If the Population Growth problem continues to be ignored...

[quinton]

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

[speaker]

shhhh there's an election on!!!

[speaker]

I'm really worried about the environmental degradation going on anywhere I've travelled and by all accounts every where that i haven't travelled as well. Population control is one means of affecting the rate of degradation, and one that will happen at some point whether we want it or not. Canadas population control has been pretty good over the last thirty years. Other countries have had to introduce much more drastic measures than we have and have had lesser results.

However I have become more confident in other options such as reduced consumerism, efficiency, moral suasion in the case of some of the bodies that are too big to have any actual contact with the earth, like governments, multinationals, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Okay maybe not Rush... but surprisingly enough for people who have been watching the wanton slaughter of endangered species, forests, air, and input resources, there aren't many of the people who are actually responsible for it that want to destroy the planet.

Certainly there are a handful that think we can squeeze this planet enough so that by the time it is dead there will be enough rsources in their pockets that they will be able to sneer at the fools who have allowed them to succeed and get into a boat that will take them to the next score. I personally don't see a lot of future in going to Mars. Leave a dying planet to fly to a dead one? I don't think so.

Most however really are ignorant by way of their removal from reality and don't see a future deriving from what our consumption of the planet will bring. Ignorance can be corrected.

The positive thing and the difficulty is that people can really survive on amazingly little. As the third world countries other than Canada realize that they should be able to survive on our level of consumption, the crunch will come that much quicker.

[quinton]

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.

[sage]

Quinton I agree in principle with your proposition and acknowledge that it is never addressed by most Canadians.

The one difficulty with it though is you seem to suggest any environmental degradation is unacceptable, which is absurd, as every time we plant a garden, drink a pop, hell have a glass of water, it indirectly has resulted in some impact on our environment.

The question really is what standard of living do we want and what are we willing to risk to achieve it? So far the consensus is to stay the course. Personally I would love to have a goal for population growth of zero. The difficulty though is you then run into a bunch of social issues in the process. Human rights, refugees, splitting up immigrant families that are already in Canada, limiting the # of children a family can have, etc.

Although I believe these issues should be tackled, so long as we live in a country with a low population density they will remain points debated only in online forums such as this.

[cybercoma]

population growth isn't a problem.

[quinton]

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?

[pharmer]

population growth isn't a problem.

Perhaps cybercoma is missing the point. The idea is to balance economic capital with environmental/ecological capital. The problem really is a misunderstanding, or perhaps no understanding at all, of exponential growth.

A paper that was written way back in the 70s that cybercoma should read- "Bartlett Forgotten Fundamentals"

Everytime an election comes around there is no voice for steady-state economics and debate rarely, if ever, questions the current economic system to which we faithfully follow. Whether it be popular media refusing to cover it, or right wing economists denying the opportunity for scrutiny, the end result being that people don't recognize that a problem exists.

[scribblet]

I've always agreed that unchecked population growth is the real problem, curb that, and we solve a lot of problems. Pollution, hunger, unemployment. Anyone remember Zero Population Growth and the book The Population Bomb?

[YankAbroad]

Ummmm. . . Canada's population is shrinking due to inadequate reproduction and a lack of settled immigrants.

The ZPG nonsense makes for good alarmism but has no logical basis. Further, most of the folks who argue that people automatically create environmental havoc and thus shouldn't be produced also tend to be socialists. Are those socialists willing to give up the public pension ponzi schemes, government health care, and other big nanny state programs which require population growth in order to put off the day of reckoning when the pyramid finally collapses? I have my doubts.

[pharmer]

Ummmm. . . Canada's population is shrinking due to inadequate reproduction and a lack of settled immigrants.

The ZPG nonsense makes for good alarmism but has no logical basis. Further, most of the folks who argue that people automatically create environmental havoc and thus shouldn't be produced also tend to be socialists. Are those socialists willing to give up the public pension ponzi schemes, government health care, and other big nanny state programs which require population growth in order to put off the day of reckoning when the pyramid finally collapses? I have my doubts.

Population growth has specific implications on the overuse of fossil fuels, eg. petroleum, natural gas, coal. Forget about government programs, when cheap energy sources are used up government won't be able to provide much of anything... let alone social programs.

[YankAbroad]

It's interesting that people keep positing that we're doomed.

They posited that we couldn't grow enough food to feed Europe and North America in the 1960s. They were wrong. Capitalism worked its magic and farms sextupled in productivity -- growing more food than the planet could possibly eat.

They posited that we couldn't make New York City work with five million people. Capitalism innovated with high-density housing and sustainable urban environments. It now has 8 million and is working better than ever. They were wrong.

Now they say we're doomed to extinction because fossil fuels are going to run out and they're the only source of energy we could ever, ever have available to us. Something tells me they're gonna be very, very wrong on this front as well.

[quinton]

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.

[BHS]

I've always agreed that unchecked population growth is the real problem, curb that, and we solve a lot of problems. Pollution, hunger, unemployment. Anyone remember Zero Population Growth and the book The Population Bomb?

1) We aren't talking about unchecked population growth, we're talking about deliberately increasing population.

2) The ZPG movement disappeared in the eighties, due largely (I guessing) to the fact that doom and gloom prophets like Paul Ehrlich were wrong about every single prediction they ever made about the effects of increased population.

[YankAbroad]

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.

No it doesn't, it happens as a result of poor planning and pollution.

You mentioned New York City. The growth of that city has resulted in the loss of a lot of Canadian old growth forests.

Ridiculous. New York hasn't used wood frame buildings in at least 100 years due to fire codes.

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'm not convinced that the changes you're alleging are taking place. Especially given that Canada has 1/2 the population of tiny Great Britain, in an area 50% larger than the United States. Such "concerns" are alarmism which has no basis in observable reality -- certainly not to the degree that humanity should commit "noble suicide" (which is what a population decline would essentially amount to over time.

[BHS]

quinton:

In your initial post you cite 1% population growth, being 300 000 new citizens per year for a country with a population of about 30 000 000, which works out well enough mathematically. I notice however that you've neglected to subtract the number of people who've died in the same year, which according to Stats Canada is about 225 000 (give or take, depending on the year). In other words, without 200 000 new immigrants per year Canada would experience a net population decrease. Any comment?

[geoffrey]

quinton:

In your initial post you cite 1% population growth, being 300 000 new citizens per year for a country with a population of about 30 000 000, which works out well enough mathematically. I notice however that you've neglected to subtract the number of people who've died in the same year, which according to Stats Canada is about 225 000 (give or take, depending on the year). In other words, without 200 000 new immigrants per year Canada would experience a net population decrease. Any comment?

Wrong, there is 1% natural population growth...

Population growth = Births - Deaths.

[YankAbroad]

1% population growth isn't enough to keep the population growing. The net population ages, fewer people are employed, more are drawing social benefits, and eventually the population begins to decline.

The present demographic trends, if they continue, will result in Canada's population falling to just under 15 million people by 2050.

[geoffrey]

1% population growth isn't enough to keep the population growing. The net population ages, fewer people are employed, more are drawing social benefits, and eventually the population begins to decline.

The present demographic trends, if they continue, will result in Canada's population falling to just under 15 million people by 2050.

Whats wrong with this? I'll be happy hanging out with fewer people around. More food/water/land/beer for me.

Seriously though, I don't know if I agree with you. If the population growth rate is declining then ok. If it stays at 1% forever then the population is always increasing... your first sentence makes no sense in itself.

[uOttawaMan]

There is a difference between birth rate growth and population growth.

Immigraition alone can keep our population growing. If Canada stays atttractive to immigrants.

[pharmer]

It's interesting that people keep positing that we're doomed.

They posited that we couldn't grow enough food to feed Europe and North America in the 1960s. They were wrong. Capitalism worked its magic and farms sextupled in productivity -- growing more food than the planet could possibly eat.

They posited that we couldn't make New York City work with five million people. Capitalism innovated with high-density housing and sustainable urban environments. It now has 8 million and is working better than ever. They were wrong.

Now they say we're doomed to extinction because fossil fuels are going to run out and they're the only source of energy we could ever, ever have available to us. Something tells me they're gonna be very, very wrong on this front as well.

Where do you think capitalism is finding the resources to produce these magical solutions? Could it be from the exploitation of the third world? Petroleum discovery peaked in continental usa in the late 60s and since then usa imports 60% of it's energy. American foreign policy- www.americanenterpriseinstitute.org

It's no longer the continental US which is bearing the consequences of this expansion, it is now the southern hemisphere.

[YankAbroad]

If the population growth rate is declining then ok. If it stays at 1% forever then the population is always increasing... your first sentence makes no sense in itself.

Population growth rates never stay constant. A country which is experiencing a 1% growth rate and ONLY as a result of immigration will age rapidly and the growth rate will collapse over time as people get older and fewer adults as a proportion of the population are of child-bearing age.

Statistics Canada has highlighted the population trend of which I speak -- that's one reason why CIC are in such a flurry to get more immigrants.

It's no longer the continental US which is bearing the consequences of this expansion, it is now the southern hemisphere

Ah, yes, the old "America hurts everyone else in order to keep growing" argument. Equally bogus.

Ethopia is starving because starvation is the preferred form of warfare in Africa, not because there isn't enough food. America's farming techniques and energy production techniques has nothing to do with poverty in Venezuela or anywhere else in the southern hemisphere -- it's a combination of socialism and corruption which has produced that effect.

If the southern hemisphere was to adopt pluralistic democracy, free markets, transparency, rule of law and stable capital markets, there's no reason that they couldn't greatly improve their lots in life as well.

[tml12]

"If the southern hemisphere was to adopt pluralistic democracy, free markets, transparency, rule of law and stable capital markets, there's no reason that they couldn't greatly improve their lots in life as well."

The anti-American left is making huge gains in the South America and I do agree it is scary. The fact is, these lefties can play the anti-American card so well because the people there are so ignorant and believe the babling about how the U.S. is an imperialistic party of the "White Man's Burden."

Someone has got to settle them down.

[YankAbroad]

They're not just anti-American, tml.

They're anti-liberty. The Cuban communists and their "socialist" compadres in Venezuela are making a mess of the civil liberties and quality of life of their countries. They're also, in the case of Chavez, spiriting away hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil wealth to spurious projects and making access to government services dependent upon voting for their party.

Both are rather odious trends for socialists who claim to support "democracy" and "equality of wealth distribution" to be getting behind.

The free market has a lot of problems. It's the worst system -- except for all the others. Free markets produce reliable outcomes -- a prosperous and growing middle class and increased quality of life for every citizen willing to make an honest go of things. Castro-style communism has done neither and never will. This enrages acolytes of that philosophy, who desperately want to be different from the "gringos" in North America and Europe.

[BHS]

quinton:

In your initial post you cite 1% population growth, being 300 000 new citizens per year for a country with a population of about 30 000 000, which works out well enough mathematically. I notice however that you've neglected to subtract the number of people who've died in the same year, which according to Stats Canada is about 225 000 (give or take, depending on the year). In other words, without 200 000 new immigrants per year Canada would experience a net population decrease. Any comment?

Wrong, there is 1% natural population growth...

Population growth = Births - Deaths.

The conclusion you've drawn from your formula is wrong:

Net immigration (from the first post) is now being taken to mean immigration minus emmigration, and net reproduction is taken to mean births minus deaths.

Please have a look at this table from Stats Canada.

Taking away net immigration as a source of increased population, the average yearly net reproduction for the years 1996 to 2001 is 123 200 from a population base of 29 611 000, or about 0.4% per year, less than half of what you've calculated.

The more interesting thing I notice in reviewing the Births column is that, despite a sizeable increase in the base population, the number of births from 1996-2001 is the lowest number since pre-1902. After 1931 the number of births deteriorates from cencus to cencus except for the post-war baby boom census.

So not only is the argument that we're reproducing out of control not hold any water, it hasn't held any water for the better part of a century.