quinton

In this article, Suzuki questions our plan for a perpetually growing economy in a finite planet, which ultimately means a societal goal of "producing more consumer goods": http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_Dav...kly02240601.asp He links it to population in the end of the article also. He doesn't question global population growth and why Canada supports it via its mass immigration program, but at least he is starting to see the big picture. It's important not to just get bogged down in any one of the thousands of symptomatic environmental disasters happening simultaneously around the globe. It is important to see the root cause, which points to the problems of population growth and consumption growth. Population growth and consumption growth are what fuels the universal societal goal: economic growth. Perhaps we should change our priorities while there are still forests and biodiversity left.

Religion is at the root of evil. That's all I have to say. Check out the documentary by Professor Richard Dawkins to see how religion is a disease.

Spike22 I did not find your humour interesting or amusing. To me, you sound like an airhead who doesn't think about important problems because you cannot be bothered. You probably watch TV sports and care about cars, spending money, and have lots of status anxiety. Say something intelligent or keep your comments to yourself.

Geoffrey says: Geoffery why does growth have to come from anywhere in Canada? When is enough enough? Ever heard of the steady state economics model? It allows nations to focus on more noble goals than growth.

Sparhawk and Hollus, you have both made great points and thanks for refuting that common myth.

Yes I agree with you on that point, the new approach is NOT Kyoto. Kyoto ignores other pollution and allows countries to trade CO2 credits which encourages unsustainability. Kyoto is a joke as long as population growth continues at the present rate. The new approach we need is an environmentally educated public that is against economic, population, and consumption growth. We need a public that will not shy away from talking about the immigration problem, and the problem of perpetual growth in a finite world. Steady state economics must be adopted. Currency must be backed by some real commodity and the government must regain the power to issue its own currency instead of borrowing it from the Global Elite (international bankers) who can print as much as they want and charge the government interest. (i.e. the US Federal Reserve which should be called Private Reserve, as it is a misnomer) Furthermore, money is only worth what resources the earth has left to provide. As the population grows to 9.1 billion in 2050 as projected by the US Cencus Bureau and the UN, there will be a strong reduction in the resources per capita. You will need to work more jobs to get a smaller share. The rich will be richer and the poor, poorer. I don't think the population will get that high personally, because before 2050 there will be a mass die off when oill runs out.

YankAbroad, do you think most technology is designed to reduce humans impacts on the environment? Quite contrary, most technology is geared towards economic growth, which is designed to increase consumerism. Most technology creates more consumption. Look at Genetically Modified terminator seeds being generated now by Monsanto. In some cases (like in Saskatchewan, where GM canola seeds polluted many fields) farmers can no longer save their seeds, they have to buy new seeds every year from Monsanto, and even spray them with activator chemicals. This is profit driven, and it is increasing human's burden on the earth. A study was done comparing fuel efficiency of new cars with cars already in junkyards. The junkyard cars were more efficient. YankAbroad, you don't seem to get it: Economic Growth = Population Growth * Per Capita Consumption Growth Environmental Damage also = Population Growth * Per Capita Consumption Growth Maybe you are in your late 70's and do not care much about the future of your country or the planet. You seem to ignore Pharmer's valid points about the earth having finite resources. Oil and gas will eventually run out. Some predictions are as early as 2032. Let me present this to you from a different angle... How much of the earth's vegetation should be dedicated to human life, and how much for the other creatures that existed long before the first human walked the earth? The reason for increased natural disasters in the news killing people like Tsunamis and Hurricanes is not necessarily because there are more radical weather patterns, it is simply because humans are living in parts of the world that they never lived before, and in greater numbers.

geoffery, thanks for correcting BHS and YankAbroad.

BHS says: BHS, about 300,000 is the population growth in Canada, check out www.statscan.ca. This already takes into account the number of deaths. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051221/d051221e.htm They had a page which they took down later which broke down the growth and 2/3 was net immigration and 1/3 was due to net reproduction. Yes, even without immigration, Canada's population would still be growing.

YankAbroad, Canada's land area is not 50% larger than the US. I do not know where you get your numbers. Your first big mistake is trying to use Canada's land area to judge its carrying capacity. If that were a reasonable metric, I suppose you wouldn't mind living in Ellesmere Island, Nunavut right? Canada's carrying capacity cannot be compared with USA or Britain on a land area basis, because of the geography and climate of a country whose majority of land is harsh and inhospitable.

YankAbroad, do you ever enjoy peaceful areas rich in wildlife and biodiversity? If so, chances are the river that you fished in growing up as a child is not the same as it used to be. I have experienced many streams, lakes and open areas lose biodiversity as development from humans encroaches. This type of encroachment (be it new roads for mining/logging, or golf courses, or housing developments) increases directly as a result of population growth. This is because consumption per capita has been increasing not decreasing. All over Canada, land is changing fast. Human impacts are visible from space. Check out Google's satellite images. Land with the most potential for biodiversity in Canada is also most heavily settled by humans due to its warmer climate. You mentioned New York City. The growth of that city has resulted in the loss of a lot of Canadian old growth forests. Quality of life is a different thing to each individual. To me quality of life is living on land rich in biodiversity. Canada is losing biodiversity rapidly in favour of a monoculture of people. In Southern Canada many species like the spiny softshell turtle, blue racer snake, northern ribbon snake, five lined skink, ivory billed woodpecker, wolf, etc are either on the verge of extinction or have already been extirpated. YankAbroad, are you happy with having Southern Canada only supporting domestic cats, dogs, farm animals, pigeons, skunks, gray squirrells, raccoons, starlings, sparrows and other species that adapt well to human altered environments? I am not Based on my view of quality of life, Canada should aim to stop population growth, economic growth, and exporting natural resources to other countries. That is my vision for Canada.

sage... Unless nature pulls the plug on our habbits in the short term (oil depletion, severe loss of land from melted polar ice caps, ozone layer complications yet not understood, etc)... Change will occur slowly and only when public opinion unifies the notion that human impacts are impoverishing the earth not just for future generations, but for our own wellbeing in our own lifetimes. This notion will soon make it obvious that further population growth anywhere on earth is not desirable. Economic growth = population growth * consumption growth Economic growth must be understood by the public as equivalent to environmental destruction. Only then, will it be strongly discouraged. cybercoma, care to justify your opinion?

speaker, thanks for sharing your opinions. Anyone else have a position on this? Things seem to be getting worse. The heavily developed countries may have environmental policy that is tough or progressive in some cases, but they have barely anything left to protect. Those countries with still vast resources left in need of protection, have poor or lacking environmental policy, and clearcut their resources for short term profits. (Canada included) A recent study revealed that biodiversity in the Pacific Ocean has declined by 25% and in the Atlantic by 50%. Now whale hunting for "scientific research" is occuring heavily in Japan and Norway. I see the only hope is starting right here in Canada and educating the public that perpetual population growth and economic growth is undesirable. Ridiculously, most Canadians if you ask them today are in favour of economic growth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to think economic growth is good and not care or even realize that it is degrading Canada's ecological integrity.

Well for starters, Steven Harper only cares about Economic Growth. Why is that bad, well let's see... Economic Growth = Population Growth * Per Capita Consumption Growth Population Growth * Per Capita Consumption Growth = Increased Environmental Degradation Does that sum up for you what a Harper government would be like? He will probably increase immigration for Economic/Population Growth... so new housing developments will be springing up in all of your greenspace... ...and he'll probably increase consumption, by harvesting Canada's wilderness forests and converting them to monoculture tree farms at an even more unsustainable rate. Biodiversity and wilderness will be destroyed by a Harper government, likely even worse than it was by the Liberals. Now do you see why I hate Harper and Conservatives? I am going to vote the Green Party, even though they support deliberate population growth for economic growth just like all the other parties, I think we need more options. My worst fear is a "democratic" system like the USA with only 2 choices: red or blue, who are both very similar. We need issue based politics so that we can vote referendum style on all the issues instead of voting on personalities like Harper, Duceppe, Layton, Harris, or Martin.

During the few times when environmental issues are discussed, Canada's deliberate population growth is never debated. It seems that Canadians are only willing to discuss finding ways to reduce their per capita consumption. Apparently population growth is too controversial for an unsophistocated electorate. This is a huge issue. If you research on Statistics Canada, you'll see about 1% per year population growth in Canada. Of which about 200,000 is from net immigration and 100,000 is from net reproduction. Netting around 300,000 new Canadians every year is deliberately done for "economic growth" and it has huge impacts on the environment. Even the NDP and Green Party's current party policy platforms are promoting this population growth. Here are forumulas that I agree with: Environmental Degradation = Population * Per Capita Consumption Economic Growth = Population Growth * Per Capita Consumption Growth Therefore Economic Growth is the same as increasing Environmental Degradation. Why don't we work towards a steady state economy that doesn't rely on constant population growth and increasing consumption? EG: what is suggested on: http://www.steadystate.org/FAQ.html Until we stop population growth, we will never be able to protect biodiversity, wilderness, natural heritage, and overall quality of life. Today's environmental problems are far too numerous and difficult to solve without looking at the root problem: Too many people chasing too few resources. We also must prevent the continued exploitation of Canada's resources (forests, water, fish, fossil fuels, minerals) for exportation to insatiable globalized markets. Here are some forums I have started to discuss this issue: http://www.alldebate.net/index.php?showforum=21 http://www.myccr.com/SectionForums/viewtopic.php?t=14811 Here is someone else's forum topic that I agree with his position: http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic4672-0-asc-0.html Here is someone who gives me hope that people might wake up soon. He shares my same viewpoint, and has written the following two articles: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4585920.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4584572.stm