De-Facto One Child Policy Urged in Australia

 

Tamara McLean

AAP

Monday December 10, 2007

 

COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

 

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

 

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour".

 

Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

 

"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

 

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

 

Full article here.

:uhoh: :confused:

Isn't that discriminatory against Mormons??:rolleyes:

it's true that that is the case over here.

 

often really poor people have children for the money then neglect them by having more kids, and then you have 10 kids who don't get their right for education, which creates a vicious cycle.

 

still... that being said i cannot condone taking such action as a quota. curb the problem at the source with education.

Isn't that discriminatory against Mormons??:rolleyes:

And Catholics.

 

It's yet another move to offset the mistakes of previous generations by compromising the next one. IT's way too Orwellian/Huxleyan for my taste. (Pass the Soma)

 

And besides, whether you're for or against it, it's already been proved to affect the boy/girl ratio over a few generations. Look at statistics for China, India and others.

:uhoh: you aren't paying attention to the main thing... families will have to pay taxes because have childs causes the increase of carbon dioxide emission.. that's so :confused: i think that's an stupid reason why to make people have only one child :dozey:

 

btw they aren't taking into account that main tranport for babies till they are 3 are plasctic bicicles :P

 

btw i agree with you josh, here happens the same. :( poor kids.

I realize that's the main point. I'm just saying there are other repercussions that haven't been considered.:)

I'm not a believer in man made global warming at all. All the planets in our solar system are heating up - I suppose we are to blame for that!?!?

 

 

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

 

The report, written by Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters, also suggests that the government should introduce a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle.

 

The proposals smack of Communist China's one child policy and present a nightmare scenario of authoritarian governmental control. Under such legislation the government would essentially have the power to force people to stop re-producing.

 

You may think such views are extreme and representative of a small minority, and you'd be right. The problem however is that this minority are the ones in power.

 

Similar views have been espoused by UN agencies such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), WHO and UNICEF and international NGO's such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, as well as The US Government for decades.

 

Calls to begin sterilizing the human population have previously been put forward by former secretary of State and high ranking Bilderberger Henry Kissinger in a declassified document of the National Security Council (1974) entitled

"The Implications of World-wide Population Growth on the Security and External Interests of the United States".

 

This document lists, as a priority, birth-rate control in 13 key countries in the Third World, especially in South America. Extraordinary resources were allotted to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to implement the policy of birth-rate control.

 

The memorandum basically stresses the need to offer increased aid for third world countries that agree to implement programs of sterilization and depopulation.

 

It also contains sections entitled:

 

Creating Conditions Conducive to Fertility Decline, which calls for, amongst other things, "reducing infant and child mortality"

 

Concentration on Education and Indoctrination of The Rising Generation of Children Regarding the Desirability of Smaller Family Size

 

Utilization of Mass Media and Satellite Communications Systems for Family Planning

 

The memorandum also includes a section that lauds abortion and states that " -- It would be unwise to restrict abortion research for the following reasons: 1) The persistent and ubiquitous nature of abortion. 2) Widespread lack of safe abortion techniques..."

 

The document contains many more hideous passages, read it for yourself by clicking here.

 

Such calls to depopulate are echoed within the western scientific community by prominent figures such as Dr. Eric R. Pianka, who travels around the US speaking of the need to exterminate 90% of the population in order to save the planet. He suggests using the airborne ebola virus to do the job, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.

 

 

Pianka is always keen to stress that his views are not race specific and that he wants to see 90% of all races exterminated. He is quoted as saying "We need to sterilize everybody on the earth and make the antidote freely available to anyone willing to work for it".

 

Pianka was presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Texas Academy of Science in 2006. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide. His chilling comments, and their often enthusiastic reception, again underscore the elite's agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.

 

Dr Pianka's comments are merely echoes of the elite lust for a Malthusian social Darwinist control mechanism. They wish to use the excuse of having to "save the earth" in order to take away freedom and implement a massive authoritarian control grid.

 

These views have also been famously perpetuated by control freaks such as Ted Turner, Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Prince Philip.

 

"The simplest answer is that the world's population should be about two billion, and we've got about six billion now," Turner told E Magazine, an environmentalist publication. Turner went even further in an interview with Audubon magazine, stating that "A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

 

That works out to 127,750,000 people per year, and 1.27 billion people over 10 years.

 

In the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

 

The elite are very concerned about their noble effort to cull the population for the "greater good". Throughout history elites have invented justification for barbaric practices as a cover for their true agenda of absolute power and control over populations. Up until the 19th century, the transatlantic slave trade was justified by saying that the practice was biblical and therefore morally redeemable in nature, despite the fact that no such bible passage exists.

 

Today the control mechanism is the continued perpetuation of the myth that humanity is killing the planet. Elite organisations such as the Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and their think tanks like the Club of Rome are engaged in selling this myth to the masses.

 

In a report titled The First Global Revolution (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank whose members have included Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Al Gore, we find the following statement:

 

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

 

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called Limits to growth. The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

 

Why is this so concerning? Because groups such as the Club of Rome are contracted out by our own governments and the UN to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which they use in formulating their policies and programs. How come the Club of Rome gets the gig? Simply because many high ranking UN and government officials are also CoR members, or have direct corporate ties to members. The same goes for the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

 

A recently unearthed documentary that sought to expose this agenda at its inception is George Hunt's excellent research piece on the environmental movement.

 

The doomsday warning of the population bomb consistently referred to as justification for depopulation is also complete pseudo-science. Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries is it expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. "The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. The UN population policies seem to be in direct contradiction to THEIR OWN FINDINGS.

 

Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea. It is commonly accepted that the entire world population could all fit into the state of Texas and each have an acre of their own land.

 

Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

 

Even if you buy into the propaganda that climate change is caused by man in the face of the facts, and then buy into the propaganda that there are too many people on the planet in the face of the facts, can you justify advocating state micro management of your life down to how many children you are allowed to have? Furthermore, can you justify programs of sterilization?

 

We are being bombarded daily with idiotic notions that the human race and life itself is a virus that has spread all over the planet and that we must consider stemming our own progression to counter it.

 

Meanwhile, as we ludicrously debate culling ourselves, real environmental problems are doing the job for us. Genetically modified garbage is poisoning our very food supply, chemical pollutants are flowing into our water supplies, the disappearance of huge swathes of the bee populations across the world is threatening crop production, deforestation, toxic waste dumping, the list goes on. All these real important issues are being buried in a sea a frothing bullshit.

 

Every time the issue of climate change is raised the we are told that the solution is more taxes and more extreme control over our lives. These things will not reverse the effects of climate change, which has been proven to be a thoroughly natural cycle of our planet since the dawn of time. Instead they will do everything to grease the skids for draconian taxation and control measures that will aid the construction of the prison planet that the elite have planned all along.

 

source

WHile I don't believe in 'man-made' global warming, I do believe we have made a dangerous threat of what occurs naturally. Anyway, my beliefs are irrelevant here. Climate change has become an excuse to justify anything that the Elite want to use it for. How are these people going to decide which five billion to cull if turner has his way. I guess the sick and handicapped have to go early...poof! I'm dead.:o

 

Last time there was a call to cull the population was in 1939 ('We need Breathing room' - Adolph Hitler).

Even if you buy into the propaganda that climate change is caused by man in the face of the facts, and then buy into the propaganda that there are too many people on the planet in the face of the facts, can you justify advocating state micro management of your life down to how many children you are allowed to have?[....]

 

We are being bombarded daily with idiotic notions that the human race and life itself is a virus that has spread all over the planet and that we must consider stemming our own progression to counter it.

Gareth, do you not believe then that the earth has a limited carrying capacity? Of course growth rates vary from region to region, but can there be any doubt that overpopulation is a serious, serious issue?

 

The logical progression is that as the world population grows, and puts a strain on individual freedoms, group freedoms will be taken away. This is our way of "fixing" problems - we (the elite) make laws. The laws don't work and we are still left with the original problems. It's certainly scary to think that REAL threats like overpopulation, and global warming can be twisted to suit the Elite's agendas. But how do we escape this rut? A moral revolution? If everyone had the same moral propensity to live in a responsible, sustainable fashion, then perhaps we wouldn't need the government to micromanage our lives. Until we realize that, we've left ourselves very few options.

 

Sorry, my thoughts meandered away from the original post a bit, but it's in the ballpark. :P

I'm wandering off topic here, but despite the population explosion, there is still more than enough to feed/house everyone. THe problem is distribution. These resources are in the hands of the wealthy, who generally don't care to share them with the poor.

I do agree with you somewhat. It's not a problem of production, it's a problem of politics. But overpopulation is defined not just by population count, but by the ability for a population to live off their given environment. If there aren't enough resources available to them (through a lack of distribution or otherwise), they are considered overpopulated. By this definition, with the world's current infrastructure, it is overpopulated. It's just a matter of terminology, but it think it's worth mentioning here since a lot of people say that overpopulation is a nonissue. (Which I don't understand - just look at the massive effects it's having on the planet: loss of habitat, plant and animal extinctions, deforestation and desertification, etc)

 

One more thing to add: if you want to call overpopulation by another name, in addition to "poor distribution," we can call it call it a "problem of entitlement." Like you said, the wealthy (read: western, developed, first world nations) are taking more than their fair share. But to make resource allotment more equitable, how much will the governments need to get involved? Will measures such as this 3rd child tax in Australia be what's needed? How can we stigmatize those who take beyond what's fair? Humm.

Tough questions, and I wish I had more intelligent answers than the one I gave. Overpopulation is an issue, for sure. But what if one day you wish to have a large family (personally, I don't,lol)? THe choice to have children should be as much a personal decision as the choice to abort them. I realize strong measures have to be taken, I just don't think we should be crossing the line into the bedrooms of the people.

Yeah, they are tough questions and I'm just as clueless about what the 'right' solutions are as well.

 

Very good discussion topic though that begs to be debated.

 

I have more to say, but I'll hold off for tonight. :P

lol. I could go on for hours...and still not really know what I was talking about :lol:. But definitely a worthy subject. Discussion leads to ideas. At least there are some people who care enough to talk. (And much as I love the Lounge, I'm always thankful for a good debate on here.)

A lot of the third world is overpopulated with diseased people and the reason this problem has just been getting worse over our life time is because they have such terrible lives/living conditions.

 

Lack of food, homes, jobs and most of all education must be the main causes behind such diseased populations' continuous growth (and many deaths too of course). If they had lives, jobs and an education then a more safe & modest approach to reproduction would evolve. Children growing up with disease from birth is because of no education and well, boredom. (plus, rape of course).

 

The "money" in the western world (as well as the dictators in money wealth divided countries) have had above and beyond the means to truly help this over the decades of our lives yet they continue to spend wasteful trillions & trillions on the setting up of new military empires around the globe.

 

Then WE the people, who overwhelmingly oppose such wars, surveillance control grids and 'empire building' from our so-called leaders, are asked to give the odd donation here and there to help but in reality, while being a commendable act, is doing so very little to ease the situations in the parts of the world where millions are left to scrape through their lives poor, sick and uneducated about the world - left on the scrapheap.

 

There is plenty of space to go around, it's a myth that there's too many people. The problem is large populations have been herded in large and expanding cities. There are large parts of the earth that have very little population (large sections of Russia and the US too) that over time could have been developed into completely habitable dwellings.

 

While I'm not a buyer of the "Man Made" global warming stock - I do want to see a more sensible effort to curb dumping of waste. I want to see more recycling where it's a "no-brainer" to do so. No point in completely messing up our environment. And I do agree the mass deforestation needs to stop and vast areas of the green belt need to be protected & replenished to help everyones lives.

 

So - You've got to wonder - why are the monies, the wealth, the resources of our planet - Earth - spread out so unfairly and this issue (despite what they say) never genuinely addressed?

 

It's because it's a part, a section of a wider scheme, a vision which the few true modern elite pieces of trash have devised & documented over decades & decades.

 

We all know that the people "in charge" of us aren't fair, good and honest people. You know it, I know it - it's in your bones not to trust them. All givernments governments go bad eventually - FACT. Most of the world are sick of their governments yet sadly most have been conditioned to accept it - while dissenters are increasingly being ridiculed, infiltrated, set up, watched, listened to and jailed - all under the guise of a 'global war on terrorism'.

 

See/Watch

 

ENDGAME -Blueprint For Global Enslavement.

Add to the food problem the fact that even the little aid that we do send to the Third World is usually stolen by corrupt warlords and never makes it to the poor.

 

My only dispute with that post is that I wouldn't put rape in brackets at the end of the list of causes of overpopulation. It's an epidemic.

 

And yes, beyond a doubt: Education is a far better solution than taxation or legislation.

Don't they have a 1-child rule in China (or is it Russia)?

 

Reading someone's comments about how some poor families have more kids to claim more money in benefits is true in this country as well, you see single mums of 18 years old getting a fully paid for council house & lots more free money.

Here you'll see unqualified people on wellfare taking in foster kids for the subsady. It's not the norm, but it's still disturbing.

 

If I'm not mistaken, China's law deals with encouraging having boys instead of girls, hence a large number of drownings of innocent babies, and a large drop in persentage of boys born over the last couple of generations. This is why I said in an earlier post that legislating birth doesn't work.

Whereas some countries like France used to want people to have babies by offering tax cuts.

 

In the ideal world, a couple will produce 2 babies, 1 boy and 1 girl, so they kept bath topped up when they die.

Don't they have a 1-child rule in China (or is it Russia)?

 

Yeah, it's China.

 

There's so many stories about 'second child' snatching over there, it's disgusting.

 

Some families even try to have a second child in secret.....sometimes resulting in death to mother and/or baby.

I hadn't heard this, but whatever happened to the "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country"? Peter Costello would've been a good PM, if only...

"If only if only, the woodpecker sighs,

the bark on the tree were as soft as the skies.

And the wolf waits below, hungry and lonely,

he cries to the moon, if only if only"

 

It's from a book

anyone want me to post my 10 page essay on world population.....:dozey::confused:

anyone want me to post my 10 page essay on world population.....:dozey::confused:

 

Yep.

 

I'll read it.