Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Diane Francis, February 2006 – I got married to a Brit, Frank Francis, at 19 years of age and one year later we immigrated to Canada, or Toronto to be precise. We started a graphic design and typesetting business, Francis Graphics, which became very successful. I left the business to stay at home with our two babies, Eric and Julie, for six years.
Diane Francis, December 2009 – “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.”
So, which one, Diane – Eric? Or Julie? (Odds aren’t in Julie’s favour)
No pressure. Take your time.
“I believe that men really only have two primary interests. fighting and f***ing. In my experience, food trails a distant third.”
By 55 or so #3 seems to become tied with #1 (and it ain’t fighting). Just saying.
Jake: Running out of resources is a fallacy.
Resources are infinite and found between our collective ears.
There’s no peak oil; no peak food; no peak nuthin’. No peak lunacy either it seems. And, er, Santayana was an idiot: he opined that those who don’t know history will be forced to repeat it. Wrong. It gets repeated over and over and over again, ‘cos, it’s believed to be DIFFERENT THIS TIME.
And Thomas Malthus was an idiot too: how depressing to see the Malthusian fallacy [fixed resources and a steadily growing population getting progressively poorer] being pimped afresh by the putatively enlightened.
The population adjusts naturally and automatically to changing circumstances.
When I was growing up most families were one income with 4-6 kids.
Then came the welfare state, massive government expansion, massive tax increases, and two-income families with 1-2 kids.
What Me No Dhimmi said.
Overpopulation is still the bugbear of selfish, elitist alarmists who somehow determined how endangered everyone is according to how African, Asian or poor the other person is. It’s a form of racism and elitism that for some reason hasn’t died out. If Mrs. Francis, among others, is so damned worried about overpopulation, she’s more than welcome to take a drastic step herself. She won’t and therein lies part of the hypocrisy.
I think drowning the one female child would be the better choice as the outcome is assured whereas needles in the brain(come on magic eight ball) outcome uncertain!http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2009/12/10/Chinese-docs-pull-needle-from-girls-head/UPI-83821260483305/
people….ignore her….remember…this is a facist beyotch married to a brit wanker…from the center of lefturd Canukistan.Call it like it is…..SHE is a media whore also…and as such should be hauled in front of the taxpayer to explain why she wants to off one of her own kids….sounds like child abuse to me…she can’t have it both ways…or do we allow her too?
Diane Francis was just on teh Oreilly factor and Laura Ingram just destroyed Diane Francis making her look like a total nut job.
I used to have respect for Francis but her whack job position on population control has really eliminated that.
“capitalism … has the fatal flaw of requiring unlimited growth for it to work”
Depends somewhat on your definition of capitalism. Capitalism, as currently maligned by the left, is properly defined as one element of a free market economy, which we don’t have.
At issue is the proper understanding of growth. Most on the left, and many on the right, conflate growth with increasing consumption, since our entangled economy appears predicated upon it. Conservatives should be chided for defending this system in toto. “Horsewhip-and-buggy” growth is, of course, unsustainable! All that means, in a free market system, is that growth moves to a different arena.
Regarding population: in western societies, extended adolescence, the vastly increased personal freedoms, and the increasing educational requirements needed for functioning in what society considers meaningful ways have all contributed to depressing fertility in the biologically optimum childbearing years. Translation: women have kids later, and no longer have the time for more.
Sophie’s choice can be such a bitch…
Jake…if you think Francis was being scorned for having 2 kids you should stick with cbc.ca.
They will tell you what to think there.
Has anyone seen ‘Demographic Winter’? Francis and her ilk may get what they wish for, but the results may backfire on them.
Just as Socialism eventually runs out of capitalist’s money to spend, Capitalists eventually run out of resources to develop .
One of these has been proven again and again , the other , not so much .
Posted by: Bill D. Cat
Have you seen a northern where the resource developers have run out of stuff to mine? The move on and the population is left outside. They move on, but at some point in the future, there will little left to move onto and those will jealously guard what is left. A bad recipe for the future. I do still prefer capitalism. I am just connecting dots.
I sent her an email when the story was first published – b4 the comments were allowed. In part – the best part I think -it read:
Your line of thinking is akin, and just as archaic, as sacrificing a virgin into the mouth of an active volcano to appease the gods – in this case “mother earth”. Had your Mother embraced this line of thinking you would not be here to preach the intrinsic virtue of aborting millions of female babies each year – sons are preferred over daughters. What you are really advocating is murder of children and the micro management (slavery) of the human race on a global scale.
I would suggest that you sacrifice yourself to the human caused climate change active “volcano” -ie: the angry mother earth god, but your obviously not a virgin seeings how you have been screwed over and over again by the Church of Climatology’s false and pseudo prophets…”
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/organicagriculturefeedtheworld.php
I can’t recall hearing anything from DF for a long time so this may have been intentionally provocative to bolster a flagging career.
Regardless, IMO she has actually done a service by pointing to the pink elephant in the environmentalist war room.
Isn’t the whole AGW sham ultimately about population control? Of course trading in bs carbon credits is of course a lucrative side benefit for the masters of the universe.
Syncro
When I first read the DF article my first thought was to wonder how many brothers or sisters she had that she’d kill off, knowing full well DF would choose DF to be THE lone survivor (maybe we should ask her mom about that one). It really didn’t occur to me she had children (plural) and still advocate the assinine 1 child rule.
On Fox News Diane looked like a hamster in a cage with a large hungry snake.. Laura was on a roll
I know this analogy is from pajamas media, but it’s such a great image.
Ferris Bueller:
Have you seen a northern where the resource developers have run out of stuff to mine? The move on and the population is left outside.
Know, but I seen a southern where they’re wuz know education. Everyall done since starved.
Several years ago I was a frequent reader of DF’s business articles and she seemed to have her head screwed on right. What happened to that woman I ask. Well apparently she went to Harvard in 2005. Enough said.
Here is the link to the fox interview with Diane Francis. She uses the fact that children are dying to fortify her argument for Population Control – if the children are dying then the population is being reduced – she wants incentives for women to not have babies – that was talked about in “Population Bomb” make having another child so expensive people can not afford it – seems to already be working.
http://video.foxnews.com/12439441/radical-idea
I read the Diane Francis column and thought, she’s either making a lame and unsuccessful stab at satire, or she’s flipped her wig.
Link: thx for the link re FOX news interview.
DF claims she is a feminist.
But of course in China there is no “choice” you have it imposed on you by force.
On this point DF is an open totalitarian.
Looks like she has a hate on for the Catholic church as well, although the full justification for that position isn’t fully explored.
She drifts back to poor, unfortunate, starving children etc… as if that were some sort of rationale.
Of course the correct response is to clothe and feed poor and starving children rather than ‘offing’ them.
Her leaps of ‘illogic’ are rather tremendous on this score. Agreed the interviewer took her to task and rightfully so.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
if we factor in the cost of preparing for, waging, and cleaning up after all the wars we wage from day to day and year to year and then eliminate the drain on resources and capital, what more can we achieve?
is there a point at which the maximum theoretical capability of development and thus population is reached and then conditions beyond human control manifest which further limits population growth from that maximum level?
jist askin’ . . . .
A friend of mine – a very well established agricultural consultant who does business around the globe was at a seminar recently and one of the presenters made a presentation arguing – apparently quite convincingly – that the worlds ag sector could easily support 35 billion people if needed.
Diane Francis is a pessimist and is anti-humanity – she sees us as a a non-beneficial parasite on the world’s ecosystem. She misses that point as do so many others. It is as simple as “i think therefore i am.”
Diane says the Catholic Church has a lot to answer for; having just viewed the Fox piece I actually felt sorry for her, she was way out of her league, she better stick to pure economics. Pope Benedict is sure to phone her tomorrow with the answers she’s looking for.
Know, but I seen a southern where they’re wuz know education. Everyall done since starved.
Posted by: KevinB
Too stupid to figure our that the missing word was ‘town’ there Kevin. But but just stupid enough to mock a typo.
Get a life you creep.
curious_george – I would highly recommend Prof Al Bartlett’s video for a great take on the challenge of overpopulation, and frankly it’s recommended to many people on this thread. It’s longish – one hour, but worth it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
That’s part one, and the rest follow.
Most of the posters have taken DF to task for being a moral midget. Fine, I agree, but what also stuns me is that somebody working at the NP for years doesn’t seem to know that birth rates have already crashed not just throughout the developing world (not just in Europe and North America, but also in East Asia to some of the lowest levels on Earth) but also quite radically in countries like Brazil, Iran, Mexico and Turkey. The ONLY places where birth rates are still high are the Muslim areas and Africa, and in spite of that world population will soon begin to fall. How can she not know this? Even the UN admits this. How out to lunch can she really be?
My email to Diane Francis:
Ms Francis, According to the CIA World Fact Book, the Canadian fertility rate in 2009 is estimated at 1.58 children per woman; in China, it is 1.79 children per woman. Canadian women have fewer children than Chinese women. Why then do you advocate even fewer Canadian children? For a population to remain biologically stable, the fertility rate should be about 2.2 children per woman. Therefore, both Canada’s and China’s population is crashing down from lack of children. Whereas China’s population is indeed decreasing, Canada’s population is artificially maintained by immigration. The logical conclusion of your column is that you should also advocate the closing of Canadian borders. There, I gave you the subject of your next column. Looking forward to read it.
Reference:
CIA World Fact Book, countries per fertility rate 2009 :
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
PS: If you worry about CO2 emissions, I want to remind you that the best carbon trapping device is a growing tree. I suggest you and your friends stop cutting them to print such non-sense.
I saw the interview on Fox last night. My question is why do femi-nazis always need to announce “btw, I’m a feminist”? Has anyone else ever noticed that woman that seem to hate alot of people includinjg themselves are usually the ones that need to announce that they are “feminists”?
Laura Ingram’s interviews are always hardball as are most of Fox’s people.
I guess you can give Francis some props for showing up and getting destroyed.
Just once I wish that “population control” meant that MEN had to stop having sex, not women.
Or that men had to stop whining about wearing condoms.
Diane Francis is a flake. Moral relativism at its worst.
common
no worries here. Im a long ways from emptying the jelly bean jar, being married over 25 years.
have to rely on my spawn to spawn again.
I think I know what happened to Diane Francis – menopause…affects some women more so than others and in different ways – I started wearing very low rise bell bottom jeans, bought a padded bra, streaked my hair 3 different colours and borrowed my daughters Mp3 player to listen to her music. Its seems surreal to me me now – its like I lost me mind temporarily. Another friend of my had absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happen to her mentally during menopause, but she is now battling breast cancer – very perplexing this menopause.
Over population isn’t the problem. Declining Pop is !!
The debate I’d love to see: Mark Steyn vs. Diane Francis. There would be one less person polluting the earth afterwards, as Francis’ head would explode.
Diane States at about the 1:30 mark that she does not understand the “science” behind “climate change”. Which means she has no idea if it is fraudulent or not, nor any ability to recognize if it is. Yet she is an editor of a major Canadian Daily.
Depite not knowing as to whether or not there is any credibility to the cliams of AGW theorists she is suggesting that the world adopt radical policies to fight that which she does not understand.
Again she is an editor in a major Canadian news organization.
Jaymo – Laura Ingram? I don’t think so, unless she’s had a complete face and body transplant!
The decision to have lots of kids relying on you gives whole new meanings to the phrase “sponge-worthy”.
Manny wrote: “Whereas China’s population is indeed decreasing, Canada’s population is artificially maintained by immigration. The logical conclusion of your column is that you should also advocate the closing of Canadian borders.”
That is just what I was thinking after reading her column, while wondering about Diane’s state of mind.
Just a couple of years ago, if THAT, Canadians were reading news reports telling us that Canada cannot maintain its population level without an increase in immigration. Ergo, WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM when it comes to the size of families. Maybe Diane should be preaching in India?
Read this….GREAT article:
http://www.ejsd.org/public/journal_article/16
“To sum up, Julian Simon strongly believed that the notion that nature puts a clear-cut, limiting condition on growth is a simplistic and misleading premise for public debates and governmental decisions. He was convinced that both facts and theory were on his side. But ultimately his views were rooted in deep moral convictions. Simon was always eager to denounce the anti-humanism of those who think “that additional poor persons in this generation do make others poorer in this and future generations,” that human lives matter less than lives of animals or that humans are the cancer of the Earth. But more than anything, he wanted to demonstrate that altruism is not the monopoly of any particular political economic philosophy and that staunch supporters of free markets, like himself, are true altruists. Simon took pride in his own altruism, a “cosmopolitan view of human beings”: “The lives of people of other countries, ethnicities, and religions matter to me”, he wrote, “irrespective of the fates of the groups to which they belong. I take pride and pleasure in the human race (…)” (Simon 1996, p. 558)”
I’ll just leave this here…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121104378.html?hpid=artslot
Title of the article: Looming population crisis forces officials to rethink one-child policy, but couples hesitate
“More than 30 years after China’s one-child policy was introduced, creating two generations of notoriously chubby, spoiled only children affectionately nicknamed “little emperors,” a population crisis is looming in the country.
The average birthrate has plummeted to 1.8 children per couple as compared with six when the policy went into effect, according to the U.N. Population Division, while the number of residents 60 and older is predicted to explode from 16.7 percent of the population in 2020 to 31.1 percent by 2050. That is far above the global average of about 20 percent”