# A Global One Child Policy?



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2009)

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.


This is the kind of stuff that is being discussed at the Copenhagen Convention.  To discuss this convention, check out this thread.  To discuss this, post here!


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 12, 2009)

Are they forgetting how many millions of people DIE over the same time period. Nature has and ALWAYS will find ways to balance out any over population problem... either letting mankind destroy large numbers via wars or through pandemics like the flu and black death plague... 

My first thought on reading that is how about a NO child policy until ALL the children waiting for adoption are given homes... THEN start deciding how many children folks should have. Sheesh... 

My current flame will be unable to bear children (for health reasons) so we both discussed it long and deeply and opted for adoption when thing$ get good enough for us to do so. 

There are millions of children across the planet who need a good home. How about taking responsibility for them if folks want to have a child.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 12, 2009)

Anyone who thinks there are too many people in the world is perfectly free to step up and take one for the team.  Otherwise... my body, my choice.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 12, 2009)

I'm not into having kids ... but the thought of other people thinking about it makes me want to have a whole litter.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2009)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm



> COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .
> 
> 
> "Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.
> ...



Looks like some form of population control, be it a one child policy, or something more extreme, is a serious topic among delegations seeking a binding international agreement at Copenhagen.  How did we get to the point where this soul-less genocidal totalitarian control injected its way into the debate?


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 12, 2009)

How do we enforce it in third world countries? Or in nations not party to the agreements?


----------



## girlbug2 (Dec 13, 2009)

That these discussions are even going on scares me. Look up the plot synopsis for the film Fortress. It's not a great film by any means but the similarities to the ideas in that article are astounding. I think it presents a possible direction for a one-child global policy, and it's not pretty.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> How do we enforce it in third world countries? Or in nations not party to the agreements?



No kidding.  Maybe we find another use for our military...or I should say the UN's military.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 13, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> No kidding.  Maybe we find another use for our military...or I should say the UN's military.


If they can get enough of the same mind set then the Smurfs will be more than happy to enforce whatever ruling that there is.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 13, 2009)

Our President has surrounded himself with people who believe in this sort of stuff.



> p. 837: 'Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.'


 
From a book published in the 1970's called _Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment..._co-authored by none other than our SCIENCE CZAR John Holdren.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 13, 2009)

Preaching population control in nations where the birth rate is already declining always seemed silly. On top of that, if we do over populate, there are plenty of natural mechanisms in place to remedy that. (Famine, disease, war, disasters...)


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2009)

> Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?
>  Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
> 
> 
> ...



Look into the minds of the people at Copenhagen and it becomes readily apparent that these crazy policies are not far fetched to them.  They are deadly serious about them.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 13, 2009)

Betcha that all of those eggheads have no intention of subjucting themselves or THEIR loved ones to this eco-utopia they envisage. Communism in practice illustrates that it's ALWAYS about those with the power becoming kings while the rest are serfs.


----------



## xJOHNx (Dec 13, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Are they forgetting how many millions of people DIE over the same time period. Nature has and ALWAYS will find ways to balance out any over population problem... either letting mankind destroy large numbers via wars or through pandemics like the flu and black death plague...
> 
> My first thought on reading that is how about a NO child policy until ALL the children waiting for adoption are given homes... THEN start deciding how many children folks should have. Sheesh...
> 
> ...


That's exactly how I feel about the world.

I'm able to have kids, but I'll adopt anyway. Would be crazy for me not to do so.

@ Archangel: this has nothing to do with communism. Or any other idea of the red side.
It's about control, extreme right-wing control. Under the banner of ecology.
Makes my friends and me who actually go out and pick up trash in the forests, vomit.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 13, 2009)

Oh. I know that this isnt about political ideology. I just used Communism as an example because "in theory" it's about the public having the means of production...workers liberation etc. etc. but in practice power concentrates in the Party leadership and its Kings/Serfs all over again.

This eco-political crap is the same/same. Guys like Gore preach the message then fly back to their mansions in their private jets.


----------



## xJOHNx (Dec 13, 2009)

Misinterpreted what you said, my mistake. 

And yes the gap between all talk and no walk is immense.
But then again, we all have the potential to start our own positive domino effect.
As V said it:
"the people shouldn't be afraid of their governement, the governement should be afraid of it's people". So show your governement how it's done.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 13, 2009)

Marginal said:


> there are plenty of natural mechanisms in place to remedy that. (Famine, disease, war, disasters...)


 
Ninjas.


----------



## girlbug2 (Dec 13, 2009)

xJOHNx said:


> I have literally never heard anybody link ecology with extreme right wing control.:lol: At first I thought I had misread this. Didn't you mean left wing control? None of these guys sound like conservatives to me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2009)

girlbug2 said:


> I have literally never heard anybody link ecology with extreme right wing control.:lol: At first I thought I had misread this. Didn't you mean left wing control? None of these guys sound like conservatives to me.



I don't think the traditional labels of liberal and conservative apply here, because both sides have been party to implementing this agenda.  For example, the Left has been responsible for limiting our personal freedoms with attacking the 2nd amendment and other things and the Right has vastly increased the corporations ability to collude with government and exert power over us.  The end result works gradually toward the neo-feudalistic fascist end and calls into question the integrity of the party system in our politics.  We can look at these quotes and see what they want and we can look at the major parties and see how both are bringing us toward that end.  The more we switch back and forth, the faster we hurtle towards it.

About ten years ago, I worked for the Liberal side of this duality and it took 9/11 to wake me up to the fact that there were *major* problems with what was going on.  In 2004, I kept telling my conservative friends that if we let Bush keep doing what he was doing, we'd really be in trouble when a Democrat got into office.  Unfortunately, it looks like that scenario is playing out.  

This one child policy is just an example of the things that I think we are going to really have to fight because it IS coming down the pipe towards us.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 13, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> This one child policy is just an example of the things that I think we are going to really have to fight because it IS coming down the pipe towards us.



It's right up there with silver unitards and flying cars.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2009)

Marginal said:


> It's right up there with silver unitards and flying cars.



I could handle a silver unitard and I could support a world government that would move us more toward Star Trek, but these guys don't seem interested in that.  It's the kind of thinking above that will stagnate our species and lock us onto this planet forever.


----------



## xJOHNx (Dec 13, 2009)

girlbug2 said:


> xJOHNx said:
> 
> 
> > I have literally never heard anybody link ecology with extreme right wing control.:lol: At first I thought I had misread this. Didn't you mean left wing control? None of these guys sound like conservatives to me.
> ...


----------



## SensibleManiac (Dec 13, 2009)

> "Anyone who thinks there are too many people in the world is perfectly free to step up and take one for the team. Otherwise... my body, my choice."


Although killing ourselves isn't the solution, population control is a very important issue, how to go about it? I have no clue.

I don't know where to begin.

Overpopulation IS a serious issue that is happening and will become an eventual problem.
As for the means that nature applies to correct that, that is exactly the problem, that nature will find a way and we won't be able to deal with the repercussions.
A pandemic, ( the true kind not h1N1 propaganda.) natural disaster, potentially causing a nuclear holocaust...
All these are possibilities we should work to avoid.
As to how to accomplish this, I have no idea.
How to implement a one child policy? I'll admit it's very unrealistic and wreaks of fascism.
After one child is born what do they do then, sterilize the couple? 
Like somone also brought up what about third world nations?

I know one thing, the future IS now and there are definite changes that need to be made.
Abundant energy cheap and clean is an immediate possibility, as well as taking part in the symbiotic nature of our world. That is working in conjunction with nature as opposed to against it.
Ultimately we need to rid the world of politics, fear, superstition, and use logic to implement true sustainability.

Despite all this I believe it can be done. Call me a humanist and a dreamer but I believe we have it in us to survive along with nature.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 13, 2009)

I'm sure that you would be able to have more than one child...at a substantial Tax penalty of course.


----------



## girlbug2 (Dec 13, 2009)

SensibleManiac said:


> Although killing ourselves isn't the solution, population control is a very important issue, how to go about it? I have no clue.
> 
> I don't know where to begin.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you completely, except for your last paragraph. Your own sentence above in bold is the reason. Politics, fear and superstition -- those things are an inextricable part of human nature and have always been our downfall. The only way to eliminate them is to change us into something other than human.

My faith in the existence of a higher power and intellect is what keeps me from despair over the future of the planet and humanity.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 13, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I could handle a silver unitard and I could support a world government that would move us more toward Star Trek, but these guys don't seem interested in that.  It's the kind of thinking above that will stagnate our species and lock us onto this planet forever.


I don't think such a policy is likely. It's not feasible.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2009)

Marginal said:


> I don't think such a policy is likely. It's not feasible.



Something like that would have to be phased in over time.  The point is that it is being discussed.  You know, here's a movie that you can watch that details the ties these people these these words have to eugenics.


----------



## David43515 (Dec 14, 2009)

xJOHNx said:


> That's exactly how I feel about the world.
> 
> I'm able to have kids, but I'll adopt anyway. Would be crazy for me not to do so.
> 
> ...


 
Extreme control, Yes. Right wing? No. All these comments are coming from the left.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 14, 2009)

David43515 said:


> Extreme control, Yes. Right wing? No. All these comments are coming from the left.


 
It's a neat little right/left context shifting thing they do so that the answer comes out the way they want it.  Yes, fascism is right-wing if you're talking about European politics where socialism is pretty much a given.  It's not right-wing in an American sense.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> It's a neat little right/left context shifting thing they do so that the answer comes out the way they want it.  Yes, fascism is right-wing if you're talking about European politics where socialism is pretty much a given.  It's not right-wing in an American sense.



I think we pretty much have the same thing over here, except that there is a Libertarian undercurrent in both the Left and the Right that's been slowly stripped out of both parties.  We are seeing a bi-partisan counterculture forming that is based on freedom and liberty.  More and more people are waking up on both sides.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 14, 2009)

In terms of the population debate, Thomas Malthus and his followers have yet to be proved correct in over 200 years. Overpopulation is a problem in peoples minds because it's an easy concept to grasp, not because it's true. People associate a number of problems with overpopulation as if overpopulation itself is the problem, when in reality the lack of technological use, resource allocation, group behavioral change and political will are at the roots of almost all of them. The world population is still on the rise, but the rate of increase has declined steadily for decades, and is projected to level off nearly completely in the next 50 years. We absolutely have the resources and capacity to deal with the current and projected future population, we just don't.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 14, 2009)

blindsage said:


> In terms of the population debate, Thomas Malthus and his followers have yet to be proved correct in over 200 years. Overpopulation is a problem in peoples minds because it's an easy concept to grasp, not because it's true. People associate a number of problems with overpopulation as if overpopulation itself is the problem, when in reality the lack of technological use, resource allocation, group behavioral change and political will are at the roots of almost all of them. The world population is still on the rise, but the rate of increase has declined steadily for decades, and is projected to level off nearly completely in the next 50 years. We absolutely have the resources and capacity to deal with the current and projected future population, we just don't.



QFT: I am of the opinion that the end of mankind is not going to be an "apocalypse" as much as it's going to be a "dwindling". As resources become scarcer, there will just be fewer of us.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 15, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Something like that would have to be phased in over time.  The point is that it is being discussed.


Lots of things are discussed. It doesn't mean they can or will be implemented.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Lots of things are discussed. It doesn't mean they can or will be implemented.



True enough.  However, when things of this nature are discussed, people who pay attention and take political action are going to influence the system to make sure they DON'T happen.  Sitting back and assuming they won't because it's crazy isn't going to help.  History is full of crazy things I'm sure lots of people said would never happen.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Dec 15, 2009)

girlbug2 said:


> I agree with you completely, except for your last paragraph. Your own sentence above in bold is the reason. Politics, fear and superstition -- those things are an inextricable part of human nature and have always been our downfall. The only way to eliminate them is to change us into something other than human.
> 
> My faith in the existence of a higher power and intellect is what keeps me from despair over the future of the planet and humanity.



By humanism I believe we have it in us to find a way and do it.

If you believe in a higher power then surely that power must have put the ability to survive in harmony in place.
I guess it boils down to what you believe harmony is as well as what you believe that higher power is.
Maybe where we differ is that I don't believe politics, fear and superstition are an inextricable part of humanity.

Maybe we learn them and can be rid of them if we really wanted to?


----------

