One-Child policy key to fixing climate change, says Canadian paper
 

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

A Chinese paper also called this the key to the deal.

I know what's going to happen. I'm going to call these people nutjobs. Then someone's going to come in here and post a graph showing that, yes, this is the only real way to reverse climate change and save the planet. So let's just get this started.

These people are nutjobs.

Well, the world is becoming overpopulated. But I think the best way to solve this is to do absolutely nothing until resources become so scarce that constant world warfare erupts until the populations are free from radiation sickness from nuclear weapons. You know, natural selection and whatnot.

It's great that we're now known as people pollution.

I actually agree that we need to control population growth to help combat overcrowding/resource depletion/climate change. Though I think a Two-Child Policy would be just as effective and less rabble-rousing as the One Child Policy as seen in the comments in the OP link.

What.

No, really, what.

I'm gonna take a good, hard look at those articles, and if that's really what they say, I

I mean

It's just

Bah

edit
I mean, NEVER MIND that the majority of population growth occurs in underdeveloped countries.

NEVER MIND that economic development curbs population growth.

NEVER MIND that raising the status of women has a dramatic affect on lowering birth rates.

No, CLEARLY the ONLY answer is a One-Child policy, forget something crazy like aid to poor countries, that'll NEVER work.

Bah.

editedit
How the FUCK do they even expect to enforce it? What, just write the law down and all the third-world infrastructure that isn't there will carry it out?

Well... wow... hmm... yeah I guess... I mean... it's an option...

Seems I'm not the only one creeped out by this.

It's the only valid solution.
 

So work CelesJessa to death to attain utopia?

People are nutjobs.

Reasons being:

Firstly--an average person in a first world country has a higher effect on global warming than an entire village in, let's say, rural Africa, and let's not even start on what the very few super rich do to our environment.

Secondly--Populations in first world countries are actually declining, or expected to decline, for the most part. Way too lazy to find the information on this again, but if you want to you can go here and check population growth rates in the last ten years. You should also compare ones which seem to rise with immigration rates (like the US had a huge pop. growth rate between 2008 and 2009, but it also perfectly corresponds with a net migration rate increase). And because I could find it: Japan's projected population 'growth' numbers over the next 100 years. From what I remember most of the first world looks like this, as well.

Thirdly--Even in countries where this isn't the case (the US is one, I believe), our populations growths are far lower than third world countries, which still require more children to 'work the farm' as it were.

Basically, putting a cap of one child per family globally, would do almost nothing to stop planetary climate change. It might help stop 'over population' but that's a set of words that most people who use it don't actually understand. The real result would just be causing a bunch of people in third world countries to starve EVEN HARDER.

Not to mention it hasn't even worked worth shit in China, where population is still estimated to be increasing.

Krylo's post kind only reinforces my impression that the very first step to prevent overpopulation is... to avoid nativist bullshit in first world nations.