One-Child policy key to fixing climate change, says Canadian paper

[Bob The Mercenary]

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

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.

A Chinese paper also called this the key to the deal. (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm)

I know what's going to happen. I'm going to call these people nutjobs. Then someone's going to come in here and post a graph showing that, yes, this is the only real way to reverse climate change and save the planet. So let's just get this started.

These people are nutjobs.

[CABAL49]

Well, the world is becoming overpopulated. But I think the best way to solve this is to do absolutely nothing until resources become so scarce that constant world warfare erupts until the populations are free from radiation sickness from nuclear weapons. You know, natural selection and whatnot.

[Jagos]

It's great that we're now known as people pollution.

[Wigmund]

I actually agree that we need to control population growth to help combat overcrowding/resource depletion/climate change. Though I think a Two-Child Policy would be just as effective and less rabble-rousing as the One Child Policy as seen in the comments in the OP link.

[Kepor]

What.

No, really, what.

I'm gonna take a good, hard look at those articles, and if that's really what they say, I

I mean

It's just

Bah

edit
I mean, NEVER MIND that the majority of population growth occurs in underdeveloped countries.

NEVER MIND that economic development curbs population growth.

NEVER MIND that raising the status of women has a dramatic affect on lowering birth rates.

No, CLEARLY the ONLY answer is a One-Child policy, forget something crazy like aid to poor countries, that'll NEVER work.

Bah.

editedit
How the FUCK do they even expect to enforce it? What, just write the law down and all the third-world infrastructure that isn't there will carry it out?

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Well... wow... hmm... yeah I guess... I mean... it's an option...

Seems I'm not the only one creeped out by this.

[Kim]

My strategy is better. I flood the email and private message boxes of every guy I know with yaoi until they lose all interest in the opposite gender. There is no better solution.

[Wigmund]

My strategy is better. I flood the email and private message boxes of every guy I know with yaoi until they lose all interest in the opposite gender. There is no better solution.

So work CelesJessa to death to attain utopia?

[Krylo]

People are nutjobs.

Reasons being:

Firstly--an average person in a first world country has a higher effect on global warming than an entire village in, let's say, rural Africa, and let's not even start on what the very few super rich (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/28/population-growth-super-rich) do to our environment.

Secondly--Populations in first world countries are actually declining, or expected to decline, for the most part. Way too lazy to find the information on this again, but if you want to you can go here (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=24&c=hu&l=en) and check population growth rates in the last ten years. You should also compare ones which seem to rise with immigration rates (like the US had a huge pop. growth rate between 2008 and 2009, but it also perfectly corresponds with a net migration rate increase). And because I could find it: Japan's projected population 'growth' numbers over the next 100 years (http://www9.ocn.ne.jp/~aslan/pfe/jpeak.htm). From what I remember most of the first world looks like this, as well.

Thirdly--Even in countries where this isn't the case (the US is one, I believe), our populations growths are far lower than third world countries, which still require more children to 'work the farm' as it were.

Basically, putting a cap of one child per family globally, would do almost nothing to stop planetary climate change. It might help stop 'over population' but that's a set of words that most people who use it don't actually understand. The real result would just be causing a bunch of people in third world countries to starve EVEN HARDER.

Not to mention it hasn't even worked worth shit in China, where population is still estimated to be increasing.

[Archbio]

Krylo's post kind only reinforces my impression that the very first step to prevent overpopulation is... to avoid nativist bullshit in first world nations.

[Kepor]

Oh I love this line. I fucking love this line.

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.

I love how she's railing against conservatives objecting on the grounds of this being government interference, while entirely missing the fact that there might, just might be people who object on the grounds of this being a human rights violation.

Here's (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121010.html) an article I found about it, with another journalist's response.

I mean, really. We should be like China? Really now?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

While it is an idea that will possibly need to happen at some point it is pretty much unworkable and solves problems not really related to climate change. I agree with the idea in theory- mostly because I don't believe in people's "right" to have children whenever they feel like it- but there's a lot of complications and not really related.
And there is a lot more we can do that would actually curb climate change, this is another solution to help allievate the guilt while not doing anything.
Even if it did help climate change, which it won't really, it will take a long long long time to really affect any results.

[Kerensky287]

I would be in favour of this if it means no more Jon and Kate Plus 8.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I can't wait until they start arguing that our life expectancies are too long and something has to be done to "save the planet".

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That is a bit of a leap there Bob.

Edit: I mean I could make an argument like thios:
If you advocate people being able to have as many children as they want, then you are advocating that the individual is more important than the commuity, that the individual has rights but no responsibilities in his community.
Thus he can murder whoever he feels like because only he matters, society as a whole can suffer.
This argument is about as ridiculous as saying We want to limit the number of children being born leads to murdering old people.

[pochercoaster]

Krylo and Kepor already stated the bulk of my thoughts, but Bob, there's a simple way to test if something is bullshit or not. If someone proposes a simple solution to a complex problem involving multiple variables (culture, economics, war, consumerism) then it's bullshit. Some people want to latch on to simple solutions because it's easy, doesn't require much thought, and it permits them to continue being racist.

These sorts of articles disgust me.

[Tev]

I'm still a fan of moving to a space-based civilization to support our burgeoning population. Colony ships, space stations, the whole nine light years.

[DarkDrgon]

ok, am I the only one that's read among the hidden (The shadowchild books)? Is that really the kind of world we want to be living in?

[POS Industries]

What I like is that no one seems to realize that this is a conservative tabloid newspaper clearly making a hamfisted attempt at Swiftian satire with a hint of rabble rousing the dullards by making them believe that this is a serious proposal out of Copenhagan.

Oh, yellow journalism, you so crazay.

[Krylo]

Yeah, upon reading it it was pretty obvious that no one in Copenhagan actually talked about doing that.

In fact, the article complained about that.

[Nightshine]

Best solution: Don't have kids.


Seriously, they're fucking annoying anyway.

[krogothwolf]

Best solution: Don't have kids.


Seriously, they're fucking annoying anyway.

I guess subtly advertising the extinction of man is a good choice.

But on a side note, I thought the birth rate has been steadily falling anyways?

[Osterbaum]

But on a side note, I thought the birth rate has been steadily falling anyways?
In western countries (Except the US) and Japan, yes.

[Jagos]

The US has immigration to stem the birth rate. Come on, we haven't watched Idiocracy?

[Azisien]

According to best estimates the human population does now exceed the rat population.

Uggggghhhhhhhh.

[Fifthfiend]

hamfisted attempt at Swiftian satire

So, pretty spot-on, then.

The US has immigration to stem the birth rate. Come on, we haven't watched Idiocracy?

I honestly can't even figure out what you mean by that.

[Odjn]

Best solution: Don't have kids.


Seriously, they're fucking annoying anyway.

And then they grow up to be you!

[Osterbaum]

The US has immigration to stem the birth rate. Come on, we haven't watched Idiocracy?
I honestly can't even figure out what you mean by that.
Neither could I, but I just figured it was some inside joke which finns werent in on, or that I misunderstood some word or something.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I like how for once I'm right about something, then the article turns out to be satire.

[TheDarkChocobo]

if everybody just stopped farting so much (stopping the human element of methane gas) then we'll all be fine. (joke btw)

isn't there supposedly an obama advisor that promotes male castration? (havn't checked sources yet so please correct me if i'm wrong)

[Eldezar]

One of my favorite things about China's one-child policy; 18+ years ago it was enacted. Almost all families got rid of the daughter, cuz they all wanted boys.

After 18+ years, you have a LOT more boys than you do girls. These boys are horny.

I don't think someone thought this through.

[Magus]

Technically a one-child policy is not needed to stem population growth, a two-child policy is (this is known as replacement--the parents are replaced, the amount of people stays the same). Obviously some countries appear to have simply too many people so they try and enact one-child policies to decrease population, not stop population growth. Basically, if the world can handle the current population, there's no need for a one-child policy, but a two-child policy.

People would probably be far more amenable to two-child policies, actually, since the nuclear family was such a staple during the '50s. But obviously only countries facing high levels of poverty and hunger and low-levels of resources try to institute -child policies, and since they want to decrease population, they institute extremely unpopular one-child policies.

Anyway, I like you guys' hating on population laws despite in theory being a very viable solution to population growth. Though personally I'd prefer increasing the economic standing of countries, since this usually leads to stemming population growth or even decreasing population as people's standard of living increases and they tend to move away from having as many children as possible to work farms and family businesses. This is a much more ethical approach than simply saying, "you can't have more than one child", but it is much, much harder, which is why China chose the legislative route.

[Jagos]

One of my favorite things about China's one-child policy; 18+ years ago it was enacted. Almost all families got rid of the daughter, cuz they all wanted boys.

After 18+ years, you have a LOT more boys than you do girls. These boys are horny.

I don't think someone thought this through.

Don't forget, they're kidnapping Koreans to make up for the shortfall of women. You want to stop human trafficking? Get them to stop this crazy law.

Neither could I, but I just figured it was some inside joke which finns werent in on, or that I misunderstood some word or something.

It was supposed to be a great reference. Something about how immigrants come in, have more babies than the smart people, and are taking over the world. I failed miserably in the punchline. :(

[bluestarultor]

Don't forget, they're kidnapping Koreans to make up for the shortfall of women. You want to stop human trafficking? Get them to stop this crazy law.

Holy shit!? I'd heard from my dad that Asians in general hate the Chinese (his new wife is Vietnamese), but I thought it was just a general everyone-hates-everyone type thing. Really had no clue the Chinese actually might maybe deserve it. :S

Not that this is necessarily proof or The Reason, but it certainly lends credence to the idea they're not really all that likable.

[Jagos]

Read (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200803/200803030010.html) and weep (http://shanghaiist.com/2009/06/10/jailed_journalists_working_on_stori.php).

Interesting though... Our kidnapped journalists were coming up on this story when they were nabbed by the N. Koreans. Makes you wonder at what else they hide.

[Magus]

It was supposed to be a great reference. Something about how immigrants come in, have more babies than the smart people, and are taking over the world. I failed miserably in the punchline. :(

Well, since the punchline was "RACISM!" since you imply that immigrants are automatically genetically stupider than citi(white people)zens and they all fuck like rabbits, I'd say you were WAY better off with no one knowing what you were saying.

[Kim]

It was supposed to be a great reference. Something about how immigrants come in, have more babies than the smart people, and are taking over the world. I failed miserably in the punchline. :(

Damn stupid immigrants and their damn stupid children. Everyone knows only Americans are smart.

FUCK. NINJA'D.

[Hanuman]

Life is precious, life is good, marry and settle down, have 3.5 children and a dog, drive a SUV so your family doesn't have to face the horrors of biking to their destinations.
Don't throw your life away, life is precious.

We have almost 7,000,000,000 people in this world, expanding at a rate of 10% each year exponentially, something like that, however it is we can't even take care of that many people currently on a world-wide scale (economically).

At what point does life start to become more obnoxious than precious?

[Krylo]

Anyway, I like you guys' hating on population laws despite in theory being a very viable solution to population growth. But in practice they have never worked (China's population continues to grow as women are trafficked in and outlying areas just break the laws).

Though personally I'd prefer increasing the economic standing of countries, since this usually leads to stemming population growth or even decreasing population as people's standard of living increases and they tend to move away from having as many children as possible to work farms and family businesses. This is a much more ethical approach than simply saying, "you can't have more than one child"

And then maybe this might be some of the reason people have problems with it?

Also: Lev, do research.

The population explosions are, as already stated, happening in third world countries, not first world countries. Those people can't afford a bike, much less an SUV. First world countries are showing steady population, decreases in population, OR, where there IS population growth, it is mostly through immigration, not breeding.

Further, trying to institute one, or even two, child laws on third world families would, sure, result in a loss of population--as millions of people starve to death due to having no one healthy enough to bring them food, and not having enough working people in their families to make a livable income.

You can call life obnoxious and be nihilistic or whatever all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the idea is just stupid on multiple levels if you take any time at all to put half a thought into it.

[Magus]

Obviously I meant a one-child option is viable in theory, Krylo, quit sticking facts and statistics in my theory. That was also one of my most well-thought out posts ever, since I pointed out that increasing the standard-of-living in those countries is the more ethically sound choice. This implies that people are against one-child policies because of ethics, belief in freedom, etc., and not necessarily because it wouldn't work given a population that adhered to it.

I just thought there was way too much outrage at the idea, like no one should ever even think of the possibility ever in a million years for anybody ever. I just thought it was funny.

[Krylo]

Well the ethics of forcing a bunch of already poor and destitute people to starve so that first world countries can feel good while driving their hummers and SUVs without actually doing anything to help anyone tends to cause a little bit of outrage.

I mean, sure, it's not even real--but if it were that'd be the basic result.

[Magus]

The implication of the fake article was the entire world, including first-world countries, should adopt the policy. I was working from that angle. But like I said I agree with you on how it would detrimentally affect third-world countries.

[Krylo]

Well first world countries already tend to follow those laws by pure chance. Other than a few fruits like Jon and Kate, most families only have one or two kids these days. I mean, yeah, a FEW first world folks would have to get vasectomies or whatever after their first/second child (otherwise accidents would happen, and then what does the government do?), but really that's not much to sacrifices compared to what poorer countries would be forced to sacrifice--and it's probably gonna make it easier for them to afford their hummers and SUVs.

[Tev]

Right, so it looks like our buddy Glenn Beck is on the case! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580227,00.html)

[Bob The Mercenary]

Since this thread qualifies as a climate change thread...

I have no idea what to make of this. (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans)

[Magus]

Global warming is not real because Hugo Chavez hates America, I guess?

Not sure how Chavez attending a conference where absolutely no one involved is willing to make even the slightest, most tenuous agreement on anything is putting our economy in the hands of "Chavez fans", which I guess is because he got some applause from some people. I mean, THE ENTIRE CROWD BROKE INTO BOISTEROUS APPLAUSE, DANCING IN THE AISLES, MURDERING BALD EAGLES AND BURNING AMERICAN FLAGS.

[Hanuman]

Global Warming? We have easier solved problems on the list, which cost a lot less to solve... why fight against a world that knowingly defies environmental preservation when we could end world hunger, a force no one is opposing first?

[01d55]

Global Warming? We have easier solved problems on the list, which cost a lot less to solve... why fight against a world that knowingly defies environmental preservation when we could end world hunger, a force no one is opposing first?

Well it turns out that climate change is going to totally fuck our food supply. On top of the simple fact that farmers depend on the weather and therefore disrupting that weather will disrupt farming, lots of rice is grown in river deltas near sea level.

[stefan]

the solution to overpopulation isnt to limit children, its to let go of the fucking Earth and start moving elsewhere.

seriously, the moon is right there. if you're worried about gravity than build some O'Neill cylinders.

You can't stop people from fucking, so instead of pretending you have any control over that just start branching into other parts of the universe.

[Tev]

Well we did just find ourselves a giant new water planet (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/79646632.html) that's only like 40 light years away. I say we load up a giant ship with some huge colony submarines and get moving.

[Kepor]

the solution to overpopulation isnt to limit children, its to let go of the fucking Earth and start moving elsewhere.

seriously, the moon is right there. if you're worried about gravity than build some O'Neill cylinders.

You can't stop people from fucking, so instead of pretending you have any control over that just start branching into other parts of the universe.

While I am all for space colonization, I don't think that will be a viable answer to overpopulation because I rather doubt enough people will move off-planet to make a difference.