I am Groot Posted August 18 Report Share Posted August 18 A simple dismissal of the justification for bringing in huge numbers of immigrants. Ageing and population stabilization are the outcomes of a demographic trend toward longer life spans and fewer children which started in the 18th century. It will result in a much higher proportion of older people in the population than ever before in human history. We’ll deal with the many benefits of this below but first it is vital to point out that the only way to “fight” ageing is to have the population grow at an increasing level FOREVER. Hardly a winning strategy on a finite and depleting planet. Using extreme levels of immigration to hold back ageing has been a mainstay of the investment bank/developer-owned media for years. In fact, their implication is that this is a fix and a further implication is that once “fixed” ageing will cease to be an issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no scientific basis for the media contention that fighting ageing is a one-time battle which can be won and then walked away from. A stable population brings a higher proportion of older people. Period. https://sustainablesociety.com/the-sheer-idiocy-of-fighting-ageing/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 18 Report Share Posted August 18 Whatever that source is... Seems pretty leftist. So, declining birth rates since the 18th century? How about since 1964? Anyway, population growth has been a mainstay of capitalism... "Sustainability" has not. The alternatives are definitely interesting though. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Whatever that source is... Seems pretty leftist. Its downright woke is what it is. For decades around here talking about sustainability usually only got you cancelled as a capitalism hating commie. 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: The alternatives are definitely interesting though. I'm pretty sure the only alternative to economic growth is economic death. Am I supposed to believe mainstream economic thinking is also woking up? Kick me in the head, I must be dreaming. Edited August 19 by eyeball 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUI_Offender Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 (edited) 6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Whatever that source is... Seems pretty leftist. So, declining birth rates since the 18th century? How about since 1964? Michael, the North American birth rate has been declining since 1825. It's the way it is, Michael. It's just the way it is... Edited August 19 by DUI_Offender Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 3 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: Michael, the North American birth rate has been declining since 1825. It's the way it is, Michael. It's just the way it is... So what? === The island of Newfoundland has been sustainable for centuries. Iceland has had a sustainable, community for centuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 This discussion has become utterly pointless. Population growth by and large is good for the economy and for the diversity of the workforce. However, it must never exceed the amount of new infrastructure increases (homes medicine etc) , or the country's ability to absorb new arrivals. Currently it does. That is bad. If it didn't, it wouldn't be an issue. That's really the end of the story. We should bring in slightly less than our Max Capacity to accommodate with new infrastructure and resources and mentorships to absorb them, with the caveate that we should keep the points system as effective as possible to select the best choices for our country. That gives us a growing market, a healthy supply of labor and skills without causing inflation or shortages or other problems. This isn't hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: ... Population growth by and large is good for the economy and for the diversity of the workforce. .... Disagree. Iceland and Newfoundland are good, civilised societies. More immigrants raise urban land prices. Boomers see their house price rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUI_Offender Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 17 minutes ago, August1991 said: Iceland and Newfoundland are good, civilised societies. If Canada did not prop up Newfoundland for the past 75 years, it would not even be a 1st World nations (assuming it never joined Canada). There would have been less than 100,000 people there today if it was not for Canada equalisation payments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 11 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said: If Canada did not prop up Newfoundland for the past 75 years... People on the island of Newfoundland - and Iceland have survived for centuries. Bulgarians still have their own language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 As it happens, I favour a woman's right to end a pregnancy - even close to birh date. More important, I favour this recent US federal Supreme Court decision. America is great because it is federation of states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 8 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: Michael, the North American birth rate has been declining since 1825. It's the way it is, Michael. It's just the way it is... It's disingenuous to not mention the pill as the single major killer of population growth in the west, is my point. Within a generation, immigration was increased and became a social issue... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 (edited) To have children or not have children boils down to one's relationship with God. If there is no relationship, then the person or couple is on their own and likely to decide on purely selfish reasons. Abortion is common and is used as a form of birth control. This deprives a baby of it's life and is wrong. God recognizes the pre-born as persons and human life belongs to God. So abortion is an extreme violation of the Biblical principle of the sanctity of human life. As for birth control: quote Modern birth control methods were unknown in Bible times, and the Bible is, therefore, silent on the matter. The Bible does have quite a lot to say about children, however. The Bible presents children as a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5), a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5), a blessing from God (Luke 1:42), and a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6). God sometimes blesses barren women with children (Psalm 113:9; Genesis 21:1-3; 25:21-22; 30:1-2; 1 Samuel 1:6-8; Luke 1:7, 24-25). God forms children in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16). God knows children before their birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15). The closest that Scripture comes to condemning birth control is Genesis chapter 38, the account of Judah’s sons Er and Onan. Er married a woman named Tamar, but he was wicked and the Lord put him to death, leaving Tamar with no husband or children. Tamar was given in marriage to Er’s brother, Onan, in accordance with the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Onan did not want to split his inheritance with any child that he might produce on his brother’s behalf, so he practiced the oldest form of birth control, withdrawal. Genesis 38:10 says, “What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so He put him to death also.” Onan’s motivation was selfish; he used Tamar for his own pleasure, but refused to perform his legal duty of creating an heir for his deceased brother. This passage is often used as evidence that God does not approve of birth control. However, it was not the act of contraception that caused the Lord to put Onan to death; it was Onan’s selfish motives behind the action. Therefore, we can find no biblical admonition against the use of birth control in and of itself. Contraception, by definition, is merely the opposite of conception. It is not the use of contraception that is wrong or right. As we learned from Onan, it is the motivation behind the contraception that determines if it is right or wrong. Married couples use contraception for a variety of reasons. Some feel called to put off childbearing until they are in a better position to care for children. Some, such as missionary couples, may feel their service to God overrides the desire for children at a particular point in time. Some may be convinced that God has a different plan for them. Ultimately, a couple’s motives for delaying childbearing, using contraception, or even having numerous children, are between them and God. unquote What does the Bible say about birth control / contraceptives? Should Christians use birth control? | GotQuestions.org If the couple do not know God, through the Savior, then they are living on their own and what they do will be determined by purely secular humanist reasons not what is best between them and God. Edited August 19 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 9 hours ago, August1991 said: Disagree. Well this aught to be good..... Quote Iceland and Newfoundland are good, civilised societies. They are some of the worst economies in the world given their perspective positions. Newfoundland is the worst in an otherwise increadibly prosperous country and is suffering horribly due to lack of population and opportunity which has only partially been mitigated by retirees moving there because the housing is so cheap. And it's so cheap because it's a mind meltingly crappy economy with little opportunity compared to the rest of the economy. Alberta has the highest growth rate. Wanna guess which province does the best economically? Quote More immigrants raise urban land prices. Boomers see their house price rise. No, population increasing faster than infrastructure (homes medicine education etc) can raise land prices, but as long as you're buildling homes and infrastructure at the same rate your population is rising you actually get a stronger economy without inflation. More people have jobs and prices stay about the same. Why do you insist on just making shit up without any thought or research? Honestly its like you want people to think you're slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 The population of Finland was around 4 million around mid last century and is now 5 million. This is a normal growth. In Canada we can have up to a million in one year. Even in proportion, it's unsustainable and possibly, catastrophic. Nothing can be managed sustainably at this rate we'll be trying to juggle an increasing number of problems: jobs, housing, poverty, unemployment, crime etc on and on. There are no stable solutions when the reality of the country is in such a flux. The society, with one of the responsible governments, if we ever get to have one which is by far not a given, will have to have a conversation and understand how we can sustain the economy and social basis without massive and unsustainable immigration. So we can be done putting out fires and have a longer-term look at the development. It's been decades literally, since a large project was completed successfully in the country. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five of swords Posted August 20 Report Share Posted August 20 On 8/18/2024 at 7:32 PM, I am Groot said: A simple dismissal of the justification for bringing in huge numbers of immigrants. Ageing and population stabilization are the outcomes of a demographic trend toward longer life spans and fewer children which started in the 18th century. It will result in a much higher proportion of older people in the population than ever before in human history. We’ll deal with the many benefits of this below but first it is vital to point out that the only way to “fight” ageing is to have the population grow at an increasing level FOREVER. Hardly a winning strategy on a finite and depleting planet. Using extreme levels of immigration to hold back ageing has been a mainstay of the investment bank/developer-owned media for years. In fact, their implication is that this is a fix and a further implication is that once “fixed” ageing will cease to be an issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no scientific basis for the media contention that fighting ageing is a one-time battle which can be won and then walked away from. A stable population brings a higher proportion of older people. Period. https://sustainablesociety.com/the-sheer-idiocy-of-fighting-ageing/ Because there are too many white people here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 20 Report Share Posted August 20 On 8/19/2024 at 12:36 AM, CdnFox said: Population growth by and large is good for the economy and for the diversity of the workforce. However, it must never exceed the amount of new infrastructure increases (homes medicine etc) , or the country's ability to absorb new arrivals. Eventually you also exceed the limits of our natural capital - natural resources and ecosystems. These include sink-resources, an ecosystem's capacity to absorb and recycle wastes back into something usable. It needs to be said that a good number of the immigrants and especially refugees coming here are doing so because they've reached or exceeded these limits where they came from. Social capital is getting meagre here too given the increasingly negative stance towards immigrants. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted August 20 Report Share Posted August 20 Just now, eyeball said: Eventually you also exceed the limits of our natural capital - natural resources and ecosystems. Yes. That should happen at around approximately 400 million. We've a ways to go. These include sink-resources, an Quote ecosystem's capacity to absorb and recycle wastes back into something usable. I believe justin said we could just ship it to taiwan or something? Quote Social capital is getting meagre here too given the increasingly negative stance towards immigrants. True. The liberals and the NDP have somehow managed to turn one of the defining characteristics of Canada which is its unusually high acceptance of large numbers of immigrants into a dislike and even hatred of immigrants in general. My how the left makes our country better huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 20 Report Share Posted August 20 (edited) 16 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Yes. That should happen at around approximately 400 million. We've a ways to go. Not judging by the collapse of fisheries on both coasts. Like canaries in a coal mine these pointed to a lack of sustainability that we started exceeding decades ago. It's funny how Newfoundland is cited above as having been sustainable for centuries. Take water resources in southwestern US as another example, where some 40 million people have drawn water resources down, including aquifers that took thousands of years to fill, in just a couple of generations. 400 million more people in North America? Good luck. Edited August 20 by eyeball 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted August 20 Report Share Posted August 20 2 minutes ago, eyeball said: Not judging by the collapse of fisheries on both coasts. Nothing to do with immigrants. Quote Like canaries in a coal mine these pointed to a lack of sustainability that we started exceeding decades ago. It's funny how Newfoundland is cited above as having been sustainable for centuries. Nope. Not even close. Quote Take water resources in southwestern US as another example, where some 40 million people have drawn down water resources down, including aquifers that took thousands of years to fill, in just a couple of generations. 40 million people is all we have in all of Canada. We're ok for water for a while. The problem only happens when you get people like the liberals in your beloved NDP bringing in people faster than our ability to create infrastructure for them. Immigration has to happen at a reasonable pace where infrastructure and opportunity and so on are there to make the newcomer successful without creating runaway inflation or housing prices or strains on the medical system or unemployment or any of that. We could triple our population and not even come close to scratching our upper limits on what we can sustain. But if you try and do that tomorrow there will be nothing but starvation and riots. The left wing was driven by ideology and this love of the idea of open borders and just simply did not think about the consequences of their actions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 20 Report Share Posted August 20 (edited) 10 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Nothing to do with immigrants. It has to do with people and over-population. 10 minutes ago, CdnFox said: 40 million people is all we have in all of Canada. We're ok for water for a while. The problem only happens when you get people like the liberals in your beloved NDP bringing in people faster than our ability to create infrastructure for them. Housing shortages and a lack of infrastructure exist virtually everywhere on the planet. It doesn't matter in the least who is in power. 10 minutes ago, CdnFox said: We could triple our population and not even come close to scratching our upper limits on what we can sustain. Apparently we'll all die if we keep it at 40 million - another cuckoo economic notion that is driving everything towards an eventual collapse. Edited August 20 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted August 20 Report Share Posted August 20 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: It has to do with people and over-population. Nope. Not in the slightest. You know that. the vast majority of people don't fish, certainly not commercially or the like, and the reason for fish declines isn't population. Quote Housing shortages and a lack of infrastructure exist virtually everywhere on the planet. It doesn't matter in the least who is in power. Nope. We're the worst in the civilized world by far and it is entirely due to population growth. Complete miss there. Quote Apparently we'll all die if we keep it at 40 million - another cuckoo economic notion that is driving everything towards an eventual collapse. Well why not cut it back to 30 then? Or 20 ? Or 1 ? A modestly increasing population is a good thign. Having a decent consumer base is also a good thing. Right now we have a tiny population for the second largest country in the world with more habitable space than even the USA. We've got room to grow Just not too fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted August 20 Report Share Posted August 20 On 8/18/2024 at 4:32 PM, I am Groot said: A simple dismissal of the justification for bringing in huge numbers of immigrants. Ageing and population stabilization are the outcomes of a demographic trend toward longer life spans and fewer children which started in the 18th century. It will result in a much higher proportion of older people in the population than ever before in human history. We’ll deal with the many benefits of this below but first it is vital to point out that the only way to “fight” ageing is to have the population grow at an increasing level FOREVER. Hardly a winning strategy on a finite and depleting planet. Using extreme levels of immigration to hold back ageing has been a mainstay of the investment bank/developer-owned media for years. In fact, their implication is that this is a fix and a further implication is that once “fixed” ageing will cease to be an issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no scientific basis for the media contention that fighting ageing is a one-time battle which can be won and then walked away from. A stable population brings a higher proportion of older people. Period. https://sustainablesociety.com/the-sheer-idiocy-of-fighting-ageing/ Canada does not need over 500,000 new legal and illegal immigrants every year. On average, there are just as many people dying and new babies being born. One pretty much replaces the other. There is no shortage of children being born in Canada. That is a big lie that Canada needs 500,000 new immigrants every year. It's all leftist liberal bs. What Canada needs right now is a moratorium on immigration for at least five years if not more. We have an housing shortage, lineups in hospitals and doctors offices, food banks are going broke because there is not enough food to feed all those new unwanted and unneeded immigrants. The infrastructure cannot keep up with the numbers of new immigrants coming to Canada. The environment is taking a chit kicking. Woke up all you pro immigration nut jobs out there. Immigration is the problem you bunch of stunned 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 21 Report Share Posted August 21 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: We're the worst in the civilized world by far and it is entirely due to population growth. Complete miss there. That's odd you're the one usually saying Canada's problems are the worst. But shortages due to unsustainable growth and overpopulation really are growing issues everywhere you go on the planet. You talk like overpopulation is a brand new made up term or something. You probably think it's scam. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted August 21 Report Share Posted August 21 15 minutes ago, eyeball said: That's odd you're the one usually saying Canada's problems are the worst. And i'm saying that here. Soooo is that what was odd... or are you what was odd Quote But shortages due to unsustainable growth and overpopulation really are growing issues everywhere you go on the planet. Nope. Not like this. Quote You talk like overpopulation is a brand new made up term or something. You probably think it's scam. LOL awwww look at you, already freaking out and lashing out desperately because you know you're wrong Easy little guy, we don't want you to have an aneurism or anything. We don't have an 'overpopulation' problem. Our population for our country size and resources is tiny. We have a population growth problem. That is not the same thing. Our population grows faster than our infrastructure grows to support them (and now our economy). If our population was growing slower, or our infrastructure/economy grew faster then there'd be no issue at all, and indeed that was the case for over a century. Canada has been getting immigration right for 150 years, and since 2006 it was REALLY getting dialed in ... then trudeau came along and him and the other woke left such as yourself and jaggers managed to destroy a system that was marveled at by the whole world and was the pride of canadians. Now they hate it. Immigration must be reduced to a level that is at or lower than our increase in capacity to support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 21 Report Share Posted August 21 More canaries... Scientists have more evidence to explain why billions of crabs vanished around Alaska The study underlines “how much this Bering Sea ecosystem has already changed from what it was even within the lifetime of one snow crab fisherman,” said Michael Litzow, lead author of the study and the director for Alaska’s Kodiak lab for NOAA Fisheries. ... The decline of the Alaskan snow crab signals a wider ecosystem change in the Arctic, as oceans warm and sea ice disappears. https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/climate/alaska-crabs-disappear-arctic/index.html We need millions more people like we need a hole in the head. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.