Does Canada need a more aggressive population control policy?

[ansutherland]

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.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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?

 

[Liberalman]

If you want to live in the stone age where you don't get a pension or government help then we don't need anymore people but you want to keep the lifestyle that you have then we need more people or outlaw abortions which is a population killer

 

[Andem]

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.

That's a myth. There's never been any proof that an increase in population sustains economic growth, it's something rather that's thrown around by the pro-immigration crowd who say that whites won't do any dirty work, which is also false.

Immigration in the past 25 years to Canada has had an overall negative impact on Canada's economy and recorded net losses. All one has to do is look at national debt and the sources of immigration.

If you want to live in the stone age where you don't get a pension or government help then we don't need anymore people but you want to keep the lifestyle that you have then we need more people or outlaw abortions which is a population killer

Again, this is a myth with no solid evidential proof. You sound like you're talking from the government's (Cons or Libs) official propaganda handbook.

 

[YukonJack]

Whites don't do any dirty work?

When I came to Canada, I worked on the highway, patching potholes. Along with me were white doctors and enginerers from the old country. Then on the CPR, replacing rails. Again, there were white people qualified for far more, right there. Then underground in the mines. There were white immigrants there, too. Then covered
from head to toe in carbon black in a rubber factory. Some of my fellow white workers held graduate degrees from the old country.

Of course that was before the abonation known as the Charter. We knew nothing about RIGHTS, but we sure knew about RESPONSIBILITIES.

If there were no convenient, government (ie taxpayer supported) escape channels for natural born free-loaders, anyone would do any job in order to survive and support their families.

 

[relic]

I got here late,but I'd like to comment on #4 about people moving to the country so services will improve,I don't like that plan,then you get a bunch of townies turning your nice rural area into a bedroom comunity and it's not so rural anymore.Next you have to start locking your door,get some motion detector lights,get your neighbors permission to paint your fence,the list goes on.
I think if you have something like eight percent unemployment,why do you want/need more people on the puplic tit ?

 

[Liberalman]

That's a myth. There's never been any proof that an increase in population sustains economic growth,

Lets see if more people come to live in the country this creates demand for products and services
People move here they are hungry they eat and the demand for food jobs increases
People need somewhere to live demand for housing
People need clothes,demad for clothes makers.
People need to buy furniture, demand for furniture maker.
People enrols their kids in school, demand for teachers
One myth proved as fact




Immigration in the past 25 years to Canada has had an overall negative impact on Canada's economy and recorded net losses. All one has to do is look at national debt and the sources of immigration

Immigration has nothing to do with Canada’s recorded net loses.

The losses has more to do with less demand for Canadian products from countries that found other sources

 

[petros]

Canada is far from being "completed" this topic might have relevance in 200 years or longer.

 

[Machjo]

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.

What does this have to do with a 'consumer' society? What I'm saying is that we have plenty of land to share with the rest of the world. If anything, it would seem the idea that we should greedily keep all the land to ourselves comes closer to a consumerist mentality.

Isn't it fun for each taxpayer to have to pay taxes to sustain 100 km per person?

OK, I might be exaggerating, but the principle still stands. I'd rather we raise the population density so that we have more people to pay for less length of road per person. We don't want a higher population density yet complain about taxes being too high or the government not providing adequate services for the taxes we pay, etc. Well, we can't have it both ways. If all our money goes to building roads to nowhere, what do expect?

Now if the issue it to ensure immigrants meet certain minimum standards in terms of language ability, ability to find decent employment, etc. that's another matter. But the idea of trying to limit population growth makes no sense for Canada right now.

 

[taxslave]

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.

It wouldn't be frivolous if we could get your mother to have a retroactive abortion.

We do ned to control our immigration. The current policies which we can thank the Liberals for encourage family reunification from third world countries because they think this PC. What we should be encouraging is the best educated and brightest immigrants to come here. And yes we can dictate where in Canada they go rather than letting them head for the big cities.

 

[Machjo]

Two programmes we do need to get rid of are:

Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program

and

Programme Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC)

Any person coming to Canada should be expected to prove that he does not need such programmes. Expecting higher standards however is not to be confused with a quota. They are two totally different concepts. I'd say raise the standards on the one hand, but scrap quotas on the other. Anyone who meets the standards ought to be welcomed.

 

[YukonJack]

Thank you taxslave!

Whenever I prompt a hateful post like yours, I know I am doing and saying something right.