The first thing this AM, I posted a warning about the potential of a Draconian population control tyranny being imposed on the world by global warming hysterics. And now–how timely–the idea is pushed from Canada, of all places. A writer in the Financial Post claims that the rest of the world will have to emulate the Chinese if we are to keep the planet from melting. From the column by Diane Francis:
The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies. None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.
Can you believe it? China–an unmitigated tyranny–has become, among the hysterics like the NYT’s Thomas Friedman and this writer, the country with policies worth emulating! Not one word decrying the terrible human rights violations of imposed abortion, female infanticide, and China’s explicitly eugenics policies.
And yet, we are told the global warming agenda is so progressive, so humane. Anyone who doesn’t see the potential that global warming could become the pretext for destroying human freedom and imposing death culture policies just isn’t paying attention.
Update: Somebody is clearly pushing this meme, because promoting radical population control is also in today’s Telegraph, absent extolling China.
December 10th, 2009 | 5:26 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Global Warming Hysteria:… http://bit.ly/62kFgK [...]
December 10th, 2009 | 5:51 pm
Quite shocking. It’s actually almost surprising, almost. It’s as if the hysterics have a side bet on which can one-up the other in outrageous rhetoric—practical application or consequences be damned!
December 10th, 2009 | 6:32 pm
What a joke. China’s one child policy, in addition to being brutal and funded by the US taxpayer, will destroy China before it gets rich or it will make it a temporary power. Hence the saying China will grow old before it gets rich. They haven’t enough young people to pay for the social costs of the nation with so low a percentage of young people. And they are so out of wack in ratio of boys to girls that they are bound to have tremendous social unrest. This policy will destroy their nation. It’s stupid. No wonder these guys like it.
December 10th, 2009 | 8:01 pm
An unmitigated tyranny, yes, of course. But this passage struck me:
“Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food…”
Has she ever been to China? A number of regions in China have had serious problems with famine and food shortage, there are countless homeless and desperately impoverished, and heaven help you if you find yourselves relying on Chinese “health care.”
December 10th, 2009 | 9:23 pm
If the author thinks that China is so great, she should do us all a favor and go live there.
December 10th, 2009 | 10:29 pm
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Anybody else read W.E.B. Dubois crooning over Mao’s China? The commie sympathizers. They’re baaaaaaack.
December 11th, 2009 | 12:25 am
I hate to say it, Wesley, but this is not a new push.
I have been hearing this from global warming-aware folks for a few years. Recently, I was the target of much ridicule and vitriole for daring to argue–on a feminist board, no less– that reproductive freedom included being able to be free of coercive policies geared toward limiting family size.
One aspect of the argument is that we in the developed world will be harming developing world people by our population. But I haven’t been able to get the whole rationale for this, yet.
I also argued that it is ridiculous to set up tyrannical policies about childbearing, when there are so many other places you can intrude on people’s lives before that! :)
December 11th, 2009 | 2:13 am
Our current entitlement crisis is due, in large part, to the dramatic shift in demographics we’ve experienced in the United States. When Social Security was adopted, there were about 40 workers for every retiree. It may have been a Ponzi scheme from the git-go, but it was a sustainable one. Now there are 3.3 workers per retiree, and the ration is expected to drop to 2 in coming decades. Taxing the workers at a level necessary to sustain the retirees damages the economy, as we are now witnessing. (This argument, of course, does not address the deeper issue of the loss of the essential joy of life which would result from our having fewer children.)
December 11th, 2009 | 1:42 pm
The one good thing about the article is at least the writer is honest with what she thinks needs to be done to reach her enviromental goals. The crux of the radical enviromental movment is humans are the enemy, less humans = less problems.
Unfortunately these ideas are starting to trickle down to the everyday. At a work party yesterday a coworker was lamenting to me about the worlds overpopulation and the extinction of the earth. I sat there and took it all in 6 months pregnant with my sixth child. It’s doom and gloomers like that that make me want to have a 7th.
December 11th, 2009 | 3:19 pm
Anyone who looks at demographics will see that, world population is not growing because we continue to breed like crazy, we have, because of medical advances, stopped dying. There are not enough young people to support the aging population and China is a perfect example of this – it is already starting to happen – no one to take care of mommy and daddy except the one kid. Of course the next answer is obvious, impose one child and kill off the old folks to ease the economic burden and you are in the never ending death spiral.
December 11th, 2009 | 3:39 pm
In June of 2000 Diane Francis was saying that “abortion is nobody else’s business except the woman who decides she must undergo such a procedure,” and that any law that would “force someone to have a child she did not want … would be an act of state-sanctioned violence.”
It appears her objections to ‘state sanctioned violence’ against women and the children they bear are rather, um, fluid.
My mother lectured me on the dangers of overpopulation, and my father was commending India’s policy of paying men to have vasectomies back when I was pregnant with our third child.
I told them then that the world was not overpopulated and showed them the math. Their response was to say they flatly did not believe it- they had too much faith in the media’s relentless insistence on overpopulation.
That baby, btw, is now 19, and we have seven precious children, and a grandchild.
December 12th, 2009 | 7:00 pm
The real threat to humanity is not the Global Warming Lie, it is people like Diane Francis. Diane Francis ironically has 2 Children of her own. I wonder which one she would sacrifice in order to “save the planet”? Maybe Communist China’s Birth Control Office would be willing to snatch one of Diane Francis’ children up and do away with them for the “good” of the planet?
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n…..iew/18338/
Maybe they could come along and kidnap Mrs. Francis herself and force sterilize her?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…..733835.ece
I wonder if Mrs. Francis truly believes in what she is campaigning for? Is she willing to put her money, or should I say her Children, or Herself, where her mouth is?
Dave Nash
Cross Canada Run For The Children
http://www.crosscanadarun4thechildren.com
December 12th, 2009 | 7:04 pm
As the first post didn’t work, here are those links again:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/18338/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5733835.ece
Dave Nash
http://www.crosscanadarunforthechildren.com
December 14th, 2009 | 9:29 am
If there is global warming, we would be better off as a world to plan in dealing with its effects. Any wilderness canoeist knows that some things are just bigger than us, and our chances of survival are better waiting them out than challenging them. Thinking we can control a force of nature as big as climate change by picayune methods like population suppression of the poor, is just the worst kind of scapegoating.
January 1st, 2010 | 3:44 pm
I can’t help but think of Peter Sellers et al. at the end of Dr. Strangelove…except they were talking about repopulating the planet.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact