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

[YankAbroad]

Also, don't forget that every year that 300,000 people are either born in or emigrate to Canada, 200,000 people go south of the border FROM Canada.

That's one of the major trends leading to the expected sharp decline in Canada's population over the next 45 years, unless the government can convince more people to stay AND more people to have kids AND more people to move to Canada from elsewhere.

Point 1 is hard to do. . . the government should focus on convincing people to come back to Canada after time abroad as a starter -- give them a reason to return. Point 2 is even harder. . . the government should definitely repeal policies and taxes which punish people who decide to adopt or give birth. Point 3 is super-easy -- Canada should scrap the existing points system and bureaucracy and get with the program.

Canada could easily attract a million new citizens from the USA who seek a slower pace of life and more equality under the law (particularly gays) and even more from the EU who seek greater economic and personal liberties and lower taxes.

Ottawa just has to get its butt in gear.

[tml12]

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.

I agree...Britain, for example, stands out as a strong country in Europe because Blair's reformation of the Labour Party means the Party embraces the power of the free market.

France, as another example, sends Chirac around complaining the EU Costitution is anti-social programs while Chirac dismantles government services at home.

It is a tough system for sure...but we need it.

[YankAbroad]

Now, if only Labour would reduce it's love of government regulating away every societal ill (including "bad" points of view) and focus on constraining taxes and government spending. . . my wallet hurts every time they send taxes up, and real income after taxes and fees has been declining the last two years for Britons as a result.

[tml12]

Now, if only Labour would reduce it's love of government regulating away every societal ill (including "bad" points of view) and focus on constraining taxes and government spending. . . my wallet hurts every time they send taxes up, and real income after taxes and fees has been declining the last two years for Britons as a result.

I agree...we need some tax relief here too...we are looking for a GST cut soon.

[YankAbroad]

Trust me -- taxes here are now so bad that after a stint on the crumbling, overpriced Underground with its militant unions striking for 31 hour weeks at £30,000 a year salaries; a delightful local tax bill of £1,200 going up 40% to pay for an Olympic boondoggle which was never put to a popular vote; gas at £1 a litre (over CDN$2!); and a bevy of new civil-rights-busting legislation including an effort to impose a compulsory ID card, you'll be longing for a bit of Quiet Revolution and saying "come back Monsieur Bouchard, all is forgiven!"

[tml12]

Trust me -- taxes here are now so bad that after a stint on the crumbling, overpriced Underground with its militant unions striking for 31 hour weeks at £30,000 a year salaries; a delightful local tax bill of £1,200 going up 40% to pay for an Olympic boondoggle which was never put to a popular vote; gas at £1 a litre (over CDN$2!); and a bevy of new civil-rights-busting legislation including an effort to impose a compulsory ID card, you'll be longing for a bit of Quiet Revolution and saying "come back Monsieur Bouchard, all is forgiven!"

I'll be begging for Duplessis...

OK never mind...

[pharmer]

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.

ummmm...... You faithfully follow a system (capitalism) which is inherently unstable?

Think about this; Welfare economics is based on a pool of resources which are infinite, hence the premise of increased wellfare through growth. My question is simple, where is this growth going to come from? We live in a finite world with a limited amount of resources, there is not adequate supply to sustain this existence. Energy resources in the US peaked in the 60s (re. energy shortages in the 70s) and now world energy sources will peak within the next decade or so.

The exact date is irrelevant, the point remains that the end of cheap energy is inevitable and to rely on the ingenuity of capitalism to solve these global problems is beyond the systems capability. The neo-economic model relies on reversibilities (see newtonian calculus, the mathematical theory used for the theories' development) in the 'real world' there are IRreversibilities for which the model does not take into account.

To blame starvation on politics really proves the entire point. These are politics bread from US foreign policy and they are fighting for the scraps that 'trickle down' from the capitalist machinery above.

[YankAbroad]

The problem is that you're demanding we replace a system which hasn't failed us utterly with some utopian ideal which we already know doesn't work.

I know that profit motive will reward innovation AND drive forward with solutions you and I haven't even thought possible today. I don't know if some magical centralized renewal economy can happen. I do know that no centralized economy has ever even slightly succeeded in its aims.

the end of cheap energy is inevitable

They said the same thing about housing in the early 1900s.

They said the same thing about rail fares in the late 1800s.

I have no doubt that we will have a stable, growing, affordable, reliable and plentiful source of energy for all of us to use for as long as you and I are alive. In fact, I am willing to bet our great grandchildren even will.

Why? Because the market is already accounting for all the externalities you're talking about, and rising energy costs are forcing new innovations to occur in R&D. Eventually those sources of energy will become available, be mass deployed, prices will come down, and voila -- cheap energy.

Not to mention the big strides being made in energy efficient vehicles, computers, office equipment, appliances, etc.

[quinton]

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.

[quinton]

BHS says:

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?

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.

[quinton]

geoffery, thanks for correcting BHS and YankAbroad.

[cybercoma]

"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.

I have lots of friends from South and Central America. When their governments were oppressing those people and the United States government was supplying those governments with arms, they started hating the United States for helping with the oppression. The United States then played hero and tried saving them from the militaries they were funding, so they could be the hero. Well all those games backfired on them.

[quinton]

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.

[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.

I have lots of friends from South and Central America. When their governments were oppressing those people and the United States government was supplying those governments with arms, they started hating the United States for helping with the oppression. The United States then played hero and tried saving them from the militaries they were funding, so they could be the hero. Well all those games backfired on them.

Orwell's quote from BlackDog's signature correctly describes U.S. foreign policy in the South and Central American region and yes, what they did was very wrong. Sponsoring Pinochet was very wrong and a nasty political move by the US and UK.

However, at the time the world was a much different place and action had to be taken to ensure that Communism was stopped at all costs. I do not justify such actions, rather I say that you need to look at the world as it was then.

[Hollus]

"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-Americ\an 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.

I have lots of friends from South and Central America. When their governments were oppressing those people and the United States government was supplying those governments with arms, they started hating the United States for helping with the oppression. The United States then played hero and tried saving them from the militaries they were funding, so they could be the hero. Well all those games backfired on them.

Orwell's quote from BlackDog's signature correctly describes U.S. foreign policy in the South and Central American region and yes, what they did was very wrong. Sponsoring Pinochet was very wrong and a nasty political move by the US and UK.

However, at the time the world was a much different place and action had to be taken to ensure that Communism was stopped at all costs. I do not justify such actions, rather I say that you need to look at the world as it was then.

How about what U.S, Canada and France are upto in Haiti right now? How do you justify this coup?US arming anti-aristide paramilitarycanada out of haiti!

Yes the capitalist system is the best we've got, but it if we dont make it conducive to the laws of nature we are doomed.

You cant tell me CEO decisions are not made to increase shareholder returns. A corporation will break envirounmental law as long as its profitable. Where does it leave us when our government cant even make decisions for Canada without first having to consider what kind of lawsuit we will face for affecting a corp.s projected profit?

[tml12]

You are not wrong. We need a new approach in dealing with the environment. We need a new approach.

Kyoto was doomed from the start. Canada signed it and didn't do anything. The U.S. never signed it.

When nations want to sit down and talk about it again, it should happen and it should happen soon.

[quinton]

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.

[Spike22]

Luckily in Canada we have lots of room and will continue to actively seek immigrants.

The rest of the planet has to stop breeding. I guess when there is nothing else to do...

I think condoms should be airlifted to every horny, over sexed, overpopulated country on the planet. Bought in huge volumes the would cost less than a penny.

(Parody of the Christian Children's Fund)

"You can sponsor a couple in a poor country for less than 10¢ a day. You can provide this family with the condom's or other reproductive preventative tools they need to have wild nookie without the squaky, starving kid 9 months later. Please find it in your heart to sponsor one of these foreign couples for only $3.00 a month or $36.00 a year. They'll be glad you did "

[margrace]

Luckily in Canada we have lots of room and will continue to actively seek immigrants.

The rest of the planet has to stop breeding. I guess when there is nothing else to do...

I think condoms should be airlifted to every horny, over sexed, overpopulated country on the planet. Bought in huge volumes the would cost less than a penny.

(Parody of the Christian Children's Fund)

"You can sponsor a couple in a poor country for less than 10¢ a day. You can provide this family with the condom's or other reproductive preventative tools they need to have wild nookie without the squaky, starving kid 9 months later. Please find it in your heart to sponsor one of these foreign couples for only $3.00 a month or $36.00 a year. They'll be glad you did "

Well Spike your parody is right in some ways, but on the other hand these people believe that we are trying to contol them after we were forbidden to make slaves of them. These ideas do not sit well with them especially when their religions, Christianity included, tell them birth control is wrong.

[Riverwind]

Luckily in Canada we have lots of room and will continue to actively seek immigrants. The rest of the planet has to stop breeding. I guess when there is nothing else to do...

Contrary to popular opinion, Canada does not have a lot of useful land and we don't have the ability to absorb huge numbers of people.

[Spike22]

Luckily in Canada we have lots of room and will continue to actively seek immigrants.

The rest of the planet has to stop breeding. I guess when there is nothing else to do...

I think condoms should be airlifted to every horny, over sexed, overpopulated country on the planet. Bought in huge volumes the would cost less than a penny.

(Parody of the Christian Children's Fund)

"You can sponsor a couple in a poor country for less than 10¢ a day. You can provide this family with the condom's or other reproductive preventative tools they need to have wild nookie without the squaky, starving kid 9 months later. Please find it in your heart to sponsor one of these foreign couples for only $3.00 a month or $36.00 a year. They'll be glad you did "

Well Spike your parody is right in some ways, but on the other hand these people believe that we are trying to contol them after we were forbidden to make slaves of them. These ideas do not sit well with them especially when their religions, Christianity included, tell them birth control is wrong.

Psst let's not tell them or perhaps issue a revision page to their religious guide informing them it is a mandatory requirement. [i guess mandatory sterilization is out of the question huh?]

Luckily in Canada we have lots of room and will continue to actively seek immigrants. The rest of the planet has to stop breeding. I guess when there is nothing else to do...

Contrary to popular opinion, Canada does not have a lot of useful land and we don't have the ability to absorb huge numbers of people.

Well I fly all over this country and I can tell you there ain't a lot going on outside of our towns and cities. Nothing but trees mainly until you head north. So the space concern in this country is a non issue - maybe in 2000 years or so but you and I and any relatives we'll know will be dust by then. As for absorbing people we can absorb them if they are skilled in the areas we need them for.

[Hollus]

Well I fly all over this country and I can tell you there ain't a lot going on outside of our towns and cities. Nothing but trees mainly until you head north. So the space concern in this country is a non issue - maybe in 2000 years or so but you and I and any relatives we'll know will be dust by then. As for absorbing people we can absorb them if they are skilled in the areas we need them for.

In my opinion, its this attitude that is going to bury us. The "One cannot see the forest for the trees", the failure

to recognize the ecological and economical worth of sustainably managing these resources. How we manage our growing population, urban expansion, and resource exploitation, will determine our living standards in the future.

I like this Keynote speech by Ray Anderson Chairman of the Board, Interface Inc. for its descriptiveness:

"I have asked myself over and over for nearly 11 years, and I ask you, how would a living planet—the rarest and most precious thing in the universe—lose its biosphere, i.e., its essential livability? We take it for granted and don’t want to believe losing it is even possible. But, think about it, and you know, if Earth, someday in the distant future, has lost its livability—its biosphere—it will have happened insidiously:

One silted or polluted stream at a time;

One polluted river at a time;

One collapsing fish stock at a time;

One dying coral reef at a time;

One acidified or entrophied lake at a time;

One over-fertilized farm at a time, leading to one algae bloom at a time.

One eroded ton of topsoil at a time;

One developed wetland at a time;

One mansion built on a fragile marsh hammock at a time;

One disrupted animal migration corridor at a time;

One butchered tree at a time;

One corrupt politician at a time;

One new open-pit coal mine in a pristine valley at a time;

One decimated old growth forest at a time;

One lost habitat at a time;

One disappearing acre of rain forest at a time;

One political pay-off at a time, resulting in one regulatory roll-back at a time;

One leaching landfill at a time;

One belching smokestack or exhaust pipe at a time;

One depleted or polluted aquifer at a time;

One desertified farm at a time;

One over-grazed field at a time;

One toxic release at a time;

One oil spill at a time;

One breath of fouled air at a time;

One-tenth of a degree of global warming at a time;

One exotic disease vector at a time;

One new disease at a time;

One invasive species at a time;

One perchlorate contaminated head of lettuce at a time. (Perchlorate is rocket fuel, and it is in the ground water of the San Joaquin Valley, of California thanks to Aerojet General.)

One chloro-fluorinated or methyl-brominated molecule of ozone at a time, creating a deadly hole in the ozone ultra-violet radiation shield;

One poorly designed carpet at a time;

One thoughtlessly designed building or building interior at a time;

One misplaced kilogram of plutonium at a time;

One more ton of spent nuclear fuel at a time, looking for a safe and secure home for 240,000 (!) years;

One advance of urban sprawl at a time;

One insensitive or uninformed architect or interior designer or facility manager or manufacturer at a time;

One songbird at a time;

One PCB-laced orca, one whale, one dolphin, one trumpeter swan, one mountain gorilla, one polar bear, one leatherneck turtle at a time;

One entire wild species at a time; and

One poverty-stricken, starving, diseased, or exploited human being at a time;

That is how it would have happened, and we know that it is happening already just that way—so many ways! You could make your own list, just as long without any duplication. It is a long, long slippery slope, and we are on it. That is the first trend. We are losing one strand of the web of life at a time, inexorably, and it will not stop until either we homo sapiens come to our senses, or we, too, are gone and can do no more damage. If we do come to our senses in time, that will happen one changed mind at a time.

"

[Riverwind]

Well I fly all over this country and I can tell you there ain't a lot going on outside of our towns and cities. Nothing but trees mainly until you head north. So the space concern in this country is a non issue - maybe in 2000 years or so but you and I and any relatives we'll know will be dust by then. As for absorbing people we can absorb them if they are skilled in the areas we need them for.

Our experience with Indian reservations tells us that you can't simply drop a bunch of people in the middle of nowhere and expect them to survive. There has to be an economic reason for them to be there. Most importantly human settlements need an agricultural base and/or cheap transportation connections with places that do have a agricultural base. This requirement excludes most of Canada - especially as the cost of oil continues to increase.

My feeling is the Canada could support maybe 60 million tops - basically doubling our current population but a drop in the bucket compared to a world population of 6 billion plus.

[quinton]

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

[geoffrey]

Our experience with Indian reservations tells us that you can't simply drop a bunch of people in the middle of nowhere and expect them to survive.

My understanding is that they survived just fine without us before. If cities grow outwards or upwards, then growth doesn't need to be in the 'middle of nowhere'. You don't need to make new cities, just make the current ones bigger.