A vision of pure meaninglessness 7

The Canadian journalist Diane Francis has written an article in the Financial Post, expressing the opinion that the whole world should adopt China’s one-child-only policy in order to reduce the world’s population.

The environmentalists hold to the view, as little fact-based as all their views tend to be, that over-population is a threat, when in fact most countries, notably all of Europe and Japan, have precisely the opposite problem: birth-rates so low that the Italians, the Irish, the Spanish, the Portuguese (all predominantly Catholic countries, note) as well as the British, the Scandinavians, the Russians, the Japanese are literally dying out.

The environmentalist view is that human beings are messy creatures, doing more harm than good to the planet. The Green vision is of a clean, nay a pure planet. In truth, their ideal could only be realized by the total elimination of the filthy human species.

Here’s what Diane Francis has to say:

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.

The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate. [This is the sheerest nonsense – JB]

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

The intelligence behind this is the following:

-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.

-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.

Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it. Medical and other scientific advances have benefited by delivering lower infant mortality rates as well as longevity. Both are welcome, but humankind has not yet recalibrated its behavior to account for the fact that especially if billions get indoor plumbing and cars.

The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.

None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.

China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food [this has long been a popular myth on the Left – JB], and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet. [What sense can be made of this statement? – JB]

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.

Impose, impose, impose. And because ‘over-population’ is a world problem, there must be a World Authority with the power to impose its will on every single one of us. Totalitarianism on a scale that Lenin could only have dreamed of.

This is neo-Malthusianism. Human beings are not as Malthus or this lady imagines them.

Diane Francis’s article is typical of the thinking of the Left. It is sociological. Sociology is a collectivist idea, a way of seeing people merely as units of a species.

The sociological, leftist, Green view is anti-human, chiming harmoniously with the view of the Communist Chinese government that Diane Francis praises. The naturally dictatorial Greens (including Barack Obama’s adviser, Cass Sunstein) are all for forced sterilization and forced abortion to solve a non-existent problem of over-population. They surely have no objection to another Communist Chinese method of keeping the population down: the murder, usually by exposure and neglect, of millions of babies born alive, most of them girls.

It should never be forgotten that every human being is a repository of meaning, the only meaning there is in the known universe. Every human being is a world. No two are the same.

A critical mass of humanity is needed before you get your innovators, your geniuses, and all of us, even the foolish and the mad among us, can make our contributions.

  • aeschines – your comments are always to the point and encouraging.

    There is the 'conservative atheist' Heather Mac Donald, who writes very good sense. We've posted one of her articles.


    But yes, there are not many of us.

    Women who choose not to have children – a majority in dying Europe these days – often regret it deeply in their old age.

    • aeschines

      Thank you! I also enjoy your comments – they are well thought-out and similarly encouraging. I find myself frequently returning to AC.com because of them (and the posts/comments of C. Gee).

      Have you written any books championing your political views yet? If not, you should!

      On another note, it's especially hard for me to find suitable mates that fit my political views because I'm rather young. Most young women have no interest in marriage, let alone anything else. As long as they read Oprah's book of the month (if they can actually stomach reading, that is), cheat on their boyfriends regularly, and get the latest fashions from Hollister and A&F, they're perfectly content from day to day.

      I don't think I need to tell you that conservatism and the other traits I listed are not commonly found among my female peers.

      The idea of finding a woman outside the US is by no means any more attractive. Conservatism and respect for tradition is fairly easy to find among Chinese and Polish women, but strong pro-Western Civilization values, which are scarce inside the US, are almost non-existent elsewhere. In the case of China, do we dare take brides from among the enemy?

      For the foreseeable future, I think we'll be out-bred by the barbarians, then forced to accept their laws because of the democratic process being perverted by their sheer numbers. Oh, America, what a sweet, naive dream you were.

      • aeschines – I very much appreciate your encouraging words.

        To answer your question, yes, I have written some books. Best known are these two. They were in print for many years, but are now probably only available second-hand:

        'Hitler's Children', about the affluent fun-revolutionary Baader-Meinhof terrorist gang in Germany, which was translated into many languages and serialized in newspapers, and should have squashed forever the untrue notion that terrorists are poor and oppressed.

        'The PLO'. A history of that terrorist organization, for which I collected first-hand reports and documents during the war in Lebanon in 1972-1973.

        There is a list of my published works in my Wiki entry.

        I sympathize with your difficulty in finding like-thinking women. But as you are young there is time for you. You will find her, I think. I hope you do.

        In a long lifetime one finds, if one is lucky, perhaps a dozen people who think for themselves – as you obviously do. Thinkers are notoriously lonely.

        • aeschines

          “Hitler's Children” looks fascinating. I might have to give it a read this winter if I can find it through inter-library loan.

          Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. It is indeed disheartening to see our young people the way they are today. Nevertheless, I am still very optimistic about finding someone, although, as you said, thinkers can be lonely.

  • bill

    I like your point in bold at the bottom of the article here. A rational, civil, productive, achieving human being is a great value to humanity. Progress, slow or fast, is progress, and it is only meaningful in the context of humanity.

    That said, I am 50 and have no children. Would be nice but I have a very mobile lifestyle that is very profitable. So I cannot stay in one place and come home every night to greet wife and kids.

    • Jillian Becker

      Thank you, bill, for your appreciation and support.

      I'm sorry you cannot have the pleasure of marriage and fatherhood. Kids are the best investment for old age.

      • aeschines

        It's too bad that finding a conservative atheist woman is nigh impossible, let alone finding a conservative one. I do think you're the first of which I've ever heard.

        Even finding one that actually wants kids is more difficult than it should be.

        Children are “gross” and harm the environment!