Further Inconvenient Truths
Jul 17, 2008 11:55:05 GMT -5
Post by CrocRob on Jul 17, 2008 11:55:05 GMT -5
Except that Canada's population doesn't actually sustain itself. The mean family size as of a few years ago (source required) was like 3.7 or 3.8 (i.e. a shortfall in child reproduction). So the GDP will stagnate (and eventually diminish) without immigrant workers, which means the currency tanks, which means we can't afford to purchase imported goods, so we go back to having to produce and consume our own goods at higher costs, so we can buy significantly less consumables, which means the quality of life has diminished.
You think decreasing the population/closing the borders will improve quality of life in Canada, when economic theory actually predicts otherwise. But I guess we'll have lots of land to build our shanties on.
Human population is a worldwide problem, and closing the borders doesn't solve anything. Even if we were somehow able to be sustainable at a reasonable quality of life as a closed-off nation, eventually it comes to a head when the populated nations of the world combine to come take our land so they have room for their expanding populations.
I'm obviously looking several hundred years into the future, but that's required when dealing with a problem like overpopulation.
Population not sustaining itself is a good thing. It means that if we stop accepting immigrants from irresponsible countries with rampaging population growth, there will be more oil, grass, trees left for the rest of us. We need to learn to embrace quality life and not growth for growth sake. We should emulate toe North Atlantic cod population.
Family size of 3.8 means little in Orange County California. When I attend PTA meetings most kids have 3.8 parents from 7.6 previous marriages.
Population reduction is fine? But I'm telling you you're not even considering the economic impact of closing the borders which is asinine. How do you even close off the borders? Do you close them to tourism, too? To business? If you close off the borders to people, you're closing them off to huge quantity of trade as well. Even a year-over-year stagnant population would devastate the economy to the point that, even if we can sustain ourselves within Canada (which is questionable at best) our currency would be devalued to the point where few-to-none would be able venture outward. I swear to God, Canadians living in shanties in the near future wouldn't be much of an exaggeration. Our supply of Oil can't possibly make up for the inefficiencies of producing our own everything else. Even scratching the surface of this idea makes the whole thing implode. It's not feasible in the current world market, for a country to close its borders and be sustainable to the lifestyle in which we are all accustomed, let alone any lifestyle.
The family size of 3.8 isn't a family size in the way you're thinking. It's a household size. For every 2 parents in a household there are fewer than 2 children. It factors in single parents, split custody, divorces and whatever other f'd up crap happens in California that presumably happens (far less frequently) here. The figure applies to Canada and is a rigid estimate, not interpretable because it doesn't make you happy. Even if it wasn't rigid, it would an over-estimate, because it depends on census reviews where split custody parents probably both submit having children (even though census takes care of that).
As for homosexuality. Well, to each their own. Perhaps homosexuality is a genetic response to overpopulation (edit: but maybe it's a choice too! I don't know and don't want to get into that debate).
Nobody's blaming the US for overpopulation, so get off your high horse. I don't know if you're Canadian or American or whoever, but I can't even respond to the last sentence of that paragraph without getting angry and I'm not willing to believe how shortsighted this post makes me think you are.
