11 December 2009


Radical environmentalism does not equate social liberalism, but there is often a correlation. It is ironic that some socially liberal individuals advocate a policy that is anathema to the kind of liberty they claim to espouse.

Population control is immoral. My opinion on the issue is based in part on my theological beliefs, but not entirely. I believe in liberty, and that liberty should extend to the number of children a man and woman choose to bring into this world.

The author of this Financial Post (Canada) piece seems to agree with the contention of the Chinese government- population control is a necessary component of efforts to thwart climate change. She even claims that China's one-child policy is the reason why China has enjoyed such strong economic growth. Both contentions are foolish, the latter especially so.

China has enjoyed growth based on its embrace of free-market principles and the increasingly consumer-focused nature of its economy. The one-child policy has produced female infanticide and drastic gender imbalances, resulting in surplus males in the Chinese population.

Does the author propose criminalizing childbirth? Imposing increased fees and taxes on those who have more than one child? In an environment where fewer children are being born in Western countries we should be thankful for those who have children. They are an economic necessity.

Furthermore, population control would put Western democracies in demographic peril, given the much higher birthrates in predominantly Muslim and predominantly unfriendly countries.

The argument is unsound.

No comments: