Absolutely wrong, completely.

First off, living singly has nothing to do with reproducing or not. I've shared housing all my life. Whereas people with children can and do split up and go live by themselves. And if you look at people with children, they grow up and go live by themselves and then leave the parents in their big empty suburban house with lawn that they maintain by themselves the rest of their lives. Meanwhile the offspring go on and reproduce as well.

Even if I did "live singly" for my entire life, it would clearly be less impact than leaving an entire line of descendants with American lifestyles. But again, it has nothing to do with reproducing.

I agree with Reality-Based Lefty, except that there's always a downside, it's just the best of possible options in China.

The "forced abortion" issue is overblown in the West. I won't say that it hasn't happened, but most of the allegations are wild, unfounded, and politically or religiously motivated. Forced abortion has certainly never been part of the policy.

As for sex-selective abortion, which is illegal, the government is trying hard to crack down on it. After all it's not even legal for a doctor to tell the parents the sex of the fetus, which is a pretty amazing enforcement measure. But although it is a big problem, worries about a "gendercide" are overblown. If you think about it, this is very much a self-limiting problem. Until they start growing babies in vats, only women can reproduce, not men, which places a minimum on the number and proportion of women in China. China is not going to descend into anarchy due to a shortage of females; there are always a certain percentage of men who can't get laid or married even in the presence of an abundance of females. They'll have to deal.

What is not an overblown problem is the devastating effect of overpopulation and resource shortages globally, which is particularly bad in China. Maintaining the one child policy is essential to that country's and our interdependent Earth's futures.

Bob, where are you getting your information? I personally know a lot of Chinese scientists and engineers, none of whom considered the one-child policy a reason for immigrating. Overwhelmingly the ones who talked about it supported it (although sometimes with reservations as to it being an unfortunate necessity), and of the older ones with children, most had one child anyway, or at most two. This is just anecdotal, but I wonder what evidence you have for the extraordinary claim that the #1 reason for emigration is the one child policy. I thought it was economic and professional opportunities.

@LeCastor. The very article you cite states that there is no way to verify these claims, that such actions would in fact violate Chinese regulations if true, and that

Would I support a one-child policy in the USA? Yes, if it came down to it, of course I don't think it is only good for Chinese. But it's not within the realm of political possibility in the United States, and it is not as urgently needed because although the USA is overpopulated it is nowhere near as bad as in China, and it is always best to use voluntary measures first, which I think would be effective. Right now the government encourages natalist policies and hinders access to contraception and abortion, making it worse and hard for people who are trying to voluntarily limit their families.

Good work Berkeley, this message is timely and needed.

He's not worth all these spilt words and "updates." This is why I rarely read Greenwald. Life is short.

He's got a huge shiner and a cut over his eye! Did someone punch him or did he get drunk and walk into a door? Either way, kudos to him for continuing with his show without makeup.

I see nothing in this article that indicates that we can consider peak oil "solved." What I see is a whole lot of nonsolutions that are being bandied about that will make the situation worse. In one breath Romm says that the death of suburbia is overhyped and in the next that salvation will come in the form of a plug-in hybrid. Even assuming that plug-in hybrids will reach the typical consumer in the near future--which is a big stretch given the state of things, even if oil does double in price--electricity won't hold enough juice for suburban driving levels.

Romm also focuses on consumption and rapidly growing demand in the developing world--which may be reduced if commodity prices continue to skyrocket and development slows--but ignores the looming problem of overpopulation. The earth is not going to stay at the current, unsustainable 6.7 billion people. First it is going to grow to over 9 billion in the same timeframe he is talking about. How the hell are we going to pull off all these sci-fi innovations to create a "zero carbon" economy, in the face of a 50% increase in the number of consumers?

But according to Romm, it's all "solved." Whew, glad to know I can move on and carry on business as usual.

And how dare people like those online posters Jessica mentions or filthy_harry here second-guess her decision. She had a 90% chance of developing a highly lethal form of cancer. By taking this measure, she loses a part of her body, but she reduces the odds of this cancer to essentially 0%. It sounds to me that she has made the right decision, given the bleak options available. Eliminating the constant monitoring and anxiety will improve her quality of life more than having a natural pair of boobs, and traumatic as this surgery is now I think she has ample experience to know that it is a walk in the park compared to battling advanced cancer. It sounds like she has made peace with her decision and I am glad she is telling her story for others who may be able to benefit from it in their own situations.