Priligy online now, save money

SEP 03

Recent Comment

"I'm a chinese, this policy is very stupid, most of chinese object it, ..."

View all Comments

One Child Per Family: A Green Innovation?

It's not easy to defend a social program as broad and ordering levitra controlling as China's one-child policy, but from an purely ecogeek perspective, it needs attention. Don't accuse us of promoting the idea, though. It's weird, it's broken, it's dangerous, but if it could only be voluntary, it would be the finest environmental innovation our world has ever seen. Aside from, possibly, the innovations of birth control, without which any kind of family planning is impossible.

China recently released some statistics defending its one-child per family policy, and you can't argue with the significance. So far, they say, the policy has 'prevented the births' of over 300 million children...roughly the population of the United States. And they estimate that the policy has prevented the release of 1.3 billion tons of CO2, roughly equivalent to the output of Germany.

Population is the single most important factor in climate change, urban pollution, the water crisis, agricultural collapse and ecological destruction. Yes, our ultra-fabulous way of life in America doesn't help, but the strain of an estimated 9 billion people by 2050 is going to push the earth close to its breaking point no matter how simple a life those 9 billion people lead.

China is careful to point out that it doesn't believe the one-child policy is right for every nation. But they stand strong behind their assertion that population control is we choice viagra oral gel entirely vital to canadian viagra trial pack the fight against climate change. It's not a popular assertion, but is, without doubt, entirely correct.

Via Reuters
Hits: 21306
Comments (19)Add Comment
Population control isn't so simple.
written by Steven Buckley, September 03, 2007
I know you haven't intimated that it should be, but still I think the point isn't made strongly enough that one child per family needs to be an entirely voluntary activity. We're seeing significant levels of aborted female foetuses in countries such as China and India as families try to ensure a male heir. That imbalances the population, not restricts it and we could all pay the price down the cheepest levitra line.
too many kids.
written by Lindsey, September 04, 2007
As a future educator and current daycare worker, I can honestly say there are too many kids in the world and many of generic viagra online drugstores them are not being taken care of like they should be. I'm not saying we should enforce the rule of one child families, but instead of having 10 biological children, couples should look at adoption.

Good article!
written by Kris, September 04, 2007
Cap and trade.
if it is voluntary then who is breeding?
written by catherine, September 04, 2007
You must consider the implications of such a suggestion. Let's say all eco-minded couples made the decision to have one, or no, children; all non-eco mided people keep breeding. The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world. Adoption is the best solution for those who want to be parents, but don't want to add humans to the system. This is complicated - it is not easy to adopt. :'(
written by Kris, September 04, 2007
The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.

Clearly we need to best viagra get into breeding competitions with all those we consider to be our enemies.
written by J. C., September 04, 2007
Quite honestly, while I don't debate the buy cialis online stats that China may put out for the 1 Child per family program and how it may be green.

But, honestly, with all the industrialization that it's doing, and no regulations on the emissions with the billions of people it has and the cars that they drive, isn't this program the least efficient to the problem? Is it just me or does it seem like they're trying to distract the rest of the world from the cialis iop real problems that they are causing?
written by Kris, September 04, 2007
But, honestly, with all the industrialization that it's doing, and no regulations on the emissions with the billions of people it has and the cars that they drive, isn't this program the least efficient to the problem? Is it just me or does it seem like they're trying to distract the rest of the world from the real problems that they are causing?

I'm curious, but have you lobbied our government to impose American labor and enviornmental standards on rx levitra any company outsourcing production or importing Chinese products? Because the blame for the pollution rests fairly on our own greedy/cheap shoulders.
The real issue here
written by Hun Boon, September 04, 2007
The sole reason for the one child per family rule is to prevent overpopulation and social unrest, it's as simple as that.

Nothing to do with being green, especially not to tramadol cheap reduce CO2 emissions. Which I think is cheap levitra 50mg quite ridiculous, frankly. I'm amazed to see it reproduced across so many news agencies.

BTW, couples can have 2 or more children, they just have to pay a fine.
Not true
written by Samir, September 05, 2007
Another lie. We need MORE people, not fewer. Why do you think the western countries are trying to import millions of canadian drugs viagra cheap laborers with all the social disruption that is causing? Why do you think western corporations are looking to the 3rd world for new customers? It's because the west is not having enough children - our population is not growing as countries like India and China are. Those murdered children are our future customers, our future workers. You are killing off your own economy and national strength by population control. Population is not the problem, human stupidity, inefficiency, and waste are. Do things efficiently, like the Japanese do, and there is plenty of resources for all.
written by Kris, September 06, 2007
We need MORE people, not fewer. You are killing off your own economy and national strength by population control

Two child policy
written by kd, September 06, 2007
To be honest I think a widely adopted two child policy might be closer to the sweet spot. This would help prevent over population and promote gradual population decline which from an ecological perspective is really what we need as a species.
2 kids MAX per couple
written by TKO, September 06, 2007
Two for two--i think single child families suck, having been in one--but strongly suggesting to everyone in the world to have no more than two kids would be great.

The environmental justice part of the equation is tricky. More kids cost more for poor families, but also potentially bring in more income.

Having more people live in urban areas will surely create a natural inclination to click here buy prescription levitrabuy levitra in the uk have less children--because it costs more and there's less need!

Here's a good film about the effects of a one-child-only policy in China, though obliquely:

As far as population is concerned, if you haven't watched 11th Hour or read enough ecological studies texts, our massive fossil-fuled population boom is generic levitra india THE reason for all the environmental problems we are having.

More people eat more, drive more, build more single family homes on previously open space/farmland, consume more fish, ipods, gasoline, milk, beef, soy.... qed!! ;D
Stop confusing population with consumpti
written by Guillermo, September 10, 2007
I can't believe we are still hung up with the idea that we need to curb our population without talking about the fact that our consumptive ways are the true threat to the environment. Frankly as China continues to decrease its population growth rate and eventually it's total population, the standard of living in China will continue to rise, which should be even more troubling if they decide to consume the cialis costs earth's resources at the same rate as we in the US do. Having fewer children will do nothing to save the earth if we don't learn to use our resources more wisely. So please stop promoting this Malthusian assumption so we can begin promoting some real solutions!
Wish it worked
written by Sim, September 24, 2007
Hasn't China had a one child policy for about 30 years. By now you'd think their porulation would have halved but its still growing. Whats up with that? Still I like the idea of a one or two child policy but it doesn't seem to prescription viagra work.
Draconian Solution
written by Brent Scudder, March 18, 2008
It must be enforced Worldwide to have one child per family for four generations by whatever means available. If you get the present population down to one fourth of its present size, most of our other problems will go away.
Frankly, I do not see this ever happening, human nature being what it is. Reduce the population now or Mother Nature (God, if you will) will do it for you. :o
yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah =]
written by michy. >., May 27, 2008
comments are gay!
:) ;) :D ;D
written by michy. >., May 27, 2008
whats up with this
if there is only guys in China
they all have to be gay
because there will be no girls

thats stupid
why not kill the guys
girls are better
and well
personally i dont care about China
Population Control I Simple
written by Jim Lahey, July 25, 2008
Population Control is simple. All that is required is to tax children. The easiest method to do this is to eliminate property tax supported public education. Put the full financial responsibility upon parents. Those taxpayers and voters without children far outnumber those with. So getting such legislation passed should be that hard. We tax the shit out of official canadian pharmacy families with kids. We eliminate all governmental subsidies like welfare. These deadbeats who have dozens of kids for welfare, would not do cheapest 50mg generic viagra it because they'd get nothing for it. So having kids would be counterintuitive.
written by Rufus, December 15, 2008
I'm a chinese, this policy is very stupid, most of chinese object it, only government support it, you know why? money! fine! fine! fine!

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles