Chinese Philosophy

Despite the West's objections to a law imposed on a society by a basically totalitarian government, I have to say I agree with China's one child policy. Though, I'm also glad my parents-in-law paid the fine when my wife was born as their second child. Before anyone asks me any "what ifs" because my wife is around only because of her parents' disregard for the law, you can ask "what if" about any decision anyone makes in life. I try to just make the best of the current situation. Hmm... What if I hadn't gone into geophysics? We'll never know.

Anyway, awhile ago I was listening to Dr. Bob McDonald on Quirks and Quarks talk to Alan Weisman about his book, "The World Without Us." I haven't read the book yet but I intend to and the idea I present here was presented during the interview so, if I don't have the facts of the book entirely straight, I'll try to straighten them out soon. I also apologize for skipping to the end of the book, but Alan Weisman suggests a worldwide one child policy.

If you consider the rapid and unsustainable growth of the human population, reducing our numbers a bit would make some sense. With 6.6 billion people in the world today and 9.4 billion expected in 2050, I don't see how the Earth can keep up with providing for all the humans. Each new person put on this planet requires a certain amount of resources.

Obviously, we're seeing today that the Earth cannot keep up and the ideas put forth about how to be sustainable/environmental without putting a limit on the number of humans on the planet are just ridiculous. The false environmentalist propaganda I like the most comes from the auto industry. Prices at the pumps were low across North America and then Hurricane Katrina blows through. Fuel prices take a big jump and the next day all the car ads have a new voice-over claiming this vehicle is now fuel efficient. Now everyone thinks hybrid cards or ethanol will save the planet. Take a gander over at Ford.ca at their Escape Hybrid. The regular model will set you back 10.7 L/100 km in the city and 7.7 L/100 km on the highway. The hybrid model uses only 5.7 L/100 km in the city and 6.7 L/100 km on the highway. I believe the reversal of economy is due to the sustained power to propel yourself down the highway is way too much for the electric engine so you're burning fuel the whole time. With a price difference of $7500 and assuming you do a lot of driving while gas still costs you around $1.10/L, you'll pay off the extra cost in a mere 136 000 km of city driving or 682 000 km of pure highway driving.

But I'm not concerned about how people are punished for trying to save the planet; I'm concerned about the pure consumption of humans. If I have two children and buy them each a Ford Escape Hybrid and they each drive 100 km per week in the city, they're using 11.4 L of fuel which is more than if I had only one child and bought her the regular Escape. Of course, it's also $41 000 cheaper to buy just one regular Escape. Someone else can do the math to see if two Toyota Priuses are more economical than one regular Toyota. That's also an argument purely based on fuel. The blog at Quirks and Quarks also pointed out that every car loses rubber from its tires which gets washed into the gutter and into our rivers, drips lubricant and requires its share of steel, aluminium and plasticsl. And don't tell me ethanol is the answer. With more people there are more mouths to feed yet we would rather that more people bought more cars powered by more corn which needs more water to grow. More is not sustainable.

If you want to cut greenhouse gases by 20%, why not let the worldwide population fall from 6.6 billion to 5.28 billion instead of making each person find 20% of their carbon footprint to cut. In fact, you'll have to cut more than 20%. Before the Earth's population has had much of a chance to fall under a one child policy, the population will have hit 7 billion in 2011. Now you have to cut your personal carbon footprint by 25%.

Sometimes an authoritarian figure has to step in and force people to do what's best. It should be obvious that governments and a few CEOs making obscene amounts of money aren't going to curb our consumerism or do anything to jeopardize their ability to make even more money.