Did the title get your attention? Maybe I should rephrase that so I don’t end up in the principal’s office again. Nah. For starters, you need to read this article from Canada’s National Post by Diane Francis. Here are some excerpts:
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.
-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.
-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.
-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.
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.
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.
The point is that Copenhagen’s talking points are beside the point.
The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.
- Point number 1- We’ve been through this before. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote the now infamous book The Population Bomb. The book essentially claimed that within 20 years the world would begin to see mass starvation because the world could not feed that many people. Well, he was wrong. Agricultural science continued to advance and to be shared with poorer countries. These advances produced hardier crops with higher yields so that the farmers of the world were able to produce more than enough food to avoid mass starvation.
- Point number 2- Most of the people who support these population limiting ideas also support massive government programs that are dependent on taxes to continue functioning. They would have to give up all their delusions of universal health care, social security, welfare, etc. Why? Because each successive generation of people paying taxes would be smaller than the one going into retirement and drawing on the system. We are already seeing this with social security as baby boomers retire and their children can’t support the system because there are not enough people paying into it. Government social programs will collapse.
- Point number 3- The people who support population limits have a low view of humanity. You see, people are no better than plants or animals and should stop expressing their dominance over creation by killing ourselves off so that nature can find balance and harmony again. Gag me with a spoon. This is a distorted view of the world and of the value of human life. A policy like this would lead to the forced abortions and sterilizations of millions of people and brings to mind the horrors of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.You will see a glut of male children and a lack of female children as cultures that value males more than females will continue to do what has been happening for decades in Chine and India: the killing of baby girls. These ideas of population control come from the same twisted rationale that leads to eugenics, genocide, and foeticide.
- Point number 4- As with the false predictions of overpopulation in the 1960s, advances is science will likely make the current fears moot as well. It is entirely possible that within 20-40 years, earth will not be the only place that people can live in our solar system. I know, this sounds like science fiction, but it is closer than we think. Space agencies across the globe continue to work towards the current holy grail of manned space flight which is the establishment of a permanent base on a planetary body (or moon) other than earth. Technology will continue to advance at a breakneck pace and with that will undoubtedly come advances in propulsion that will make travel off planet a far more reasonable proposition than it is now. Plus, private companies continue to make their own advances in providing commercial travel experiences that take people outside of earth’s atmosphere. God has gifted human beings with a great curiosity and capacity for problem solving. Attempting to limit the population is not a very creative or practical idea. The resources spent to try and implement such a plan would be better used trying to advance the science that would make a burgeoning population a non-issue because earth will not be the only place people could live.