Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prominent Liberals want to triple Canada`s population

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Prominent Liberals want to triple Canada`s population

    And they said Harper had a secret agenda.

    `OTTAWA – Imagine Canada with a population of 100 million — roughly triple its current size.
    For two of the most prominent voices inside the Trudeau government’s influential council of economic advisers, it’s much more than a passing fancy.

    It’s a target.`

    http://globalnews.ca/news/3020783/in...riple-by-2100/

  • #2
    1. If we care about pollution, more humans is not the solution; an economy based purely on endless growth is not sustainable
    2. If we're looking to move existing humans here, the current makeup of Canada will drastically change
    3. Rapid influx of people will increase demand of publicly funded labour-heavy services (healthcare, education) but will not increase the demand at an equivalent rate for employees at increasingly automated private sector industries (that don't solely exist on government contracts). Where will everyone work?

    I'm 100% for immigration. I'm 100% against basing our future prosperity on endless growth.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

    Comment


    • #3
      Not only must they be in total, absolute denial about global warming, but much of our standard of living arises out of our exports. Consuming an ever greater share of what we can produce, mine or otherwise extract from our environment at home only steals from our ability to export that same production abroad.

      Moreover, add computerization and automation reducing the need for a large traditional human workforce and the ever higher skill requirements required of the remaining workforce and you can see that any population increase might only serve to drive down the median standard of living if our lofty goals of full employment don't pan out.

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't normally agree with the Liberals, but this makes sense. If we want to have world class cities, big cities, we need lots of people who will consume and generate more growth, picking the best and brightest from around the world can help in generating that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
          1. If we care about pollution, more humans is not the solution; an economy based purely on endless growth is not sustainable
          2. If we're looking to move existing humans here, the current makeup of Canada will drastically change
          3. Rapid influx of people will increase demand of publicly funded labour-heavy services (healthcare, education) but will not increase the demand at an equivalent rate for employees at increasingly automated private sector industries (that don't solely exist on government contracts). Where will everyone work?

          I'm 100% for immigration. I'm 100% against basing our future prosperity on endless growth.
          I think the advocates for growing Canada's population are not advocating a much higher birth rate, but mainly more immigration. One could argue that wouldn't add many more humans to the world, but just move people from more congested parts of the world to less congested parts. This is not the first time the Federal government did a study like this - in the 1950's or 1960's, the government looked at doing something similar. They felt that "mid-Canada" (the part of the country between southern Canada and the northern/arctic Canada) had a huge potential for growth and development. In Alberta that would include areas like Peace River country and of course, Fort McMurray (although interestingly that was not one of the communities they planned on growing).

          The more recent study plans for this growth to occur over the years until 2100, so it is not like there will be a huge rush of people right away that we have to deal with. I think about an average 2.0% population growth per year over 65 years would get us there.

          Comment


          • #6
            80% would end up in Toronto or Vancouver.

            The 60 million added to Canada would be about 9 months of world growth rate.
            Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-10-2016, 02:48 PM.
            Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

            Comment


            • #7
              For reference, Canada's population has been growing at around 1-1.5% for most of the past half century. That rate dropped below 1.5% in the mid 70's, and for the most part has stayed between 1-1.5% for most of the last 40 years. At 36 million people presently, for Canada's population to hit 100 million at around 1% growth a year would take just over 100 years. At 1.5% a year, about 70 years. And at 2% a year, about 52 years. So even at present rates of growth and immigration, we're on track to hit that "target" by 2100 (give or take a decade) pretty much no matter what. Bumping up immigration fairly significantly would put us on track to do it a couple decades earlier.

              I don't get where they're getting that Canada would only hit 52 million by the end of the century. That would be a growth rate of 0.5% annually, which is well below recent trends as far as I can see. Perhaps the assumption is that death rates will continue to rise while birth rates stay flat, and immigration won't be increased to keep the overall "rate" vs. population the same? Seems overly pessimistic to me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Do we have the room for more people? Yes.

                Do we NEED to fill the room we have? No.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                  Do we have the room for more people? Yes.

                  Do we NEED to fill the room we have? No.
                  Look at the various countries on earth. We could load ourselves up to some incredible density -and still be able to take or make millions upon millions more. We could be like everywhere else. Why on earth would we want that?

                  Moreover most of the new population would concentrate in the existing population centres. We'd have to go all out nuclear to populate some areas of Canada.


                  An article:

                  http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/20...ation-density/
                  Last edited by KC; 24-10-2016, 03:58 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KC View Post
                    Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                    Do we have the room for more people? Yes.

                    Do we NEED to fill the room we have? No.
                    Look at the various countries on earth. We could load ourselves up to some incredible density -and still be able to take or make millions upon millions more. We could be like everywhere else. Why on earth would we want that?

                    Moreover most of the new population would concentrate in the existing population centres. We'd have to go all out nuclear to populate some areas of Canada.


                    An article:

                    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/20...ation-density/
                    I think the real problem would be trying to populate some of the more sparsely populated parts of Canada, while not over populating areas that are already getting quite congested (ex. around Toronto and Vancouver). Yes, we have a low overall population density but that is a bit misleading because there are large areas that are not that desirable or very habitable (ex. mountains in BC, tundra, etc ...). Understandably, most immigrants would probably prefer to come to parts of the country that are more urban and have milder climates, but that is only a very small part of the country. I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                      For reference, Canada's population has been growing at around 1-1.5% for most of the past half century. That rate dropped below 1.5% in the mid 70's, and for the most part has stayed between 1-1.5% for most of the last 40 years. At 36 million people presently, for Canada's population to hit 100 million at around 1% growth a year would take just over 100 years. At 1.5% a year, about 70 years. And at 2% a year, about 52 years. So even at present rates of growth and immigration, we're on track to hit that "target" by 2100 (give or take a decade) pretty much no matter what. Bumping up immigration fairly significantly would put us on track to do it a couple decades earlier.

                      I don't get where they're getting that Canada would only hit 52 million by the end of the century. That would be a growth rate of 0.5% annually, which is well below recent trends as far as I can see. Perhaps the assumption is that death rates will continue to rise while birth rates stay flat, and immigration won't be increased to keep the overall "rate" vs. population the same? Seems overly pessimistic to me.
                      it's funny how the actual numbers aren't anywhere near as sensational as the reaction to the headlines...

                      canada's current population is about 36 million. almost exactly the same as poland and iraq for perspective.

                      the target for tripling that population is 2100 - approximately 85 years from now.

                      interestingly enough, canada's population in 1930 was 10.2 million so it has more than tripled in the approximately 85 years since.

                      so this "secret agenda" is to pretty much maintain the country's status quo for growth for the past 85 years for the next 85 years. it might well have been secret but it's not a particularly high growth expectation and it certainly doesn't seem particularly revolutionary or disruptive.
                      "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dave View Post
                        I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.
                        You can't put borders up within a country / force people to live in certain places, you have first class citizens then (who can live anywhere), and second class. The trend towards larger cities is normal everywhere in the world, its not something to be afraid of, we won't have a Bejing or Tokyo anytime soon, certainly not in the next 100 years. We will still probably be smaller than California population wise.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                          Originally posted by Dave View Post
                          I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.
                          You can't put borders up within a country / force people to live in certain places, you have first class citizens then (who can live anywhere), and second class. The trend towards larger cities is normal everywhere in the world, its not something to be afraid of, we won't have a Bejing or Tokyo anytime soon, certainly not in the next 100 years. We will still probably be smaller than California population wise.
                          I expected that argument - yes, you actually can have rules. Immigrants are generally not immediately citizens, so many conditions are already put on them until they become citizens. After they become citizens, then they could probably live where they want.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                            Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                            For reference, Canada's population has been growing at around 1-1.5% for most of the past half century. That rate dropped below 1.5% in the mid 70's, and for the most part has stayed between 1-1.5% for most of the last 40 years. At 36 million people presently, for Canada's population to hit 100 million at around 1% growth a year would take just over 100 years. At 1.5% a year, about 70 years. And at 2% a year, about 52 years. So even at present rates of growth and immigration, we're on track to hit that "target" by 2100 (give or take a decade) pretty much no matter what. Bumping up immigration fairly significantly would put us on track to do it a couple decades earlier.

                            I don't get where they're getting that Canada would only hit 52 million by the end of the century. That would be a growth rate of 0.5% annually, which is well below recent trends as far as I can see. Perhaps the assumption is that death rates will continue to rise while birth rates stay flat, and immigration won't be increased to keep the overall "rate" vs. population the same? Seems overly pessimistic to me.
                            it's funny how the actual numbers aren't anywhere near as sensational as the reaction to the headlines...

                            canada's current population is about 36 million. almost exactly the same as poland and iraq for perspective.

                            the target for tripling that population is 2100 - approximately 85 years from now.

                            interestingly enough, canada's population in 1930 was 10.2 million so it has more than tripled in the approximately 85 years since.

                            so this "secret agenda" is to pretty much maintain the country's status quo for growth for the past 85 years for the next 85 years. it might well have been secret but it's not a particularly high growth expectation and it certainly doesn't seem particularly revolutionary or disruptive.
                            The status quo (of growth driven by population growth) is no longer acceptable in many ways and our government has been saying exactly that in terms of its position on carbon emissions, etc.

                            In the past 85 years the country has witnessed an incredible drop in the birth rate. Assuming it stabilizes at a low level, the difference would need to be made up through a higher rate of immigration, which presents a lot of new issues. Over the last 85 years vast swaths of natural environment has been altered through resource development or urban development. (C2es old map thread would highlight some of those changes.) Moreover, many of Canada's urban centres were build where the renewable resources were readily available (Resources such as water, arable soil, forestry, fisheries, etc) and many of those have been heavily depleted by the last 85 years of population growth. A LOT would/will have to change to avoid total depletion. That said, maybe Canada needs to look at ways to create an economy based on a stable or declining population rather than one guaranteed (that's why it's desired) to increase consumption of more and more resources.

                            Also, tripling say Edmonton's population from 333,000 to 1 million would be very different from tripling it again to 3 million in terms of water usage, waste disposal, infrastructure needs, surrounding farmland development, pollution emissions, food importation plus all the other goods we demand...

                            Now, if we could cap river water extraction and purify our water then we'd do less downstream damage. If we could fix our borders and just build up, that would help too. Recycling would have to improve greatly. Still, there will be immense damage to the remaining natural areas as demand for food production rises. Intensive farming only tends to occur after all arable land us in production.
                            Last edited by KC; 24-10-2016, 05:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Comparative graphing...

                              New York City’s approximately 8 million residents occupy only 469 square miles of land. The numbers make for one of the most crowded cities in the country. But numbers don’t even begin to describe just how crowded that actually is. Previously, Slate produced an interactive map that split the entire united states into regions of equal population. Some regions in the West appear much larger because of their decreased population density while the East coast remains tightly packed. The fun part: clicking anywhere on the map produces an area of these regions that is equal to the population of New York City. It takes all of Kansas and parts of Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma to rival the population of New York appearing as a tiny orange speck.

                              http://untappedcities.com/2015/08/10...rowded-nyc-is/
                              Last edited by KC; 24-10-2016, 05:12 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X