Imagine There’s No Uncles…
No aunts, no cousins too. No siblings either. This is what young people today are being told to imagine for their grandchildren. The “One planet... one child” idea is being promoted with ads in Vancouver.
The World Population Balance organization, the group behind the ads, are not telling people the sad fact that if their only child marries another only child, then their child(ren) would have no uncles, aunts, or cousins. Imagine all the (missing) people... living life in loneliness. For some of you, that might be easy to imagine already, but for anyone who is part of a large family, this prospect is bleak and deeply disturbing.
Numerous close family connections are a major part of human history. They play a significant role in psychological development. They are key to emotional stability for many. They are often a helpful resource for small families and only children.
This is not an attack on only children and small families; not at all, but this is a critique of those who believe that ALL children SHOULD be “only” children. In Canada today, the birthrate is already less than two children per woman, in other words, less than replacement. So one could question the “need” for ads calling for population reduction.
The ad campaign in Vancouver is suggesting a one-child plan as a voluntary choice, but let’s take a quick look at China where, for thirty-six years, a one child limit was an enforced policy. China, under its Communist dictatorship, had a one-child policy from around 1980 to 2016. Supporters would point out that many Chinese became richer during that time. Perhaps. But what about the long-term? And what about the moral cost?
The moral cost was an increased number of abortions... around 400 million babies were killed in China during these years. Forced sterilizations and abandoned babies were other hidden moral collateral damages.
But what about the long-term? Will China’s material success continue to accelerate? That is hard to say, but the direction of their demographics is so problematic that even the Communist government has switched direction and has begun promoting the need for two or more children per family. They need more young people for their workforce! They are also facing the longer-term prospect of many people retiring and needing pension and care with fewer working-age people able to offer care and pay taxes. By 2050, the ratio of retirees to workers could be as high as 44%. That leads to one question:
Will China’s abortions of the past lead to unprecedented euthanasia in the future? One only has to look at the trends in our Western democracies.
But getting back to the one child policy, Chinese couples were told that they would get rich more quickly if they had only one child. This seemed to be the case for many. Now that the Chinese government wants couples to have more children, they are finding that too many couples have adjusted their lifestyles and expectations so that they are not actually having more than one child, though they are free to. Materialism has infected them too deeply.
For Canada, the prospect of overpopulation should seem a bit far-fetched. Millions of acres stretch out in many directions, and there are significant resources of almost every kind. But organizations like World Population Balance are trying to make people feel guilty about having more than one child. They are basically saying that having more than one is selfish. This message needs to be countered.
The problems that are being cited as a result of increased global population include resource shortages and increased environmental problems due to human wastefulness.
Human wastefulness and harm to the environment are real concerns—but they should not be associated exclusively with population growth. One wasteful person can spread more pollution than ten (or more) responsible people. Environmental protection and less wasteful habits are a matter of education, not population control. If you doubt this, consider China’s record on environmental protection…
The message of decreasing global population is an affront to the biblical mandate to “be fruitful and multiply…” Contempt of God’s image-bearers is apparent in eco-activists such as the founder of “Earth First”, David Foreman: “I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth today and we humans have become a disease, the Human pox”. The crown of God’s creation has been demoted to a “human pox”, “a disease”.
Oddly enough, those who are pushing this decreased population agenda point out that problems, which they associate with overpopulation, have caused some people to die. That seems like an odd thing for them to point out in the negative.
The Canadian Government should be organizing a counter ad campaign to the one in Vancouver—given their spending habits... Perhaps: “One (massive) Debt… Ten (taxpaying) Children” to get the idea across that they don’t want to pay for their promises, and need someone else to stick the debt to... well, if they were honest, they would say that.
One last thing: isn’t it a bit tone-deaf for an organization to be promoting a drop in global population during a year when the biggest news item of all is how people have been dying everywhere of a virus?
CHP always stands for life, for families, for children, and for freedom. If you believe that this message needs to reach more Canadians, please support CHP. If you are not a member, I hope someday you will join us—it isn’t hard to do…
Other Commentary by Peter Vogel:
- Imagine There’s No Uncles…
- Borrowing Prosperity, Postponing Austerity
- CBC, Ethics, and Redeemer University
- So-Cons and Faux-Cons Part Two
- Defund the Police? Why Not?
- Time to Sell Your Stocks in Lego?
- Political Discussion or Racism?
- Cognitive Dissonance on Life-Saving Measures
- Temporary Crisis, Permanent Power-Grab
- So-Cons and Faux-Cons
- A Licence For Your Thoughts?
- Oops, a Senior’s Moment… for Canada