Hard decisions are hard by definition

Submitted by Peter Hall (Australia), Nov 14, 2011 at 18:04

Thank you for your comments Kepha Hor, however, the Chinese took a course of action that was not meant to be popular, it made the decision because it was necessary.

The Chinese might hate it, but still, the world has way too many people in it and the population is increasing at an alarming rate.

Muslims, Africans and many parts of Asia and India all might hate having to admit that they need laws to control their populations, as self restraint obviously doesn't work.

How horrible would India be today if it only had 200 million people instead of 1.3 billion? How bad would it be if China had 250 million?

If there were 200 million well fed Muslims instead of 1.5 billion? Or a few 100 million less Catholics?

Aging populations is only a problem in wealthy countries trying to keep its standards of living. Having too many old people is hardly a problem compared to the starving millions around the world.

AUSTRALIA has the poorest soils and the worst position in the world from a trade point of view. Yet it has continually amongst the highest standards of living in the world. It feeds itself and a fair chunk of the world, and has a well educated and healthy population.

The reason isn't that we are a superior race or follow superior religions, or that we are blessed by God. The sole reason is that we have less people. If we hat just 10% of India's population we would be in a mess.

Every country has a carrying ability, just like a paddock can only feed so many cattle. Many parts of the world have exceeded the ability of its land to support its people and maintain the quality of the environment.

The poor countries of the world have to take responsibilty to reduce its populations just as the rich countries have a duty to share the wealth more.

The danger of Islam isn't the stone age customs it propagates, it is the contribution that Islam is bringing to the population growth of the world.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".