Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

A worldwide "One Child Policy" Law?

Yikes... and this from the National Post?
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.
Of course, you know the Muslim world will never go for this, as their birthrate FAR exceeds our Western nations.

Here's an idea, why don't we just name this international law, "Let's make it even easier to take over the West!"

h/t SDA



  • At Thu. Dec. 10, 01:14:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    but, assuming the muslims did partake, what would you think of the principle of the policy?

    Mike Wisniewski

  • At Thu. Dec. 10, 02:01:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I suggest you look at fertility rates around the world. E.g.,

    China's one child policy is "the only way"? Is there ANY evidence to support this claim? China does not have the lowest fertility rate in the world. Parts of China that may be exempt from the one child policy (certainly Taiwan and perhaps also Macau and Hong Kong) have lower fertility rates than the mainland. Many other countries have fertility rates that are below the replacement rate. Including Canada. Even countries with a majority muslim population make the list. Tunisia. Iran. Algeria.

    But of course most of the countries with low fertility rates are the highly developed countries. Japan. South Korea. Germany. Austria. France. Canada. And so on. So if there was a global "one child policy", it would be aimed at, and would most affect, the "non-western countries" (i.e., the developing world).

    So fear not, CC. The policy would not about "taking over the West.

    Two final points:

    1. We don't have a population problem so much as a consumption problem: what we consume and how we consume it. To frame this as a population problem is either distraction or scare tactic (or both).

    2. I am sure that a deeper analysis of the statistics (of which I am, unfortunately, incapable) would reveal that the Muslim population's birthrate has little to do with their Muslim-ness per se.


  • At Thu. Dec. 10, 02:51:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Jeremy Andrews said…

    China is pulling back from this law anyway. Overpopulation statistics are wildly skewed. As Gandhi said, (I paraphrase): "There is more than enough resources for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed." The West is greedy, and uses far more than its share of the world's resources. This hasn't been as a big of an issue in the past, but with the development of a burgeoning middle class in India, China, and many other places, other places are soon going to demand their "fair" share of world resources, which basically means a bigger slice of that finite pie.

  • At Thu. Dec. 10, 03:04:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    BTW, I take issue with the the tag "loony lefties" for reasons I mentioned in my last comment. Unless Diane Francis and the National Post are "loony lefty."

  • At Thu. Dec. 10, 03:19:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It seems to me that this is the final logical conclusion to the global warming agenda.

    Kyoto failed,therefore more action is needed.Any agreement at Copenhagen will also fail.Eventually it will boil (pun intended) down to population.

    All this assumes that the planet is not only warming but that it is caused by Man and that this warming will lead to catastrophic damage.It probably is not that severe. It is on this point saner heads will prevail.


  • At Thu. Dec. 10, 03:46:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Well said Jeremy!

    Anon1152, I suggest that you look into some of what's going on in Europe right now. There's a serious "backlash" going on over Muslim immigration, and growing fear that due to higher birthrates, the Muslim minority will eventually become the "majority" within a few decades. As such, there may be bloodless "takeovers" in the not to distant future.

    And I tagged this as "loony lefties" because the very idea is from way off in left field... as in "looney lefty ideas". ;-)

  • At Thu. Dec. 10, 04:20:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Still disagree with the "looney left" tag... unless Diane Francis is way off in left field. (I know, I know, she was catching a leftist fly ball and throwing it back to home plate).


    I'm disturbed by what's happening in Europe Re: Islam. (I mean, Switzerland banning Minarets? Why not Church Steeples? And don't get me started on that National Party campaign (with the images of the white sheep kicking a black sheep off the Swiss flag)...

    But I think that the fears are overblown. In a recent article I read that the Netherlands' tighter immigration policies could be attributed to the Pim Fortuyn killing. Then I looked for news reports at the time... and found that the assassin was a blond haired blue eyed dutch born guy. Closing the borders in response to that doesn't seem logical.

    Muslims in France, for example, seem to have favourable perceptions of others (and vice versa). Interesting data here:

    Some hopeful. Some scary.

    I'm not sure there is any more reason to worry about Muslims coming to the west than, say, there were fears about the Irish or Eastern Europeans or Jews coming to North America.

    I suspect that in a few decades we will not think that the Muslim population will or has taken over, since "they" will be less distinguishable from "us".

    For the same reason, I don't believe that "white people" will be a minority in the United States in a few years... If past patterns continue, we'll just change the definition of "white" to include more people.



Post a Comment

<< Home