Does Canada need a more aggressive population control policy?


ansutherland
#1
While it is necessary for the government to allow a certain number of immigrants into the country in order to sustain increase economic growth, there is of course the down side. We in Canada value our large open spaces and the great outdoors and make this part of our identity. At some point however, we should decide where we draw the line between aggressively seeking economic growth and maintaining the abundance of natural resources we all enjoy.

What do you all think? Are we where we should be with regards to population? Should we seek to scale it back, or can we afford more?
 
Chiliagon
Liberal
#2
I wouldn't say we have any problems. it's just out east.

Lots and lots of open land out West! Alberta and Saskatchewan alone can handle 10-15 Million more!

come on out!
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+1
#3  Top Rated Post
Eliminating politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen would make a significant reduction in the populwtion to allow for some useful immigration.
Why do we need economic growth? Why can't we be happy with what we got? Economic groth requires the destruction of our environment. When do we say enough is enough when it comes to stuff we don't really need, like more than one TV, One ATV, one car, one Micro Wave oven, etc, etc. We don't have a population problem, we have a consumption problem.
 
Mowich
Conservative
#4
I second that Chil, we have room enough for thousands out here and maybe if we had more people our rural areas would not be faced with losing services such as is happening now.

The problem seems to be that immigrants to Canada, by and large, tend to move to the larger centers. You can't legislate where people chose to live.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#5
Let me guess.... educational standards for who we let breed as well as vote? lol.
 
ansutherland
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Let me guess.... educational standards for who we let breed as well as vote? lol.

That's a good idea! Tommy Douglas would be proud. I do however support educational standards for those who wish to enter Canada.
 
Chiliagon
Liberal
#7
tell em Ontario is full.. Alberta has jobs, homes and money!
 
ansutherland
+1
#8
Gimme a # though. For those who say come on it, how many is enough? 50 Million? 75 Million? I know Canada can hold a lot of people, but that does not mean we should. I think Cliffy and I have thus far disagreed a lot, but I am more in line with his thinking on this issue. Our environment stability needs to be the biggest of considerations when planning future population growth. I think it prudent on the part of the government to plan for the worst. In doing so, we should be able to have a balance whereby we are fully self sustainable. The more people we have, the less sustainable we are. I know it's an unlikely event, but if/when something majorly catastrophic happens, we need to rely on what nature has given us, and the less of that we have, the more desperate we become.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#9
Is unrestricted, frivoulous, paid-for-by-taxpayers' money abortion a form of population control??
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#10
To bad there are laws that might find population control discriminatory. Look what is happening in Arizona. Your supposed to be more liberal about this than us, and till that catastrophe occurs that forces us to limit population growth and consumption, we will all just continue on. Were not a very smart species.
 
ansutherland
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Is unrestricted, frivoulous, paid-for-by-taxpayers' money abortion a form of p[opulation control??

Population control, I don't know. Unrestricted and f rivolous , I don't think so.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

To bad there are laws that might find population control discriminatory. Look what is happening in Arizona. Your supposed to be more liberal about this than us, and till that catastrophe occurs that forces us to limit population growth and consumption, we will all just continue on. Were not a very smart species.

That is why I keep praying for divine intervention. But I think Momma is smart enough to take care of the problem. Looks to me like she has already started.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
-1
#13
Yo screw around anytime, anywhere, with anybody. You get knocked up.

You run to the nearest abbotoir clinic. You get an abortion. Paid by the taxpayers.

Any questions about frivolous and unrestricted?

Only by fools.
 
ansutherland
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

That is why I keep praying for divine intervention. But I think Momma is smart enough to take care of the problem. Looks to me like she has already started.

That could make you a gonner though......hopefully she keeps her interventions far from BC...
 
Tonington
+1
#15
I have an idea, maybe threads about abortion should be used to speak about abortion. Unless someone thinks we need more abortion, that topic isn't really germane at all to this discussion. The only form of population control we have as a country is the immigration of new Canadians. I don't think that we need to change anything, except to base garden variety immigration on economic factors.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ansutherland View Post

That could make you a gonner though......hopefully she keeps her interventions far from BC...

Sorry, but BC is a major contributor to environmental destruction, especially since Gordo gave away all our creeks and rivers to international rapers and pillagers in the form of IPPs. It is bad enough that we raped our forests and destroyed our fisheries, now we are going to kill off the rest of our fish by damning up all our water ways. Gordo is a criminal hell bent on turning BC into a desolate wasteland of corporate greed.
 
ansutherland
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Yo screw around anytime, anywhere, with anybody. You get knocked up.

You run to the nearest abbotoir clinic. You get an abortion. Paid by the taxpayers.

Any questions about frivolous and unrestricted?

Only by fools.

Abortion is a little off topic, but just to correct you:

"If you've lived in BC for less than three months (or you're not a resident), the cost for an early abortion is about $450 to $600. Some of that may be reimbursable once you qualify for BC's medical plan. Also, some but not all provinces will reimburse former residents who have abortions in BC, but who have lived in BC for less than three months."

" Most abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy—the first trimester. A few doctors in BC do abortions on request up to about 20 or 22 weeks, as well as a few clinics in Ontario, Quebec, and Washington State. Abortions are also available after 22 weeks in the rare event that your life or health becomes seriously threatened by the pregnancy, or in cases of serious fetal abnormality."

THE PRO-CHOICE ACTION NETWORK

As you can see, there are clearly restrictions as well as costs to the user of the service in certain circumstances.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#18
ansutherland, be that as it may.

Since 1973 about 3.5 million Canadian babies have been aborted.

Do you think that that does not play a significant factor in our population?
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

ansutherland, be that as it may.

Since 1973 about 3.5 million Canadian babies have been aborted.

Do you think that that does not play a significant factor in our population?

You can also look at it form the stand point of resources saved, money saved, and less crime caused by unwanted children, which is more to the pint of the OP than your whining.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#20
Cliffy, you can also look at it from the standpoint that those who would have not been butchered by abortion between 1973 and 1992 would have been and still be tax-paying citizens.
 
ansutherland
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

ansutherland, be that as it may.

Since 1973 about 3.5 million Canadian babies have been aborted.

Do you think that that does not play a significant factor in our population?

You may have a point, I was mostly just objecting to the use of some of your terms, as they were incorrectly used. On the topic of population control and whether or not there is a net benefit to legalized abortion, I don't know.

It seems intuitive that abortion would limit the number of children born, but that may not always be the case. As an example, by having abortion available, it allows for the almost immediate pregnancy of the person who got it. If however they could not get the abortion, they would go through 9 months of gestation whereby they could not get pregnant and a recovery period thereafter.....maybe totalling 10-11 months on average. Either way, I don't know if abortion really is a good means of population control, but I believe it to be a basic right as well as a means of controlling crime rates.

Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Cliffy, you can also look at it from the standpoint that those who would have not been butchered by abortion between 1973 and 1992 would have been and still be tax-paying citizens.

The book Freekonomics does a pretty good job at outlining an argument for why abortion is the key to the fall in crime rates in the early to mid 90's. To further solidify their argument, they point out that in states where abortion was not made available right away, the crime rates took slightly longer to fall. Now the argument has to be: does the costs associated in the reduction in crime offset the reduction in tax dollars?
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#22
"The book Freekonomics does a pretty good job at outlining an argument for why abortion is the key to the fall in crime rates in the early to mid 90's. To further solidify their argument, they point out that in states where abortion was not made available right away, the crime rates took slightly longer to fall. Now the argument has to be: does the costs associated in the reduction in crime offset the reduction in tax dollars?"

The argument you cite only applies and is true when the mother (can't say "parents" because the irresponsible "father" usually disappears) is irresponsible. Responsible parents (mother) raise their child to be responsible.

Of course, if they had been responsible to begin with, they would not have gotten the young lady pregnant, haphazardly, mostly not even know who the daddy might be.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#23
It is not a matter of affording more population. Currently Canada's birthrate is below the level needed to sustain its present population. The level of immigration Canada now has is just enough to keep it where it is.
 
Machjo
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ansutherland View Post

While it is necessary for the government to allow a certain number of immigrants into the country in order to sustain increase economic growth, there is of course the down side. We in Canada value our large open spaces and the great outdoors and make this part of our identity. At some point however, we should decide where we draw the line between aggressively seeking economic growth and maintaining the abundance of natural resources we all enjoy.

What do you all think? Are we where we should be with regards to population? Should we seek to scale it back, or can we afford more?

Population densities in persons per square kilometre:

Macau, China (the world's highest): 18,534.247
United Kingdom: 254.676
The world average: 46.025
United States: 32.163
Canada's population density: 3.422
Greenland, Denmark (the world's lowest): 0.026

How much space could we possibly need?

If anything, such a low population density can even be a drawback owing to the costs of managing the land mass on such a small tax base.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+1
#25
Population density cannot be compared to land mass unless you stipulate what is inhabitable land and inhabitable land. You also need to take into account arable land and crop yields to calculate the sustainable population the land mass can feed and house.
 
Machjo
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Population density cannot be compared to land mass unless you stipulate what is inhabitable land and inhabitable land. You also need to take into account arable land and crop yields to calculate the sustainable population the land mass can feed and house.

So is Canada's landmass really 13X poorer in quality than the world average that we could not sustain a higher population density?

Believe it or not, even the UK actually exports at least as much food as it imports, yet it has more than 74 times Canada's population density. Are you suggesting that Canada's average soil quality is more than 74 times poorer than the UK's? If so, we're sitting on a garbage heap.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

So is Canada's landmass really 13X poorer in quality than the world average that we could not sustain a higher population density?

Believe it or not, even the UK actually exports at least as much food as it imports, yet it has more than 74 times Canada's population density. Are you suggesting that Canada's average soil quality is more than 74 times poorer than the UK's? If so, we're sitting on a garbage heap.

If we would quit burying our prime agricultural land under golf courses, condominiums. shopping malls and parking lots perhaps we could feed a larger population. At present only about 5% of the land mass of BC is inhabited by humans, Old Growth forests are about 5% of what they used to be and the animal population (except for deer) are about the same. You tell me how many humans this land can sustain before we turn it into a desolate wasteland.
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

If we would quit burying our prime agricultural land under golf courses, condominiums. shopping malls and parking lots perhaps we could feed a larger population. At present only about 5% of the land mass of BC is inhabited by humans, Old Growth forests are about 5% of what they used to be and the animal population (except for deer) are about the same. You tell me how many humans this land can sustain before we turn it into a desolate wasteland.

Oh give me a break. While I acknowledge that some parts of Canada, especially in its northern reaches, could not sustain much agriculture, if we consider that Vancouver Island is just slightly smaller than the British Isles yet has a similar climate and its agriculture appears to be successful, it would be reasonable to suppose that we could probably fit the entire Canadian population we currently have on that island , house it, feed it, and sustain it in every other way from the fruits of that island alone, and still have plenty of leg room.

And yet we pretend we can't sustain a higher population density?

Likewise if we look at the city of Ottawa. If we used our land efficiently, we could maintain the same population we have now on a fraction of the land we are currently using in this city.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Oh give me a break. While I acknowledge that some parts of Canada, especially in its northern reaches, could not sustain much agriculture, if we consider that Vancouver Island is just slightly smaller than the British Isles yet has a similar climate and its agriculture appears to be successful, it would be reasonable to suppose that we could probably fit the entire Canadian population we currently have on that island , house it, feed it, and sustain it in every other way from the fruits of that island alone, and still have plenty of leg room.

And yet we pretend we can't sustain a higher population density?

Likewise if we look at the city of Ottawa. If we used our land efficiently, we could maintain the same population we have now on a fraction of the land we are currently using in this city.

I'm not so much saying we can't as we shouldn't. This mindless consumer society can go the way of the dinosaur as far as I'm concerned. I would rather return the land to those who don't abuse it. On a bad day I would rather have a conversation with a bear. They make more sense than most humans.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#30
"I'm not so much saying we can't as we shouldn't. This mindless consumer society can go the way of the dinosaur as far as I'm concerned. I would rather return the land to those who don't abuse it. On a bad day I would rather have a conversation with a bear. They make more sense than most humans."

Different strokes for different folks, Cliffy. Most people enjoy all the advantages that come with our society, even those who bitch about it, but are hypocrites to claim otherwise. So why don't you converse with bears on the computer that bears developed and built.

If we can - and we CAN - why shouldn't we?
 

Similar Threads

62
Zionist Control of US Policy
by Stretch | Aug 1st, 2019
23
The best inflation policy for Canada
by Machjo | Apr 10th, 2010
31
Codex Alimentarius/population control?
by givpeaceachance | Jul 30th, 2009
126
Gun Control in Canada
by Colpy | Sep 21st, 2006