Jump to content

Is Canada becoming a Communist state?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

China is below replacement rate at 1.7 children per woman and dropping 

India is just above replacement rate at 2.2 children per woman and dropping 

 

1.7 children per woman is not below replacement rate.

Look at it this way.  Your parents have 2 kids, in 20 years their 2 kids have another 2 kids and so on, a 20 year cycle (could be a 16 year cycle in India) , so if everyone lives 80 years, from the time your parents gave birth to you and your sister, till the time they die, there will be 6 people coming out of 2, so a net gain of 4, in other words the population tripled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher than 1% annual growth, factual. Rate of increase has not halved in half a century. Only two options as always: admit the reality; or ignore it and create a different one. Mind and electronic media are perfect instruments for that: just think it; just type.

Edited by myata
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cougar said:

1.7 children per woman is not below replacement rate.

Look at it this way.  Your parents have 2 kids, in 20 years their 2 kids have another 2 kids and so on, a 20 year cycle (could be a 16 year cycle in India) , so if everyone lives 80 years, from the time your parents gave birth to you and your sister, till the time they die, there will be 6 people coming out of 2, so a net gain of 4, in other words the population tripled.

2.1 children per woman is replacement rate

if there are more parents than children, the population shrinks when the parents die

there is a lag, as you point out, before the parents die, but the long term trend is a shrinking population if it is below 2.1

see Japan as a prime example , they have been below replacement for a while and now the population is shrinking,  they are just ahead of the curve

Japanification is coming to rest of the world soon, if it hasn't already

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

2.1 children per woman is replacement rate

if there are more parents than children, the population shrinks when the parents die

Not all children survive past 18. If every woman just had two kids then for sure the population would shrink. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cougar said:

1.7 children per woman is not below replacement rate.

Look at it this way.  Your parents have 2 kids, in 20 years their 2 kids have another 2 kids and so on, a 20 year cycle (could be a 16 year cycle in India) , so if everyone lives 80 years, from the time your parents gave birth to you and your sister, till the time they die, there will be 6 people coming out of 2, so a net gain of 4, in other words the population tripled.

Lol. People don't reproduce asexually. If you have 2 kids and they each have 2 kids, that's 4 grandchildren, but there are also have 4 grandparents on your side. It's just replacement.

Also, people at the top of the family tree are always dropping off unless you're 'Adam and Eve'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

@WestCanMan yes - as Yzer said ^

 Cougar, you are one of those people who thinks they can say "Math is BS" and believes nobody will wonder what is wrong with your thinking.

So if you have 2 people who produce two other people and then immediately drop dead, that's the same as having 2 people having 2 kids, that give birth to 2 kids in 25 years and then same thing happens to those kids they give birth to two more at age 25...... and this is also the same as those  two giving birth to 2 kids that start reproducing at the same rate at age 16.

Mike check your own math , please.

Edited by cougar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cougar said:

1. So if you have 2 people who produce two other people and then immediately drop dead, that's the same as having 2 people having 2 kids, that give birth to 2 kids in 25 years and then same thing happens to those kids they give birth to two more at age 25...... and this is also the same as those  two giving birth to 2 kids that start reproducing at the same rate at age 16.

2. Mike check your own math , please.

1. "Replacement rate" is an average.  If we don't hit the replacement rate our numbers go down over time.  
2. I find it fascinating that you can arrive at a new topic, actuarial science, that is a foundation for government, business, insurance and many aspects of life and just decide it's "BS".  It's not my math here, you are literally taking a proven branch of science and dismissing it because... well, I'm not sure... just because you have a sense that you know better I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Yup. I didn't say otherwise. I just mentioned why a birth rate of 2.0 would be below the replacement rate.

You only mentioned the valid point of survival.

If you are hit with a real pandemic where people drop dead in mass, or a war, even a rate of 10:1 may not be a replacement rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cougar said:

So if you have 2 people who produce two other people and then immediately drop dead, that's the same as having 2 people having 2 kids, that give birth to 2 kids in 25 years and then same thing happens to those kids they give birth to two more at age 25...... and this is also the same as those  two giving birth to 2 kids that start reproducing at the same rate at age 16.

Mike check your own math , please.

If there were only 2,000,000 couples on earth, and they always have 2,000,000 kids in each generation, will the population remain the same, grow, or shrink?

Unless you live in a perfect world where every child grows to adulthood and has children, the population drops. 

It's not math, it's common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 It's not my math here, you are literally taking a proven branch of science and dismissing it because... well, I'm not sure... just because you have a sense that you know better I guess.

I have zero qualms with that.  Much of what we hear as "proven" can be propaganda.  We have the science of forestry and the science of climate, and the science of oil and gas, and the science of economics, but at the end of the day it is all crashing down around us, because of not knowing the very obvious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cougar said:

1. I have zero qualms with that. 
2. Much of what we hear as "proven" can be propaganda.  We have the science of forestry and the science of climate, and the science of oil and gas, and the science of economics, but at the end of the day it is all crashing down around us, because of not knowing the very obvious.

 

1. I'm glad you are honest about it.
2. Well, you can teach yourself what 'proven' means and it will help you sort out what is real and what isn't.  I'm sure you believe SOME of it is real right ?

Math exists entirely in the human brain, it's a tool we use to understand the universe but you run into a lot of areas where it becomes nonsense, or is useless.  But a mathematically proof is literally the purest form of proof out there.

As Westcan pointed out, replacement rate is pretty easy to understand in common sense terms: not everybody has kids in their lifetime, so those who have kids need to have more than 2 to make up for those who don't have kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's not math, it's common sense.

Yep, it is.  Still we have to look into it in more detail.

Upon further examination, I have to admit that the reproduction cycles will have little to no effect on population growth.

It seems like if the cycles decrease, the population will increase temporarily, but only temporarily and you can't have 10 year olds giving birth.😃

So I was off, mislead by my analytical thinking...

However, this leaves us to the second part of the puzzle.  How accurate are those birth rate numbers, particularly numbers coming from China and India, or Africa.  You have places where children are possibly never registered into any type of system.  And you have governments who will not tell you the actual numbers by design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it will not too long in the future be shrinking

that's a fact

That depends on the definition of "long" of course. For the dinosaurs a million years wasn't that long, but in just fifty it may be another planet's population added. By the same factual logic you can make future lottery win "a fact" or stock market fortune, now try to secure a loan with that. Of course some forces may limit the growth of human population at some future point; but who promised that at that time we wouldn't have way more serious problems on our hands? And look what happened with a routine payroll system upgrade and management of epidemics predicted for two decades when bureaucracy gets down to serious business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2021 at 11:04 PM, blackbird said:

quote   

Here is a timeline of COVID-19 cases in this country.

   Jan. 25: ....

 

Timeline of COVID-19 cases across Canada | CBC News

It is obvious from news reports the first cases were coming from China for weeks beginning January 25th, 2020.  Trudeau refused to close the border to air travel from China.  If Trudeau had closed the border to air travel from China and other countries, particularly countries known to have Covid, back in January, and closed the border to non-essential travel from the U.S., the entire picture in Canada might have been much different.

Then our communist-style government, along with their media lapdogs, took total control of the narrative and tried to act like all of our covid came from Europe. "Look, we have some fake science that says so!"

Over 26,000 people died here 'from covid' but Canadian liberals are so stupid that they think the government fought covid effectively. By comparison, Japan has several times our population, their density is 100x higher than ours, and somehow we have 66% more c19 deaths than they do. Hmmmmm.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

That depends on the definition of "long" of course. For the dinosaurs a million years wasn't that long, but in just fifty it may be another planet's population added. By the same factual logic you can make future lottery win "a fact" or stock market fortune, now try to secure a loan with that. Of course some forces may limit the growth of human population at some future point; but who promised that at that time we wouldn't have way more serious problems on our hands? And look what happened with a routine payroll system upgrade and management of epidemics predicted for two decades when bureaucracy gets down to serious business.

again

current population projections have the world population beginning to shrink prior to reaching 10 billion

the population is not going to double in fifty years time

you can cling to the belief that it will all you want

the facts do not back up that belief though

the boomers are going to die off not too long from now

and subsequent generations haven't had nearly as many kids to replace them

there is a lag before the population begins to decline

but that lag is nowhere near as long as you suggest

 

the worldwide fertility rate is already 2.4 children per woman

2.1 children per woman is the replacement rate

in 1950 the world fertility rate was 4.7 children per woman

that growth rate has been nearly halved in 70 years

and that trend is accelerating, not reversing

 

Japan is the perfect example of it not taking that long

after dropping below replacement rate reproduction

before population decline sets in

the same is true of the world

Japan is just ahead of the curve

Japanification of the world population is a coming, ya hear?

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

underpopulation will be the problem

We're a few really bad pandemics away from underpopulation being a problem.

Honestly, if you look at the world from the POV of: "What population is required for the really rich people who control everything to live in ultimate luxury?" that number has steadily been going down for the past few decades.

It used to take billions of people to scour all corners of the earth to dig up precious materials, harvest all kinds of rare delectables from the seas and forests, build machines/gadgets/skyscrapers/cities & infrastructure, and to cook, clean, deliver and maintain it all.

Because of the industrial revolution, and more recently the rise of IT, robotics and other modern advancements, there's no longer any advantage to having 7 billion people around.

No one in the US even cares that Gov Cuomo sent a horde of C19-infected people into care homes, which resulted in the deaths of several thousand seniors (aka non-productive consumers). 

In the eyes of the people who make the decisions, overpopulation is a massive problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...