|
December 14, 2009
Fewer people means fewer emissions!
On CNN, there's been a serious discussion of implementing a worldwide one-child policy, and Jack Cafferty is obviously sympathetic. CNN's Jack Cafferty all but endorsed a global version of China's oppressive one-child policy on Friday's Situation Room. He repeated the argument of Canadian journalist Diane Francis, that population control is the only way to fight global warming, and mentioned the opposition of "fundamentalist leaders" and others only in passing. All but one of the viewer e-mails that Cafferty read endorsed the idea.If you believe that controlling human emissions will save the planet, it's a no-brainer that the fewer humans there are, the fewer emissions. So, actually reducing the number of humans would from a purely utilitarian standpoint be the most practical final solution to the problem. As Cafferty notes, the China's one-child policy makes it a "world leader in creating policy to combat the destruction of the environment": The Chinese instituted a policy limiting the number of children each family can have thirty years ago, and they claim that since that time, they have prevented 400 million births and saved carbon emissions to the tune of 18 million tons a year.As we all know, today's scientists are more concerned with political advocacy than hard science. So why haven't they come up with an overwhelming scientific consensus that the one-child policy must be implemented immediately? Instead, we only hear from CNN and their listeners, some of whom are quite articulate: Sean in Belvidere, Illinois: 'Morally, there are better ways of fighting global warming than infanticide. But sadly, this method makes more sense than carbon credits.'I have to say, I never really thought about it this way, but I'm wondering whether a little historical revisionism might be in order. We tend to think of Mao, Stalin and Hitler as the greatest mass murderers of all time, but has anyone bothered to calculate out how many tons of emissions they prevented? Sure, mistakes were made, but might these farsighted men have actually been pioneers acting in the long term interests of the planet? I'm no post-Modernist historian, but I'm thinking the topic -- whether Mao, Stalin, and Hitler weren't ahead of their time -- might be worthy of a doctoral thesis. Moreover, I think that they might be a source of inspiration for youth, especially future leaders in need of role models. So I came up with an image to inspire them. Teach your children! posted by Eric on 12.14.09 at 11:21 AM
Comments
We could always grab a pistol, line up the children of each CNN watcher in front of him or her, and ask them which one they'd like to keep. Nice and simple. John S. · December 14, 2009 01:00 PM This final solution to anthropogenic global warning -- yes, I went there with a Nazi allusion -- this final solution proves something I've long believed about the environmental movement: they're nothing but a bunch of misanthropes. Rhodium Heart · December 14, 2009 08:45 PM "We tend to think of Mao, Stalin and Hitler as the greatest mass murderers of all time..." Who is this "we" you speak of? You and I think of Hitler, Mao and Stalin as monsters; liberals/progressives/greens revere them as great leaders that failed to achieve their wonderful goals. r · December 15, 2009 02:20 AM @r: To be fair, liberals/progressives/greens do not "revere" Hitler as a great leaser who "failed to achieve" his "wonderful goals." As for the others, well, yeah. Rhodium Heart · December 15, 2009 02:24 PM This policy will destroy most third world countries. They have to try for many kids because many will not live past childhood due to things like lack of vaccines for preventable diseases, lack of clean water, lack of food.... This can't be enforced in any way, shape or form. It'll be like the accord that came out of Copenhagen. All words and no bite. Stupid people witha a larger than normal ego came up with this, and it will fail. Duncan Idaho · December 19, 2009 10:31 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2009
November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Being me is so unfair!
Sometimes, being "had" matters Why I like Climategate More self-indulgent psychedelic nostalgia (while I attempt to hide my decline) Another Way To Hide The Decline The smart way to avoid bankruptcy It Would Damage What We Hold Dear Being white isn't "enough" Polywell Down Under "Precautionary principle" throws caution to the wind
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Excellent idea, this one child per family policy!
And in fact, we should make it retroactive, starting with CNN watchers. Cyanide pills, anyone?