally snatched away across the Chinese border. Men too poor to buy a female slave (or rent one) are pouring their energies into a violent, nihilistic criminal class. Drug use is going through the roof.

Yeah, some role model for population control. :rolleyes:

wilbur
12-10-2009, 03:03 PM
Its a catch 22.

Yes, its possible that the population could grow too large to be sustainable, and selective pressures will cull it down to sustainable levels - much to the dismay of those culled.

But... we have no economic system that can sustain prosperity without population growth. So population reduction scheme of the OP is likely to cause just as much misery as culling by natural selection.

Unless we can eventually move off this rock, we'll eventually have to figure out how to maintain prosperity without growth, and without using up all our resources. Not easy. Hopefully, it can be done before resources are depleted to the point where our population will unwillingly shrink.

obx
12-10-2009, 03:08 PM
Its a catch 22.

Yes, its possible that the population could grow too large to be sustainable, and selective pressures will cull it down to sustainable levels - much to the dismay of those culled.

But... we have no economic system that can sustain prosperity without population growth.

Unless we can eventually move off this rock, we'll eventually have to figure out how to maintain prosperity without growth, and without using up all our resources. Not easy.

Here's an idea. If you don't work, you don't eat. Root, hog, or die.
________
Mazda c platform history (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_C_platform)

Speedy
12-10-2009, 03:08 PM
Its a catch 22.

Yes, its possible that the population could grow too large to be sustainable, and selective pressures will cull it down to sustainable levels - much to the dismay of those culled.

But... we have no economic system that can sustain prosperity without population growth.

Unless we can eventually move off this rock, we'll eventually have to figure out how to maintain prosperity without growth, and without using up all our resources. Not easy.

Oh bullshit! You could dump the whole population of the world into the Grand Canyon and the amount of space it would take up would be unnoticed. Every place in the world where there is famine sits upon some of the most fertile soil on Earth but it is government incomtetence and greed that is starving those folks.

Jeez!

wilbur
12-10-2009, 03:14 PM
Oh bullshit! You could dump the whole population of the world into the Grand Canyon and the amount of space it would take up would be unnoticed. Every place in the world where there is famine sits upon some of the most fertile soil on Earth but it is government incomtetence and greed that is starving those folks.

Jeez!

You think it would be a prosperous life to shove everyone into the grand canyon? Sorry, prosperity requires more than standing room or a place to sit.

Gingersnap
12-10-2009, 03:18 PM
Its a catch 22.

Yes, its possible that the population could grow too large to be sustainable, and selective pressures will cull it down to sustainable levels - much to the dismay of those culled.

But... we have no economic system that can sustain prosperity without population growth.

Unless we can eventually move off this rock, we'll eventually have to figure out how to maintain prosperity without growth, and without using up all our resources. Not easy.

"We" are making some pretty big strides in that direction already. "Others" aren't. Even so, I'm unwilling to jump on the eugenics bandwagon to save them from themselves. Thirty years ago people (and by "people" I mean government agencies and respected scientists) believed that we would be reduced to starvation and environmental devastation by today. It was predicted that human hunger would simply outstrip the available food supplies in developed nations (presumably they thought the undeveloped nations would have starved by now).

However, the people making the predictions were completely unable to foresee the effects of poverty-reduction and technological progress on population growth factors. Neither did they make the connection between those two factors and feminism - a perfect storm which has fueled rising prosperity and singular lack of interest in childbearing in every country where it has occurred.

Instead of bemoaning a future that we know we can't accurately predict (since we never have in the past), let's just figure out how to end illegal immigration and curb legal immigration to avoid overburdening the system we have right now.

Speedy
12-10-2009, 03:26 PM
You think it would be a prosperous life to shove everyone into the grand canyon? Sorry, prosperity requires more than standing room or a place to sit.

No, not at all, just providing an example of little space in the world we actually take up. If governments got the fuck out of the way, we can more than feed ourselves many times over. But of course that would involve people being in charge of their own lives and for governments that would not do at all. They exist, you know, to tell us how to live, eat, drive and work. Now, if the idea in this article was carried out to it's logical conclusion, they would get to chose who in what station would live or die.

Just one child? How stupid is that? Mozart, was not a first born, neither was Vincent van Gogh, John F. Kennedy, Denzel Washington, Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns. Under a one child policy, none of those would have ever existed.

AmPat
12-10-2009, 03:31 PM
Unless we can eventually move off this rock, we'll eventually have to figure out how to maintain prosperity without growth, and without using up all our resources. Not easy.
Brack, Brack! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!. Brack!!!:eek::rolleyes:

noonwitch
12-10-2009, 03:40 PM
Has China's one child policy really worked? It seems to me that all they really did was provide a whole lot of female children to childless westerners, especially americans. They made plenty of money off of it-it costs a lot of money to adopt a child from overseas. But, really, isn't a lack of females going to catch up with them in a bad way, sooner or later?

Robin Williams had a great joke about that on his HBO special-he said that the whole adoption thing is now in reverse, and the Chinese are now adopting american lesbians.

Speedy
12-10-2009, 03:46 PM
Brack, Brack! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!. Brack!!!:eek::rolleyes:

Faster than TARP legislation! Able to jump tall stacks of legislation with a running start! Look! Up in the sky! It's falling! This is a job for...



http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac356/Bitter_Clinger2009/2009-11-12_051735.jpg

johvale
12-10-2009, 09:13 PM
I agree with speedy... It is mostly government stupidy and corruption that causes the people in the poorest countries to starve... Honestly.. Look at our neighbor to the South.. Mexico. They have one of the largest oil supplies in the world, but are over run with corruption. The politicians are bought off by the drug cartels and the people get nothing.. Of course if they were to get honest pols in office down there... Then Mexico would not be able to send everyone here though.... Damn.

johvale
12-11-2009, 07:53 AM
With China's one child policy which favors men heavily... There is now over 40 million extra men then women... Wow... talk about a potentially even more massive army. If they wanted to they could simply walk across Asian and Europe. What could stop an army of that size if they chose to use it?