Legal Commentary

?And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords?: A Planetary One-Child Policy?

By Jim Lindgren

Diane Francis, the Editor at Large of the Financial Post (Canada), argues for taking away basic human reproductive rights:

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.

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world?s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

The intelligence behind this is the following:

?If only one child per female was born as of now, the world?s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

?By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world?s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

?Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.

Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it. Medical and other scientific advances have benefited by delivering lower infant mortality rates as well as longevity. Both are welcome, but humankind has not yet recalibrated its behavior to account for the fact that the world can only accommodate so many people, especially if billions get indoor plumbing and cars.

The fix is simple. It?s dramatic. And yet the world?s leaders don?t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen.

A welfare state is in one sense a big Ponzi scheme. Without increasing numbers of people entering the scheme, there is no money to pay the people receiving the money. As Mark Steyn has repeatedly pointed out, you can?t run a welfare state without a growing population.

Francis, a visiting professor at Ryerson University, also blogs at the Huffington Post. BTW, Jim Geraghty reports that she has two children, which is one more than I have (tip to Jonah Goldberg).

Full post as published by The Volokh Conspiracy on December 11, 2009 (boomark / email).