Diane Francis has called for a global one child policy.
Diane Francis has called for a global one and only one child per woman policy to be put in place. Essentially, let's take the Chinese policy and make it global. According to her this is the only way that we can deal with climate change.
Diane Francis has two children herself meaning that she's a nominee for the hypocrite of the month award. It is of course terribly naughty to insist that others should be prevented, at the point of a gun, from doing what you have already done yourself.
However, there's more to it than just this. Ms. Francis has also shown that she's not bothered to find out anything about climate change either.
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.
But the thing is that this isn't the only way at all. A quick glance at birth rates around the world will show you that rich countries have birth rates (the US is different for reasons of high immigration) below replacement level. The populations of rich countries, without immigration, would be static at best or falling. So we know that getting rich means that populations can shrink.
And this is where knowledge about climate change is so important. This assumption is already built into the science of climate change. This is the SRES, the set of economic models upon which the IPCC reports are built.
In the A1 scenario family, demographic and economic trends are closely linked, as affluence is correlated with long life and small families (low mortality and low fertility). Global population grows to some nine billion by 2050 and declines to about seven billion by 2100.
See, there is another way to having a falling population. Simply carry on with capitalism and globalization and it will naturally fall as everyone gets rich.
Comments
The overwhelming impression that this writer leaves (and it is characteristic of so much of the response, in the MSM and the religious community to what Diane Francis has courageously suggested) is of an astoundingly callous, uncaring insensitivity to the present, staggering effects on the animal kingdom, and on natural vegetative regimes and wildlife habitat the planet over, of the existing 6-billion humans upon our earth - quite apart from the impacts of population growth on CO2 emissions. On this score, a correlation should be self-evident. Common sense should surely dictate that.
So, which of her two children does Ms. Francis propose to sacrifice on the altar of Climage Change?
"Courageously suggest?" Give me a flippin' break. Telling other people how to live their lives (while doing what she pleases) isn't exactly courage.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!