"By adopting a 'one-child' policy since 1979, Chinese demographers estimate that about 300 million births have been avoided, equivalent to the present population of the United States. Even at the relatively low level of Chinese per capita carbon dioxode emissions, the effect of this population policy can be measured as an avoidance of about 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted annually to the global atmosphere. This represents a nominal reduction of about 5 per cent in global carbon emissions, a much greater reduction than has been achieved by all the measures of the Kyoto Protocol."(On the other hand, maybe one of those 300 M people would have invented a technique for massive noncarbon energy production.)
-- Mike Hulme, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Chapter 8
Pages
▼
.... and seen from another angle: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
ReplyDeletePopulation reduction is the opposite of 'holocaust'. Especially as described in the laughable link.
ReplyDeleteBest,
D
Dano, I agree with you that the title of the article I referred to is inappropriate and suggestive of a degree of bias, but that does not imply that none of what it describes ever happened. There is ample documentation elsewhere. I think it is good to see things from different viewpoints and on this topic in particular, from the viewpoint of the people concerned. My own opinion on birth control tends toward pro choice. There is nothing laughable about extreme government interference into peoples personal lives, and certainly not when it involves forced sterilisation and eugenics. Even if it would be effective.
ReplyDeleteDano said...
ReplyDelete"Population reduction is the opposite of 'holocaust'."
Opposite how, Dano?
The terms don't have the same meaning but the goal of the original holocaust was the population reduction for a specific group of people. If you have any knowledge of China you should know that their 'one-child' policy has achieved a dramatic reduction of girls’ population. You should also know that in huge number of cases it wasn't the girls' "births" that were avoided. The girls were terminated after birth.
So again, opposite how, Dano?
The aforementioned link is a laughable concoction of false premises, hasty generalizations, conflations and guilts by association. The notion that it has anything to say about Hulme's quote sounds more like a comedy script.
ReplyDeleteThat is: the laughable link's use of 'holocaust' is the opposite of the context of Hulme's quote. And of civil society for that matter.
Best,
D
Icreased prosperity in developed nations has reduced fertility. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox)
ReplyDeleteThe moral issue with the Chinese policy and with the Ehrlich-style Population Bomb policies is coercion.
I’m glad you explained yourself, Dano.
ReplyDeleteI understand now that progress to you consists of "an avoidance of about 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide" while mourning the dead girls is "laughable" and a "comedy script".
I dread your version of "civil society". Some things never change.
I understand now that progress to you consists of "an avoidance of about 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide" while mourning the dead girls is "laughable" and a "comedy script".
ReplyDeleteWhy are you making sh-- up about what I wrote? What's in it for you?
Best,
D
India also deserves some praise from Mike Hulme. I hope that British and Indian demographers can properly estimate the carbon dioxide savings of this program:
ReplyDeleteUK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India's poor
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
If they don't do it soon then maybe some commenters here could help with the math. Every civil society should be run on good numbers.