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.
Richard writes:
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.
Jay writes:
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.
Sam writes:
This is the most ignorant question I've ever seen.