In the annals of human bungling over our wholesale destruction of our environment, the follies will be recorded as first hinging on a strawman (global warming) until people noted that, at the root of all problems, was one we have denied for its social unpopularity for too long:
Overpopulation.
It used to be my litmus test. When someone started bloviating about how “green” they were, I’d ask what their view on overpopulation was. Suddenly they’d change from bold activist to meek suggestion box volunteer. Education was the answer, they invariably said, and suggested that we educate people to have fewer children. When I asked how well that had worked for the last 40 years, there was silence.
The unpopular truth is that education only works if the educatee has the congenital intelligence to appreciate what’s being taught. We can train anyone to do just about anything, if there’s an immediate reward for it, like on the job training. But we can’t convince them it’s a good idea unless they have the brains for it. Every idea matches an intelligence level and above; if someone is below that level, the idea seems to them like magic, silliness or witchcraft and they ignore it when at home.
This means that people are going to have kids as becomes convenient to their mindset, and we cannot count on them to be rational, because if they were rational, they wouldn’t be in this fix already. For this reason, education is not the solution to overpopulation.
But after the Chinese introduced this idea at the Copenhagen talks, more media focus has come to bear on the simple thought: what if we had a one-child policy for all couples?
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.
Humans are not rational creatures. We are social creatures, and fashion our rationality to look good to others. At least, unless we have a clear hierarchy, goal and culture to back us up so it’s not us, personally, against someone else, with no support for what we’re doing except “I personally thought it was a good idea.” Individual fear of conflict rules us and given our history, that’s understandable.
I support the one-child rule.
The left will tell me that it’s fascist because I have imposed the will of the State on the individual.
The right will tell me that it’s Communist (and/or Nazi) because I have imposed the needs of the collective on the individual.
I have news for these idiots: we are inherently collective, because we are a civilization. That’s collectivism. We are inherently serving the State, because the state is how centralized authority works, and without it we have anarchy — not the fun kind, but the L.A. riots kind where after you’ve been robbed and raped someone burns your home down.
Wake up call — smell the coffee! — this is life, not your advanced literary meta-theory about the theory of theory, theoretically, class. Life is combat. Life is struggle. Life is individuals trying to get ahead of other individuals… unless, of course, they’re on the same team and share the same struggle.
Although it’s hard for most voters to grasp, we’re on many teams at once. One team is the “Residents of Planet Earth” team. We need to not destroy this place, and that means not crippling the ecosystems that replenish air, water, plants and animals. (That’s not the primary reason to be green, but my thoughts on that are so controversial that none of you will support me.)
I support the one-child rule, with one caveat:
Let those who are more productive, more intelligent, of better character or just nicer breed more.
The world needs more Jim and Michelle Duggar, who are raising 19 or so healthy youngsters of above-average intelligence, strong moral background and responsible lifestyle.
It needs fewer broken, neurotic, narcissistic, hedonistic, beliefless, soulless, resentful and below-average people breeding. These people contribute nothing but the ability to do most of a task if pointed out to them in detail, which means that when they’re not watched, they do stupid and destructive things like litter, buy junk products, vote for morons, and so on.
The one-child policy is a great idea if we pair it with a policy that rewards good people by allowing them to have more children. Let’s not cut humanity back equally. Let’s cut back on everything but the areas where we are succeeding. Because that’s how history will measure us, and how we’ll find a way to survive in the future.
It wont work world-wide because 3rd World countries that cant sustain their bloated underclass get money from superpowers and the UN & charities to do so, any surplus capital goes into modernizing the economy, so if aid dried up, India’s economic growth would cease. Brazil ditto. Africa without aid? Holocausted. 1 Child Policy in agrarian nations? Not enough people to farm = Mass starvation. Only a Jew would spread this idea to Lib-White America via Financial Times, as it’ll hasten their demise
Is this a joke? Is the author an idiot? The author points out that over-breeding is at the root of the environmental problems, then says:
“The world needs more Jim and Michelle Duggar, who are raising 19 or so healthy youngsters of above-average intelligence, strong moral background and responsible lifestyle.”
There are many who people are actually intelligent and responsible to choose as an example, but the author chooses the DUGGARS as an example of “responsible”? The Duggars have (so far) bred themselves 19 or so times over and their children are now starting to breed in the same manner. Responsible lifestyle? Are you kidding me? This ludicrous bit of reasoning is ample evidence the author is definitely not among those of “above average intelligence”. Hopefully the author has limited his/her own breeding to zero offspring…
Compared to the average sample of a human family in the world, an typical American family is a significant net gain for the species. Yes, it’s that gloomy, but it isn’t doomy just yet.
read the article again patterson, you missed the point.
Not sure if the one-child rule would be very workable globally. If a country wants to adopt it, more power to them, but I think a better solution would be to research more reliable contraceptives. Sad fact is, they’re still not perfectly effective and though I’ve been pretty lucky so far I am keenly aware that I’m playing a game of Russian Roulette every time I unwrap a condom wrapper. Barring that, it could at least be made easier to make one’s self sterilized or perhaps even a simpler task to adopt (without forgoing any child’s safety, of course).
Brett, China’s one-child policy has given the cause of population management a bad name. So too does any advocacy that favors one group of people over another, as you’ve done by saying “Let those who are more productive, more intelligent, of better character or just nicer breed more.” It smacks of racism.
There is a better way. Economic incentives (such as tax policy) to choose smaller families can drive down the birth rate while leaving people free to choose how many children to have. Such incentives need to be income-neutral so that people of all economic classes are equally motivated to choose smaller families. In the U.S., the reduction in fertility that we need to achieve stability is small – a reduction from about 2.09 children per female to about 1.84. (Why less than 2.0? Because of our steadily increasing life expectancy.)
We’ll never make any progress toward acceptance of the need for policies aimed at stabilizing our population as long as we advocate such heavy-handed techniques.
And, of course, no discussion of stabilizing the U.S. population is complete without including immigration policy.
Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”
I disagree here and think you’re way off base. Saying “let the more productive breed more” says let the more productive breed more, and doesn’t specify that as a group. Unless you’re suggesting that one group is less productive than others?
@ Pete Murphy: the policy you suggest wont raise the birthrate because people are not having kids because they ‘cant afford them’ & tax incentives are supposed to ‘fix’ that, but because they’re liberal INDIVIDUALISTIC people with no religion & real culture to pass on, something your monetary solutions dont address. The problem isnt ‘racism’ & ‘money’, racial differences are real and without a collective identity based on blood-kinship & ethnic pride, people lose the will to procreate.
Pete, Brett has a point here. The idea itself is very logical not racist. Its your own perception of different productivity levels being classified under groups (such as racial groups) that makes the idea racist. That would be like saying all black people are less productive than other racial groups–which is not true.
Putting that aside Pete, how do you feel about the idea?
Ah, the racism card, even when race wasn’t mentioned in Brett’s article.
I was glad to see the caveat in there, personally. We would always have the problem of certain examples, but generally speaking, people who live in the suburbs and buy all their food at the local Whole Foods are not “producing” much; they’re worker bees. Advancing humanity via allowing the most intelligent – the best examples of humanity among us – to breed, how is that “racism”? Brett didn’t mention races. It might smell of eugenics to you, but we should define that term properly and let loose its baggage before discussing that.
I agree with you guys on overpopulation, there are way too many dumb people on the planet…
I hear you, but in the regards to the “Jim and Michelle Duggar” comment don’t you think there is a little self-absorbed narcissism in what they are doing? I appreciate their family values and all but it comes across as a bit self-important that someone thinks they deserve to populate to that extreme. Sure, better them than some of the breeding knuckleheads out there. But I’m just saying…
Brett, you stated:
“but my thoughts on that are so controversial that none of you will support me”
Try me.