One child policy advocated in Canada?

financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

What in the world is going on here?

Diane Francis, Financial Post has failed to research other options.

" The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures .... None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed."

Read more: financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438#ixzz0ZIx4CMV3

I would be in favor of a lemming leap. She should round up all of the "expert" journalists on world population and lead the parade over a cliff. That would be a start! :clapping:

That's takin' one for world population Diane. Keep of the good work. ..... oooops! Guess you can't. :shrug:

[quote="vz71, post:1, topic:179210"]
financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

What in the world is going on here?

[/quote]

Diane Francis is a JOURNALIST and like the greater number of JOURNALISTS is entitled to,and usually does speak out of her ***.Please take this cum grano salo or better yet a great laker full.

These Western admirers of China’s one- child- per -couple law never seem mention the massive human rights abuses that are done to acheive one child per couple(See www.pop.org) or Steven Mosher’s A Mother’s ordeal. Of course not-it wouldn’t sell if they did.
And they never seem to detail their idea of HOW one child per couple would be achieved, in their world. Maybe have the HHS bring in a Population office to make sure you had that vasectomy or you still had that IUD in place? Automatically sterilize each woman after delivery # 2?
Of course you would have to bring in compulsory abortion, sterilization and birth control, there’s no way you could limit births by force without doing so.

This woman is not exactly an admirer of all things Chinese-She is a foamin’-at-the-mouth Capitalist who is a FINANCIAL writer.I think a comment posted on her blog by one of her readers sums it up nicely:

"Population control policies are not only immoral, but they also yield catastrophic unintended consequences on various social and economic aspects. Just think about female infanticides and/or rate of children sent to adoption due to the 1 child restriction policy, and their impact on male to female demographic ratio. You should also realize that your precious government retirement pensions, social programs and welfare depend on population and economic growth. Imagine the impact of the inversion of the demographic pyramid on retirement pension programs. Soon there will not be enough active taxpayers to maintain these programs in certain places (i.e. Quebec) due to the aging population, imagine how much worse it would get with population control policies.

The last thing we need is bureaucrats delivering birth permits. What would you do to people who do not follow the 1 baby rule? Throw them in jail? How would you find them? Put in place a national baby squad? Hand out rewards for citizens who would spie and report on their neighbors?

So called “specialists” have been predicting the earth’s population capacity for centuries now and were always proved wrong by new technological findings and by the will of humankind to prosper. The earth is NOT overpopulated. If it’s natural ressources could not sustain the current population the growth rates would naturally follow and plateau, yet populations are still growing.

Finally I would like to end this on a personal note. I’m seeing from your picture Ms Francis that you are likely past the age of having children(ZING!!!). It is pretty selfish of people of your generation to advocate placing arbitrary boundaries on the size of my future family knowing that you enjoyed the freedom of deciding what was best for yours. The irony is hat you will probably not live the see the supposed negative effects of the earth’s overpopulation, yet you claim to know what is best for us. Won’t you please just trust me and my unborn children to take the right decisions if and when problems arise. Thanks but no thanks, I don’t need your concern and certainly don’t need your facist solutions.":smiley:

I think it’s not true, scare tactics and taking away our freedom… the German population for example is already on the decline with 1.3 statistical kids per family… large families are rare and in most cases we are stable with 2 per family… It’s just another way to try and control the people… just remember the “Georgia Guidestones”… They were put up in June 1979.
As we all know the current human population is about 6.5 Billion…
The guidestones however read the following as goals:
[LIST=1]
*]Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
*]Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
*]Unite humanity with a living new language.
*]Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
*]Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
*]Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
*]Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
*]Balance personal rights with social duties.
*]Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
*]Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature
[/LIST]
Maintain the population under 1/2 Billion? We can’t maintain something that isn’t there, so how do they think they can get rid of 6 Billion people?
By the way… if we would go ahead and take all of Texas and built up living quarters to populate it as densely as Cairo, Egypt, we could make room for about 21,988,683,262 people… That’s more than 3 times the current population of the world…
With a population as dense as Cairo we could also easily fit the world’s population into Surat, India… and still have room to spare.

True enough, but I have never liked that argument. It does not address the issue, but rather sidesteps it.
It does not matter if we can fit everyone on the planet into Texas (or wherever).
The question of overpopulation needs to address food supply and infrastructure, not population density.

It makes arguing against overpopulation alarmists more difficult, but I still consider it the debate equivelant of the high road.

An awful silliness. Just what do they think is a “balance with nature”? Mountain lions coming through their windows at night and snatching their children? (used to do that here long ago) Elk as big as horses knocking their doors down, entering and tearing the place to pieces? (they’ll do that. I’ve seen it.)

It just amazes me that lots of these kinds of people don’t realize people are PART of nature and have been for untold millenia. No man alive today (or, indeed, for thousands of years) has ever seen, outside Antarctica and some arctic areas, any segment of the world’s land mass that has NOT been managed, and for a long time, by human beings. No person alive today can, no matter where he goes, see a truly “primeval” temperate zone forest. Nor can he even visit the Amazon basin and know what a tropical forest, unaltered by man, might have ever looked like.

I have often thought people with such an overidealized vision of nature should be dropped naked, cold and wet into the middle of a forest.
Let them experience nature first hand for 24 hours.

Perhaps at the end of their ordeal they will have a new found respect for the free society we live in.

While I do think overpopulation could become a big problem in upcoming decades a one child policy like China has I donlt think is the best way to handle that problem. And really how would you inforce such a thing world wide? Forced sterlizations? prison time? Of course I think something will need to be done but to say a one child policy is the only solution is just wrong imo.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.