Is increasing immigration by 50% to 450k too high?

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

And to feed those 30 million people you'd need another Alberta or two full of farmland. 

 

That depends on what diet you feed them, and how wasteful your farming techniques are. Using conventional farming, you could feed over a billion people in the land area of Alberta, the entire current population of the world using hydroponics, and about 5 times that using aeroponics. Of course we wouldn't be eating beef at those densities. 

[Bonam]

35 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

That depends on what diet you feed them, and how wasteful your farming techniques are. Using conventional farming, you could feed over a billion people in the land area of Alberta, the entire current population of the world using hydroponics, and about 5 times that using aeroponics. Of course we wouldn't be eating beef at those densities. 

I look forward to the day when I live in a Canada of 1 billion people and a bureaucrat in Ottawa decides what diet to feed me. So excited for that future!

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Bonam said:

I look forward to the day when I live in a Canada of 1 billion people and a bureaucrat in Ottawa decides what diet to feed me. So excited for that future!

Soylent Green is people...remember.

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, msj said:

Um, no, when debt rises so do assets. 

It is your lack of understanding such a simple accounting equation that bothers me - otherwise you seem like a swell enough person. 

That's exactly what I said isn't it?  When debt spending increases, GDP increases, material wealth increases.  Not sure how I misunderstood anything.

[Army Guy]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:27 PM, Smallc said:

The military doesn't grow the economy.

On the other side, we probably spend too much money on healthcare.  Others spend less and get better results. 

Infrastructure is something we need to spend a lot of money on, and I have been a proponent of that for years.

I don't know what you're talking about with the CPP.

No, the military does not effect the economy at all....and yet it use to employ a large chunk of our civil service employees, it drove our military industry that employs thousands of employees......it holds most of the federal infra structure which needs repair....which translates into work...one of the main reasons to build ships in Canada is jobs.....so your statement is full of shit.....

You talk about spending 186 bil plus the 30 plus bil like it was nothing.....and yet when it comes to our military your tune changes, like it was a dirty word.....well it is a dirty word when it comes to the liberals.....

 

 

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, msj said:

 

The point about urban sprawl is simple: we can easily fit 30 million people into the lower part of BC. Easily 40 million across the lower parts of Ontario and across Quebec. 

Can also easily fit 30 million elsewhere in the country. 

And technology should reduce the light pollution issue as we make that a priority. 

As for comparing our population to the US - they are our neighbour and largest trading partner. With increased globalization (excluding any Trump effect as being a temporary blip) I expect it makes more sense for us to work towards a bigger population base so that our clout with them will continue. 

 

Why would you want to, just to keep up with the jones.....one of the things I like about our nation is room to move about.....not sharing a acre lot with 6 other people.....

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

No, the military does not effect the economy at all....and yet it use to employ a large chunk of our civil service employees, it drove our military industry that employs thousands of employees......it holds most of the federal infra structure which needs repair....which translates into work...one of the main reasons to build ships in Canada is jobs.....so your statement is full of shit......

The military is a necessary expense, but I don't think it's a net grower of the economy.  Just about everyone and everything in the military is an expense paid for by tax dollars.  If world peace magically happened tomorrow and we didn't need the military anymore we could cut taxes significantly and then every taxpayer could take that money and buy things they actually wanted that would raise their standard of living.  We would all have a little bit more wealth.  And then those who work in the military could instead be employed in the industries that produce those products (or services).  We need the military I'm not trying to insult you, but let's not kid ourselves.

From 5-star General Dwight Eisenhower:

Quote

This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Why would you want to, just to keep up with the jones.....one of the things I like about our nation is room to move about.....not sharing a acre lot with 6 other people.....

Never mind 6, I am pretty sure that if the liberals get their way that acre lot could end up with ten other people living on it. 

[DogOnPorch]

10 hours ago, taxme said:

Never mind 6, I am pretty sure that if the liberals get their way that acre lot could end up with ten other people living on it. 

 

I'm sure we could shoe-horn in 30 million.

[?Impact]

11 hours ago, taxme said:

Never mind 6, I am pretty sure that if the liberals get their way that acre lot could end up with ten other people living on it. 

Just to put things in perspective. Today Canada has about 80 acres of land per inhabitant. You could put the entire current world population in Canada and be less than 3 persons per acre. Of course there is very uneven distribution of people across the vastness of the country. Anywhere from 1 person having several acres in rural areas, through a dozen or so people per acre in the suburbs to a hundred or more people per acre in high-rise inner city developments. In remote regions, there might be one person to several tens of thousands of acres.

[DogOnPorch]

31 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Just to put things in perspective. Today Canada has about 80 acres of land per inhabitant. You could put the entire current world population in Canada and be less than 3 persons per acre. Of course there is very uneven distribution of people across the vastness of the country. Anywhere from 1 person having several acres in rural areas, through a dozen or so people per acre in the suburbs to a hundred or more people per acre in high-rise inner city developments. In remote regions, there might be one person to several tens of thousands of acres.

 

Are we going to start sticking refugees along the banks of the Johnny-Hoe River?

[Argus]

21 hours ago, msj said:

 

The point about urban sprawl is simple: we can easily fit 30 million people into the lower part of BC. Easily 40 million across the lower parts of Ontario and across Quebec. 

Can also easily fit 30 million elsewhere in the country. 

And how does that benefit me in any way?

[Army Guy]

13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The military is a necessary expense, but I don't think it's a net grower of the economy.  Just about everyone and everything in the military is an expense paid for by tax dollars.  If world peace magically happened tomorrow and we didn't need the military anymore we could cut taxes significantly and then every taxpayer could take that money and buy things they actually wanted that would raise their standard of living.  We would all have a little bit more wealth.  And then those who work in the military could instead be employed in the industries that produce those products (or services).  We need the military I'm not trying to insult you, but let's not kid ourselves.

From 5-star General Dwight Eisenhower:

 

Your quote could be used for almost everything the federal government provides it's citizens, Health care, CPP, Education, you get the point..... funny how magic works.....And I did not say it was a net grower to the nations economy it does however contribute, in fact a lot of cities and towns that surround major and minor Bases depend on DND for its very survival..... Ask the Major of Pembroke Ont, who tried to band members of DND from entering his town....the Base Commander paid all the 7500 soldiers in 2 dollar bills, and within 24 hours you could not find a bill higher than a 2 dollar bill within a 60 mile radius....So the military does contribute....and while tax payers dollars are used everything in the federal government spends tax payers dollars....to say it does not contribute is false.....

 

My point was Liberals are talking about spending massive amounts of tax payers dollars, not only on infra structure, but they have already spent 30 plus bil.....and are now talking amount 186 Bil over 12 years......but just months ago when DND approached the government on spending it was told sit down, your stuff is to expensive.....things like basic trucks to move logistics,a basic need...not a want....from my side of the bench it looks like the liberals are talking out the side of their mouths, and many items that need to be fixed have now been declared a bad word.....we don't talk about it....So much for an necessary expense....How many people put off Necessary expenses....What does necessary mean to you ? It may be Mr Trump campaign promise to force all NATO members to spend 2 % of GDP on their militaries that saves our military from totally rusting out.....

 

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Just to put things in perspective. Today Canada has about 80 acres of land per inhabitant. You could put the entire current world population in Canada and be less than 3 persons per acre. Of course there is very uneven distribution of people across the vastness of the country. Anywhere from 1 person having several acres in rural areas, through a dozen or so people per acre in the suburbs to a hundred or more people per acre in high-rise inner city developments. In remote regions, there might be one person to several tens of thousands of acres.

NO....that's not reality or perspective....Not all of Canada is inhabitable.....in fact vast areas are not, and to make in habitable great amounts of resources would need to be spent....shit the north stills depends on ice roads to move supplies and people around.....get out of the city....go north   see why nobody lives there in great masses....Not to mention a lot of that land is used to feed us, and people around the globe.....don't carve it up because you think we can bring in more people.....were good....

 

[eyeball]

There's a limit to the carrying capacity of the planet?  Go figure.

[Bonam]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's a limit to the carrying capacity of the planet?  Go figure.

There's a difference between the "carrying capacity" and the capacity to enjoy the Canadian lifestyle. With advanced farming techniques and clean energy technologies we could probably have 100 billion people living sustainably on Earth. But just because all of those people could exist doesn't mean that it would be an enjoyable world to live in for those of us that like open space. 

Canada does not need 100 million people. And the "lower part of BC" most certainly doesn't need 30 million. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Bonam

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

NO....that's not reality or perspective....Not all of Canada is inhabitable.....in fact vast areas are not, and to make in habitable great amounts of resources would need to be spent....shit the north stills depends on ice roads to move supplies and people around.....get out of the city....go north   see why nobody lives there in great masses....Not to mention a lot of that land is used to feed us, and people around the globe.....don't carve it up because you think we can bring in more people.....were good....

 

27 minutes ago, Bonam said:

There's a difference between the "carrying capacity" and the capacity to enjoy the Canadian lifestyle. With advanced farming techniques and clean energy technologies we could probably have 100 billion people living sustainably on Earth. But just because all of those people could exist doesn't mean that it would be an enjoyable world to live in for those of us that like open space. 

Canada does not need 100 million people. And the "lower part of BC" most certainly doesn't need 30 million. 

 

If you exclude the north, Canada still has far more habitable land than India. Much of the land in the northern territories is habitable, but excluding them Canada has well over twice the land area of India. Meanwhile India has over 35 times the population of Canada.

Yes, the world has an increasing population problem. I am not suggesting that Canada should increase to world density numbers, but just pointing out that there is a long ways to go for us to get there. How humans deal with the increasing population has been discussed for many decades, but acceptable solutions have not been found. 

[Bonam]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Yes, the world has an increasing population problem. I am not suggesting that Canada should increase to world density numbers, but just pointing out that there is a long ways to go for us to get there. How humans deal with the increasing population has been discussed for many decades, but acceptable solutions have not been found. 

The great thing is we don't really have to deal with it very much. The world population is projected to reach a maximum around about 10 billion and then slowly decline. All trends point to falling birth rates as countries develop, across all cultures. There is no reason to expect that Canada will ever have to deal with a population of 100 million unless we make it specific policy to import 65 million more people. 

[DogOnPorch]

39 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

 

If you exclude the north, Canada still has far more habitable land than India. Much of the land in the northern territories is habitable, but excluding them Canada has well over twice the land area of India. Meanwhile India has over 35 times the population of Canada.

Yes, the world has an increasing population problem. I am not suggesting that Canada should increase to world density numbers, but just pointing out that there is a long ways to go for us to get there. How humans deal with the increasing population has been discussed for many decades, but acceptable solutions have not been found. 

 

And India generally smells like a sewer.

[msj]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

And how does that benefit me in any way?

We have more clout with the US - our largest trading partner. We will not be some tiny country next door to them. 

If we do the immigration right it smooths out our demographic problems. 

I doubt immigration harms our society/economy and think it is of at least a small net benefit as we generally are getting some of the best and brightest from around the world (with global networking connections) into our country. 

 

[?Impact]

38 minutes ago, Bonam said:

The world population is projected to reach a maximum around about 10 billion and then slowly decline.

There are different projections out there. The basis for the one you are citing is the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis out of Austria. The United Nations Population Division however projects that population will continue to climb, reaching 11.2 billion by the turn of the next century. While both models show decreased growth then we have experience over the past century, only the IIASA shows a peak and then decline. Both models are fairly similar in many parts of the world, but they have big discrepancies in Africa (almost 2 billion difference), and in Asia (about 0.5 billion difference). The most interesting factor that appears to lower the fertility rate is the education level attained by women. 

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, msj said:

We have more clout with the US - our largest trading partner. We will not be some tiny country next door to them. 

If we do the immigration right it smooths out our demographic problems. 

I doubt immigration harms our society/economy and think it is of at least a small net benefit as we generally are getting some of the best and brightest from around the world (with global networking connections) into our country. 

 

 

Indeed. It's not as if they are needed in their Home country...re: professionals.

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, msj said:

We have more clout with the US - our largest trading partner. We will not be some tiny country next door to them. 

Why should we care? Plenty of countries are great, prosperous, peaceful places to live without having a lot of "international clout". Ever been to, say, New Zealand? There is no reason to cram Canada full of a hundred million people just so a few politicos can feel better about themselves when chatting with their US counterparts.

Where's BC2004 to point out how your Canadian psyche is affected by living in the shadow of the beast when you need him?

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

Indeed. It's not as if they are needed in their Home country...re: professionals.

No kidding. We are not doing the world a service by robbing developing nations of their trained professionals, which take a far greater proportion of a developed nation's resources to train, and then we just steal them. And sadly, due to a combination of factors such as professional organizations that limit admittance, varying standards from country to country, and sometimes substandard English skills, a lot of these highly skilled immigrants, which could have been the shining stars of their countries of origin, end up working low-skilled jobs here in Canada. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Bonam said:

No kidding. We are not doing the world a service by robbing developing nations of their trained professionals, which take a far greater proportion of a developed nation's resources to train, and then we just steal them. And sadly, due to a combination of factors such as professional organizations that limit admittance, varying standards from country to country, and sometimes substandard English skills, a lot of these highly trained immigrants, which could have been the shining stars of their countries of origin, end up working low-skilled jobs here in Canada. 

100%, Bonam.

Dr Gupta MD is welcoming new patients in the Oshawa region.

Wart day is Thursday...come and get any warts and bunions removed. Next!