Yzermandius19

If people want to spread out, fine, if they want to go to Toronto, I have no problem with that either. Government doesn't need to step in on this one. Decreasing our population makes no sense, we are the most sparsely populated nation of any real size in the world, we need more people, not less. If your overpopulation dogma is so ingrained that you think even a country as large as Canada needs a smaller population, you are too far gone to be reasoned with.

Canada's birth rate is below replacement, Canada is nowhere near overpopulate. If you want less immigrants, have more kids.

The Woke Twitter Mob is an extremely small fringe vocal minority, who knew?

Tell him to do just do his own coaches corner live after HNIC first intermission, and post it to youtube. Tell him if it wasn't for him, hockey probably would have been nerfed even more than it already is. Tell him to take Rogers ratings, out of spite. I've never disliked Canada and Canadians more than I do right now, absolutely loathsome. *spits tobacco juice*

I'm boycotting Rogers. How dare they take Don Cherry away? Hopefully there's a giant backlash that makes them hire him back, this is ridiculous.

Seriously? No more Don Cherry. F*ck Rogers, f*ck the Woke Mob and f*ck the Confederation they rode in on. Hockey is on the verge of being nerfed beyond recognition, and now not even Don Cherry will be telling them to go shove it on National TV. Sad.

If Alberta's oilsands are profitable, then the free market will take care of it, if the oilsand's aren't profitable then the government shouldn't be propping them up to make them profitable. Economic nationalism is for rubes.

I actually agree with jacee for once, stop the presses.

Not taking advantage of comparative advantage will not the help the environment, or the economy, another faulty assumption.

A population that small would maintain a worse quality for the humans who inherit the earth in 2000 years than the population levels of today would maintain. Your assumption that the earth's carrying capacity can't stand having several billion people is a faulty one.

A population that small would be a lot less technologically advanced and wouldn't be able to build "everything we need", we wouldn't have the human capital to pull it off. Wealth isn't a burden on the planet, killing capitalism to save capitalism through an idiotic centrally planned depopulation scheme is a really dumb plan. If we have the resources to support a lot more people than currently exist, which we do, then having a lot less people will simply not take advantage of that to fuel the economic growth we need to really help the environment and feed the poor, etc. This assumption that less humans will be better for the environment, or the economy, or for the much smaller population of people who do exist, is simply not true. Some places on earth need more people, some places could use less, but overpopulation on planetary scale is not a problem and having less than a billion people would not make for a better world.

Smart people ending up in government wouldn't solve the problem either. The problem is not that if smarter people were in charge everything would be better. The market knows better than any one individual or small group individuals, no matter how smart, that's why free market capitalism works much better than all the central planning schemes of the smart people ever have. Benevolent Smart Central Planners are not the way to go, even if you could ensure they were the only one's given the power, which you can't, it would not work nearly as well as free market capitalism can, even in the best case scenario. The solution is not government intervention, just the opposite, laissez faire ftw.

I'll take not giving the government control over reproduction, and leave that up to individuals, while letting the prosperity fueled by free market capitalism take care of it. That works infinitely better than your approach and won't result in a dystopia due to utopian wishful thinking that if the right people are just in charge, authoritarianism over reproduction is the way to go, when that has never worked once in the history of humanity and very often lead to disaster.

I think that your faith in debate to change the minds of rubes is misguided, and your faith that it ends up in the right hands is also misguided, apparently you don't know anything about history, because this has been tried before, it never ends up in the right hands. You are like a communist pretending real communism has never been tried and that's why it fails every single time, no matter how many times it's tried, next time will be the time the right people are in charge and it will lead to utopia. Give it a rest, you're just wrong, your utopian delusions lead directly to a dystopia, learn some history. The solution is not to put that power in the hands of any group, not just pick another group to give that power to and it will all be hunky dory.

You can't ensure that the right people will be in charge, it is far more likely to end up in the wrong hands, and it will end disastrously, as it has every time it's been tried. Gradual depopulation is happening as wealth increases, no need for eugenics or centrally planned population control. Depopulation doesn't fuel economic growth, just the opposite. Countries with low economic growth tend to have below replacement birth rates, a smaller generation having to take care of a much larger aging generation is economically burdensome. Gradual depopulation does not lead to less old people, it leads to less young people, unless you go full eugenics and start killing old people before they die of disease or natural causes. If there is a lot of old people and very few young people, that's going to make it harder for the young people to get ahead, which slows down economic growth.

The reduction in the rate of population increase is accelerating at a rapid pace, eventually the population will plateau and decline. The best chances of not living under eco tyranny is not population control, that is fastest to usher in eco tyranny in fact. The best way to reduce population levels is to increase wealth, while improving transportation and infrastructure, and population will occur naturally without any government intervention. China overdid it with the disastrous one child policy population control measures, and they will pay the price for doing so, it did not help them. In many nations in the world, having less births will be a detriment, not a boon. You want to reduce the African population growth, them getting wealthier will do far more to help them than any population control measures you can dream up, just look at India. Once Africa catches up to where India is now, their birth rate will be near replacement as well and there will be no more exponential population growth, even in Africa.

I don't think you get that population growth is not exponential, and you are applying a dynamic that doesn't actually exist. You look at past growth rates and assume they will continue into the future at a similar clip, when that is not the case at all. The best way to stabilize Africa is increased wealth which will result in lower birth rates and less Africans being added than your projections. If there is a problem, it is solving itself. 15 billion ain't happening in the next 100 years, you're being ridiculous. If birth rates are below replacement and the old people surplus dies off because they can't live forever, that equals less population, not more, and it certainly doesn't result in exponential population growth either. Exponential growth occurs only when birth rates are well above replacement and life expectancy rises rapidly at the same time, your math is just off. Africa will grow the most sure, but not so much the world can't feed itself, including Africa, due to lack of food or resources. That's not a thing.

The rate of increase from 2006 to 2019 will not be the rate of increase from 2019 to 2032, the answer to the question is not relevant. China is already well below replacement rate at 1.62 births per woman, which will mean a declining population. The Indian birth rate is already on 2.33 birth per woman, that's almost replacement. African birth rates are falling rapidly as well and that will accelerate as their wealth increases, this phenomenon will cause a plateau and then decline in world population in the not too distant future. In 1965 the Indians were having 5.83 births per woman, in 2016 that number is 2.33, In 1965 the Chinese were having 6.4 births per woman, in 2016 that number is 1.62. Your population projections fail to account for falling birth rates. The reason for population growth isn't births, it's people living longer. The birth rate has been declining the entire population boom and that process is accelerating now that this is over. Once the old people die, the lower than replacement birth rate means declining population numbers.

That's because you want to cherry pick a number then act like from 2019 until 2032 the population will increase at the same rate as did from 2006 to 2019, but that is wrong. The rate of population rising is falling fast and will eventually start shrinking, the world population in nearing a plateau and then a decline, it is not going to increase at current rates until the end of time. 15 billion ain't happening, no matter how many stats you cherry pick to pretend otherwise.

Mexico in 1968 had 6.83 births per woman, and now they are barely above replacement at 2.18 births per woman 50 years later, birth rates change as nations wealth increases, as the third world gets richer, less babies will be born. This is happening in India and has already happened in China. It will happen in Africa too. Birth rates change and your projecting into the future based on higher birth rates that are falling rapidly is leading you to idiotic analysis.

The birth rates are falling, especially in the countries with the highest birth rates, it's a fallacy that the population will continue to rise at the rate it did in the last 13 years. Go look them up if you don't believe me, quit pretending you know everything.

The population isn't going to hit 15 billion, not even close. It might not even hit 11 billion by 2100. Some people really suck at math.

I just destroyed them all in this thread and you had no rebuttal, I also destroyed those arguments in those thread too. You don't have any compelling arguments, if you did, you would have made them.

Quelle surprise. Wants to flee the argument entirely and makes up excuses to do so, knowing he's losing the argument badly. Called it.

Alright then start an overpopulation thread and get steamrolled if you are confident in your position then. But we both know you'd rather duck the argument entirely, because you ran into actual opposition to your nonsensical Malthusian assertions.