Mother of Two Wants Global One Child Policy
December 11th, 2009 | by Sqotty |According to Diane Francis, the mother of two columnist at the Financial Post in Canada:
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.
That’s right, another “do as I say, not as I do” Leftie-Moonbat wants to tell the world how many children you can have, never mind the fact that in the U.S. such a law would not pass Constitutional muster, and would be rejected in many other parts of the world.
The reason China was able to pull of its one-child policy is because it is a totalitarian dictatorship, and not a society made up of free peoples. In China, if you don’t do what the government tells you to do, you end up in a gulag, or in a grave with a bullet in the back of your head. In China, forced abortions are a requirement should a woman become pregnant with a second child. There is no choice in the matter; no freedom, either. You do as you’re told.
Francis, mother of two, wants a global law that would dictate that people can have one, and only one child. The sovereignty of nations be damned with forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations would be the new rule of the day.
She further asserts that if such a plan is not adopted, or doing nothing, the Earth will have “an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.” Of course, this is nonsense. People have for decades been pushing population control with dire predictions that have failed to materialize (think “The Population Bomb”).
Francis continues her piece with rhetoric about how Carbonhagen will be about photo-ops (she’s right about that) and climate fraud then jumps into scare tactics about the growing populations turning land into deserts and disappearing elephants.
In one book I read, Mad Cowboy, which presents reasons for living a vegetarian lifestyle (I’d go nuts without some good red meat every now and again), Lyman notes that if the world were to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, the Earth could support a global population of some 60 BILLION people. As Ag tech is continuously improving, this number could go higher.
And, even if there isn’t the capability now to support nine billion people on Earth, by 2050, if the global warming alarmists are right, there will be significantly more farmable land as northern climes become, once again, more hospitable to farming. Kind of like Greenland was during the Medieval Warming Period a thousand years ago.
Another option that is attainable with today’s tech to help mitigate over-population, without draconian dictatorial laws, is space colonization. That is a topic too big for this post, however it is a viable option for the millennia to come.
What bugs the heck out of me is when people like Francis, mother of two, decides that the China model of “one child” per family should be the law of the world, yet she has not practiced what she is preaching. Same is true with all those other world “leaders” who think such a law is a good idea.
After writing the above, I took a look at the comments on Francis’ blog, and there are a lot concerning her advocating a global one child policy while she herself has two children. I doubt she’ll ever read those comments as she hasn’t touched that blog in nearly four years. Her own website does not even reference the old blogger site but does reference a National Post blog.
Tags: Franci, Global Warming, One Child Policy, Totalitarianism








One Response to “Mother of Two Wants Global One Child Policy”
By Bill Ferencz on Apr 25, 2010 | Reply
I wholeheartedly agree with Diane Francis.
While you do not like this point of view, as you are thinking with your heart only, we will eventually have no choice.
Your view of a Utopian government has the maintenance of a democratic government at all times. The world does not work that way, as history shows, include the recent US policy following 9/11.
Things happen, we evolve and we have to change. Documents, such as bibles and constitutions are a guide and are for the era they have been written in.
You need to get over the fact that things stay the same.
Is the one child policy draconian? Absolutely. Is it necessary? Absolutely.
As for your suggestions:
- with more farmable land up north would come a lot less in the southern climates, where most of the population lives
- global warming is not a myth, although I do believe that the human impact on this natural earth cycle is less than advertised; still it’s a fact
- 9 billion by 2050 is not a myth, all you have to do is count
- living a vegetarian lifestyle is not possible where vegetation doesn’t (or will not) exist
- space colonization is a good idea but we do not have the time or the resources to realize this plan, until it is too late for millions of people
Draconian and alarmist are words a lot of people like to use, including you. How about planning and action though? I am sick of fat consumers not giving a rats as about the future of the planet or the living creatures on it.