One Child Policy in America?
Thanks to the EPA everyone is now officially a polluter. CO2, Carbon Dioxide, the stuff we all exhale, is officially a pollutant. Yes, the stuff that helps plants stay green is actually bad for the environment, that is if you believe the government.
The question is why? Since it is becoming clearer and clearer that Global Warming is a hoax and no real science supports carbon dioxide warming the planet, why the EPA decision. Well, I believe the reason is two fold. One, so that even if the Congress fails to pass the Cap and Trade the EPA will just impose it. But I think the other reason is the real one.
Two, this is about population control and forcing people to abort or not have children. Yes, the policy that is currently in place in China is the goal of environmentalists who are communists in the end anyway. Think I am crazy? Take a read of a Canadian journalist who believes the government killing machine in China is a great idea. Global warming can only be stopped if fewer humans exist. Because humans are the enemy. That has always been the real point. People are bad. And now they want to control population in order to achieve their goals. Global warming is just the latest reason to promote their love of death.
You might be saying, "That is just one wacko in Canada". But wait, it is also CNN and apparently a lot of their viewers. Jack Cafferty thinks that if we keep having children their will not be enough stuff and that the problem is “religious fundamentalists” like me. That is right. The reason emerges. These people promote one child per family despite the obvious math dilemma, despite no science to support them, and despite the disastrous effects in China, they still argue for aborting or preventing all children after your first. Why? I believe the answer is in the laying the blame at the feet of fundamentalist. They hate God. Man is in the image of God, and thus, anti-religious people hate man too. They will prevent him from being born if they can. Those who hate God love death. And death is what they hope to deal out when they are promoting this one child policy.
Keep an eye on this subject. It is not over. It will come up for debate again and again. The war on Christians and their families has just begun.
14 Comments:
Lee, the statement about these people hating man because they hate God and man is created in God's image is really an interesting one. Haven't thought about it in that way before, good on ya.
WHAT?!?!
Come on, this is absolute paranoia.
I'm not really sure where I stand on the whole climate change issue. A lot of people are saying a lot of things, and despite each side claiming theirs is the only side supported by 'the evidence', I've seen little in the way of evidence with which to make up my mind.
But this issue of overpopulation IS a growing and pressing problem. My grandparents were born into a world of 2.5 billion people. Now it's almost 7 billion. Populations grow exponentially, which means numbers soon spiral way out of hand.
I can see China's one child policy brings problems and yes it isn't ideal. But it is a practical solution for a country where the population is highly stretched. It's no good just saying 'let the other children be born'. Each child will make demands of their own for resources such as food, water, housing, etc. These don't just appear out of nowhere. The Earth has a finite amount of space and resources. I'm not sure exactly how close we are to maximum capacity, but if the world's population keeps growing, it's only logical that we will reach it eventually.
The one child policy is not about murder or killing people. It is about have a population which can sustain itself, keeping a decent quality of life for those children we DO have.
I seriously doubt the planet's population is highly stretched. We make enough food here in Nebraska to feed most of the world. In fact, the government pays people not to grow stuff. And let us remember that lots of the food we do grow goes to non-food causes like biofuel. That could easily be changed if a situation of needing to feed the masses ever actually occurred. The poverty that does exist in this world is not due to a lack of resources on the planet, that is certain.
The one child policy is about is killing any child that is accidentally conceived. And the one child policy is about taking away my liberty to have kids and to live the way I want to live. The quality of life argument is a materialistic one at best.
Don't believe the overpopulation talk. This planet can easily stand another tripling of the current population. The very fact that this is staring up right now ought to scare everyone. Life and liberty are really at stake in this debate.
"We make enough food here in Nebraska to feed most of the world."
Do you really? Nebraska makes enough food to feed 7 billion people? You might want to double check that.
"In fact, the government pays people not to grow stuff."
The problem isn't having enough people to do the farming, the problem is the amount of farmland (and water, actually). While the number of farmers will grow with the population, the amount of land doesn't.
"The poverty that does exist in this world is not due to a lack of resources on the planet, that is certain."
While I do agree that if we redistribute the world's resources evenly there would probably be enough for everyone, you must see that this won't cannot possibly the case forever if the population continues to soar?
"The one child policy is about is killing any child that is accidentally conceived. And the one child policy is about taking away my liberty to have kids and to live the way I want to live."
Absolute paranoid, scaremongering twaddle. Why would anyone WANT you to have fewer children if it wasn't an overpopulation issue? Not everyone is vindictively out to get you.
"This planet can easily stand another tripling of the current population."
The issue is quality of life. How many people the planet can support is dependant on what quality of life the people want. If everyone lived like the average Indian peasant, the Earth could sustain about 15 billion people. 18 people living like Rwandan refugees. But if everyone demanded the quality of life of the average American? 1.5 billion.
Again, there are almost 7 billion in the world today.
Okay the Nebraska comment was a bit of state pride. You got me on that one.
But who would want me to have less kids? Well, the original post quotes at least two media types, and then you are arguing for it as well. And there is no danger of overpopulation at all.
America is barely at replacement level in the birthrate and most Western nations are in actual decline. China has a one child policy which is below replacement level. Thus, we see the world's population is not increasing as you fear,
Let me use your grandmother example that you used. In 1950 the child per woman ratio for the world was 5.02 and now in 2005 it is 2.5. Replacement level is considered 2.33. 42% of the world currently lives in sub-replacement level birth rate areas. By 2050 the world birth rate is expected to go below replacement level.
With these facts in mind and the recently uncovered evidence of fraud in global warming, why on earth are there people in the media trying to convince people a one child policy is a good idea? The fact that people advocate for this policy despite the evidence is why I do not think it is "twaddle" to be talking about this issue.
I, and the 'media types' are arguing for smaller families because of the dangers of overpopulation. I'm doing doing it out of petty spite or a vindictive hatred of people. That's just ridiculous.
As for population figures, well those can be very misleading. If every Indoneian nation has a falling birth rate, but China has a growing birthrate, the total Asian population will still go up. It doesn't really matter how many countries have a falling or rising birth rate because countries vary in size and population anyway. A 1% increase for one country might equal hundreds of thousands of people.
All that really matters is the TOTAL human population of the planet, and that does nothing but rise, and dramatically.
You say by 2050 the world birth rate is expected to go below replacement level ... expected by whom, exactly?
Here is where I found the projections.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1950-1955,1955-1960,1960-1965,1965-1970,1970-1975,1975-1980,1980-1985,1985-1990,1990-1995,1995-2000,2000-2005,2045-2050&variable_ID=369&theme=4&cID=&ccID=0,1,6,2,3,5,8,7,4
The souce at the bottom reads "Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. 2007. World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision"
Fair play! There's something I didn't know.
Although perhaps it's worth considering exactly WHY the birth rate is expected to hit replacement level. Could it be anything at all to do with the population growing to capacity?
Because while the birth rate may be gradually falling to replacement level, the world's population is still booming and will continue to do so until replacement level is reached. Which in itself would be no bad thing. Even if the birth rate fell under replacement level for a while. It is not something which should be fought against.
Isn't the whole attitude of 'the global population will hit replacement level in a few decades so it's alright - I'll just have an army of children myself' illogical, irresponsible and self-defeating? Isn't it like saying 'the number of litter collectors in my neighbourhood will match the amount of litter being dropped in a few years, so in the meantime it's fine for me to drop as much litter as I want'?
Ritchie,
I think the fact that you just used a comparison in which children are compared to garbage kind of makes Lee's point, maybe even better than Lee did.
Matt
Matt, that's a cute dodge of the point and a cheap hit, but that's all it really is.
The metaphor works because the mentality remains the same in both cases: "I can go on behaving socially irresponsibly because in a few years time other people will pick up the burden I am laying down for them."
And before you pull me up for describing children as a burden, I do not that in a pejorative sense - only a literal one. Every child - every HUMAN - needs certain resources, food, water, shelter, etc. There is no getting away from that. These things have to be provided. The more children you have, the more demands your family makes on society at large. Simple.
I'm sure I hardly need add that I don't LITERALLY equate children to garbage. They are our most precious resource, and we must treasure them and provide as best we can for them.
However, their interests are not best served simply by having as many as we can of them, as you and Lee seem to think. This seems to me more like a recipe for children being born into a world of famine and bitter wars for precious and dwindling resources.
Not the kind of future we all want for our children, I'm sure you'll agree.
Not because I'm some inhuman spawn of Satan who hates children, wants to kill God and see the human race suffer and die.
Ritchie,
But again, you reveal your biases.
Yes, people need food and shelter. But who produces that food and shelter? People. Children, when properly raised and given freedom, will produce far more than they ever consume. Otherwise, how does the human race survive?
Resource problems have been solved many times in the past by the ingenuity of people. There is so much untapped energy in the universe, we need never worry about the quantity of resources available. What we need to worry about is a repressive attitude that views people as burdens and sees a need to control their activities so as to reduce their "footprint". Give people freedom, and people will solve all the problems there are to solve. Whether or not you believe in climate change, the worst thing we could possibly do is to strangle the very innovation that has solved so many problems in the past.
That's why I'm skeptical of climate change. Because the vast majority of the people promoting it are using it to promote the most foolish and idiotic way of dealing with it if it is real- government regulations, taxes and condemnation. I'd believe them a lot more if their solution was to free up the engine of scientific and economic innovation by getting the government out of the way.
"Yes, people need food and shelter. But who produces that food and shelter? People."
But they do so with limited resources. The number of farmers will go up with the population, but the amount of farmland and water with which to irrigate the land will not.
"There is so much untapped energy in the universe, we need never worry about the quantity of resources available."
It is genuinely frightening that you think like this. Yes there is a lot of engery in the universe, but how are we supposed to harness it, exactly? The entire reason there are shortages of resources are people who have that sort of attitude - keeping consuming as much as they like while denying that there is any problem with doing so. People vastly over-consume because they simply don't want to know - they don't want it to be true, so they just deny it's happening. But refusing to face up to problems just makes it worse.
"What we need to worry about is a repressive attitude that views people as burdens and sees a need to control their activities so as to reduce their "footprint"."
No, what we need to worry about is a self-obsessed attitude that views the world as a cashcow to be endlessly milked. Keep putting people in a room and you will run out of space eventually. Keep putting people on an island and you will run out of space eventually. Keep putting people on one planet and you will run out of space eventually. Why is it so difficult to grasp this fundamentally simply mathematical principle? Is it really just plain blinkered denial?
"That's why I'm skeptical of climate change. Because the vast majority of the people promoting it are using it to promote the most foolish and idiotic way of dealing with it if it is real- government regulations, taxes and condemnation. I'd believe them a lot more if their solution was to free up the engine of scientific and economic innovation by getting the government out of the way."
What suggestions do you propose? Because in my experience, when it comes to matters of social responsibility, a worrying large percentage of people just don't want to hear. They ignore you and deny anything bad is happening. So how would you suggest those promoting climate change proceed?
Lee, I think that there's an even more fundamental reason for the humanity-hating: way down underneath, these people know they are guilty (in the sense of fallen), but they don't trust in Christ's provision (perfect life, perfect atonement, Resurrection). Their desire to have humanity kill itself off is essentially an inadvertent but telling way of affirming that all of us by nature deserve God's judgment of death. So, sacrificing man (by killing off the babies) becomes the surrogate atonement.
(The same principle applies to why the "Liberals" are so liberal with passing out our hard-earned tax money to the bloodsuckers: the "Liberal" way down inside feels guilty about all his lavish living, so he tries to expiate his Mammonism by passing out $$$ to those he & his cronies continue to keep in disadvantagement so the bloodsuckers will continue to vote for them---w/o the "disadvantaged," the "Liberals" wouldn't stand a chance @ the polls anymore.)
Discerner
Post a Comment