The Great Leap Forward of Diane Francis


What is it with economists in the antique media who hate the free market? Paul Krugman, Dierdre McMurdy–they just can’t stand a growth market.

Oh, and Diane Francis wants to decimate the world’s population. By half.

There’s something a little super-villain-ish about her plan, but her basic premise is that the “intelligence” shows that people are just no good and need to be wiped off the Earth in order to save it:

The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

You know, if Al Gore had said we need to kill off half the population of the world in An Inconvenient Truth, I might have enjoyed it a little more. You can get a grasp of what human population growth around the world is doing here, where it appears that the growth of the world population has been in steady decline and is likely to level off. I’m always a little amused when oracles economists know the perfect amount of people that can live on this planet. They aren’t reading Adam Smith anymore–now it’s Thomas Malthus.

Where would Grand High Priestess Francis start looking for advice? Like most other of her business contacts, she’s outsourcing to China:

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

Hey, a world government looking to kill off surplus labour? Why, this is what the Western world has been waiting for for so long! This is the result of the One-Child Policy, in effect since 1979, in China:

China’s total fertility rate is 1.7, which means that, on average, each woman gives birth to 1.7 children throughout her life. The necessary total fertility rate for a stable population is 2.1; nonetheless, China’s population is expected to grow over the next few decades. This can be attributed to immigration and a decrease in infant mortality and a decrease in death rate as national health improves.

So the Chinese are so efficient at curbing their population size, they have a birth rate that’s 0.7 higher than it’s supposed to be and they are allowing a huge wave of immigration across their borders. Oh, and the one-child policy only applies to less than 36% of all of China. National policies that apply to decimating minority populations seem hard to defend these days, but Francis manages somehow.

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

So being the world’s biggest polluter and the second largest consumer of resources, they are by far the most qualified to lead us into the 21st century. Someone has a case of yellow fever…or perhaps scarlet fever, given Francis’s love of all things red lately. No offence to all you Torontonians, but your inability to find a decent brownstone in Rosedale does not make this country “overpopulated.” Canada is flush with empty space and abundant resources. I can’t come up with a brilliant riposte about “blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud” the way Francis can, but what I do suggest is that human ingenuity is going to be the real saviour.

Norman Borlaug died a few months ago, a man most people have never heard of because we don’t herald scientists the way we should–unless you count Richard Dawkins, and no one should, really. Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, and he did so even without being an African-American president! Because of Borlaug’s research into increasing food yields, he was able to avert conflicts between India and Pakistan and make Africa far more stable. He also derided many of the environmental lobbyists as elitists and that they were trying to deny a lifestyle to the developing world that they had all enjoyed. Also, Borlaug for much of his life was in the population control camp, but by 2000 had changed his mind. He decided that technology was the way to go to feed everyone.

Borlaug might have saved over a billion lives through his work, but Francis wants to cull roughly three billion people all in the name of sustainability. Her endorsement of population control is a repressive force, not even concerned with what might be a sustainable (according to her standards) population. What if those fusion reactors we are currently working on are up and running by 2050? Are the forests really in danger of decimation? What if food yields continue to grow in the future?

That’s not really a concern to the environmental volcano-worshippers, willing to sacrifice your almost-second born on their hunch. Once you get your world government, deciding who gets to live or die (and apparently making exceptions for certain groups), our dream of a baby-slaying resource-rationing total control government will be realized. We are being led by an apparatchik setting rations on your prosperity and lievlihood, all in the name of economics.

9 Responses to “The Great Leap Forward of Diane Francis”

  1. dmorris Says:

    Hm, I have to agree with Francis,there are too many people in the world, lineups at the grocery store are inexcusably long.

    But,instead of this idea of having fewer babies, I think we should just eliminate people who I don’t like,that should fix the problem in short order.

    Lessee now, let me get this list together…………..;-)

  2. dmorris Says:

    btw, seeing as this is “Queen” week, you should know that her husband Prince,er Prince Phillip,once said that if he were reincarnated,he’d like to come back as a virus that would wipe out a great portion of the world’s population.

    It seems a lot of elites think we peasants are too numerous,and seeing as we OUTNUMBER THEM,well, the answer is obvious!

    Heh heh.

  3. Andy Says:

    dmorris, I think you can take the Prince! He’s old now. Did Phillip really say that?

    Obama once said that when he was reincarnated, he wanted to come back as himself. Lame…I know…

  4. Sisyphus Says:

    “The ‘inconvenient truth’ overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.”

    This woman MUST be high. Most of the planet is EMPTY. And even if if the planet is “overpopulated” (how does she arrive at that conclusion?), our energies should be focused on IMPROVING the lives of people already here, not destroying them.

    I guess this is how liberals show their compassion for humanity: eradicating half of it. Naturally, they never include themselves, their friends, or their families in this analysis.

    On the other hand, they’re already achieving their twisted goals, intended or not. Since 1973, for example, America has aborted at least 45 million babies thanks to an op-ed piece posing at a U.S. Supreme Court decision. (God knows how many innocent souls have perished world wide since that time.) You know you’re a liberal when mass murder is required to achieve progress.

  5. rufasrastasjohnsonbrown Says:

    Insightfull and deep down we all know it is true ,but when the elimination rounds start I get first pick.When psuedo elites like Francis start advocating population control you know that action t4 for you and me is being discussed somewhere.

  6. Chris Says:

    Amazing how all these people that support population controls don’t have the decency to practice what they preach and kill themselves.

  7. The Mayor Says:

    I’m not sure what has happened to Francis over the last 15 years, but she sure is slipping. The elite right and left have melded together it seems.

  8. J.M. Heinrichs Says:

    I think Prince Phil was moved to make that comment when he realised which direct the WWF was really moving. He was an early practitioner of non-PC commentary.


  9. Wayne Harropson Says:

    The Population Paradox:
    An intelligent, educated individual explains to his tribe that there are far too many human beings on the planet and that, by increasing our numbers, we risk our own safety and that of our children.
    On hearing this information, the more intelligent, sensitive, caring listeners resolve to have fewer children.
    On hearing the same information, the less intelligent, sensitive, caring listeners don’t change their behavior.
    The result is fewer intelligent, sensitive, caring people in the next generation.

    Yes, the Population Paradox really is as simple as that — to put it bluntly, people who care about the state of the planet are outcompeted by those who don’t.


    Answer: Let Liberals think that they are the “intelligent, sensitive, caring people” and just wait it out. WH


Leave a Reply

Protected by WP Anti Spam