FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
While world leaders talk about combating climate change in Copenhagen - some say population control is the only way to really fight it.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/11/art.newborns.jpg caption="Newborns lie on a hospital bed in Beijing."]
The Chinese instituted a policy limiting the number of children each family can have 30-years ago. And they claim that since then, it has prevented 400-million births - and saved carbon emissions to the tune of 18-million tons a year.
And it's not just the Chinese. There's a piece in the Canadian newspaper The Financial Post which suggests: "The real inconvenient truth" is that humans are overpopulating the world.
It suggests that every nation should adopt China's one-child policy; because if we don't control the earth's population, we will eventually destroy or run out of everything - from other species to vegetation, resources, the atmosphere, oceans and water supply - and that's whether the globe overheats or not.
This piece points out that despite China's dirty coal plants - it is a world leader in creating policy to combat the destruction of the environment.
One study shows that if from now on, every woman gave birth to only one child - the world's population would drop from 6.5 billion now... to 5.5 billion in 2050. If we do nothing - the population could soar to an unsustainable nine-billion in that same time.
Needless to say there are lots of people who disagree with population control - like fundamentalist leaders who oppose birth control or politicians from emerging economies.
Here’s my question to you: Should mandatory population control be a part of the fight against global warming?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
A. from Oregon writes:
Pretty extreme, Jack. However in the near future that is certainly a consideration that many nations must make… When food, water and critical medical services are in short supply, fewer people makes a lot of sense! Consider, Jack, the enormous drain a family of 8 has on society and the community, and yet the state and federal government rewards huge families with enormous benefits and tax breaks.
Wow, Jack. Thanks very much. Finally someone in the media has the guts to state the obvious. Everything you said is true, but you were too gentle: it needs shouting out. The fundamentalists and others opposed to population control have had their way for too long.
Sean from Belvidere, Illinois writes:
Morally, there are better ways of fighting global warming than infanticide. But sadly, this method makes more sense than carbon credits.
Absolutely. Every year, we have deer hunting season, with the argument that if we don’t control the deer population they will over-breed and starve to death. Why can these ‘John and Kate’ and ‘Octomom’ people not see that the same biological mathematics applies to humans as well? On a planet of finite resources, you can’t just keep producing an ever-growing pool of consumers and still expect the whole thing to work.
Paul from Toronto writes:
Jack, Humans, like the H1N1, are a virus and if we don't get ourselves under control, Mother Earth will eventually create her own vaccine and destroy us all to protect herself.
Sebastian from Ann Arbor, Michigan writes:
Well finally, it's about time we started talking about this. As an only child, son of an only child and the parent of none, I say if you want more than one kid then pay for it – a tax seems reasonable. Those who adopt would be exempt.
This is the most ignorant question I've ever seen.