6 ms·

Growing up in Canada (now living in usa) every student was propagandized about how population growth was bad, etc. Now we are told how much immigration is indi

Growing up in Canada (now living in usa) every student was propagandized about how population growth was bad, etc. Now we are told how much immigration is indispensable i.e. more people are needed. Were we lied to?

AFNobody 8y ago
More population is bad for ecological reasons. More population is vital for economic reasons. Its two competing philosophies. (i.e. Do the financially practical things for an individual/country vs. the wisest thing for the collective species)
- kelnos 8y ago
  I think saying "for economic reasons" doesn't really paint the whole picture. It's not just about "growing the economy", it's about ensuring that the economy is strong enough to support the population as it ages people out of the workforce.
  - AFNobody 8y ago
    True, it is that too.
tzahola 8y ago
Don’t rock the boat!
civility 8y ago
A lot of people go around predicting calamity... They’re usually wrong. Generally not liars, just evolved monkeys who are trying to avoid problems.
- xapata 8y ago
  Calamity prediction may be right in estimating odds, despite being wrong in outcome. Wearing a seatbelt is still wise, despite never having crashed a car. Do you buy insurance?
Chyzwar 8y ago
Uncontrolled population growth is bad (Africa) - infrastructure, ecology, political stability. Lack of skilled workers is bad (technology) - innovation, productivity, economy. It is not one of another. It depends.
- cup 8y ago
  "Uncontrolled population growth is bad (Africa)" What do you even mean by this statement?
  - squirrelicus 8y ago
    Let me give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest he's not talking about direct population control. I think this is reasonable because, well, nobody suggests this. By giving food and economic aid to African countries (the small portion that actually goes to the people after the dictator filter) we subsidize their birth rate in an unsustainable way. Specifically, if the Western counties that support them have an economic crash, for example, and become no longer able to support them, they'll be left with mouths they can't feed. Mouths they never could feed on their own. It will be a tragic loss of life.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      I agree that the dependence on outside help is dangerous, but I don't see why they could never feed themselves. Africa is still a fertile continent, and it has a much lower population density than Europe or Asia.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - mnm1 8y ago
        Giving aid to counties essentially guts the local economy. Local businesses cannot compete and therefore the local economy never develops. The people become entirely dependent on outside help even when otherwise they would develop their own economy and self-sustaining systems. When you take that aid away, there is famine and death. Foreign aid is one of the biggest causes of poverty currently but slowly people are starting to realize that giving aid and gutting local economies is much worse than not giving at all. There is an excellent documentary on this on Netflix I think but the name escapes me right now. I think they even convince Bono that what he is doing is causing more harm than good (giving fish rather than teaching how to fish). It definitely is.
slavik81 8y ago
That doesn't match either my experience living in Canada for thirty years, nor does it match the history I have read. Canada has had an the immigration rate of ~0.7% of the population since at least the 1960s. It's long been among the highest in per capita immigration rates among countries of its size, and it is one of the few western nations in which public support for immigration has remained consistently strong.
CapitalistCartr 8y ago
In Asia, population growth is a problem. Canada can benefit from more people. Vast tracts of empty land; vast, still-untapped natural resources; 37 million people in 9 million square km.; sound infrastructure; educated, productive populace. India has about 1.3 billion people in under 3.3 million square km. with 1/6 Canada's per capita GDP. Population is a huge problem for them. If Canada were to double its population in this century, they'd probably be better off. If the World does, we'll be screwed.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  The actual arable land is much less, however. As well as habitable land, that is, places most people would feel comfortable living in year-round. Agricultural yields per acre or hectare are often less than in the USA, as well.
- reustle 8y ago
  > Vast tracts of empty land; vast, still-untapped natural resources You say it like it's a bad thing :)
forkLding 8y ago
Objectively, I think Canada does need more population growth, be it either immigration or more children from Canadians. I think people under-estimated the impact of working educated women and modern financial constraints on having more children and thus projected Canadian growth more aggressively than it is so not a deliberate lie. Immigration in Canada is definitely needed as we've been under the replacement rate for 40 yrs and it will be very hard with such a small population albeit declining and maintain the country in terms of taxes, pensions etc.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Immigration in Canada is definitely needed as we've been under the replacement rate for 40 yrs " I find this bizarre. If people are not having enough kids than the 1st-order solution is to 'have more kids'. Not 'bring in others' - that would somewhere down the list of solutions. There are plenty of things that can be done to encourage this, but they're not even trying. It's not even a policy. In Quebec, they have socialized early stage childcare and that seems to have actually made some of a difference. "Objectively, I think Canada does need more population growth," As a Canadian, I don't see for a moment why this is true. Most newcomers go to Toronto, Van or Montreal - Toronto has doubled in size since I was a kid and it can take 4 hours to drive from end to end: a sea of identical looking homes, malls and Starbuckses. Vancouver has become one of the most unaffordable places in the world to live. It's like SF but with much lower wages. Contrary to reasonable intuition - in the last 30 years, as we have increased 'diversity' in our population, paradoxically our industrial base has become less diverse. We are no more than ever dependent on basic things like banking, making cars, exporting natural resources and construction. In addition, our ability to make sophisticated products has gone down. Switzerland and the US lead the pack with creating high-end exports like software, financial services, drugs, machinery. UK, Germany, France, Japan do well there. But Canada has gone down on the value chain. This is illustrated by the weird trade paradox Canada has with China: China buys raw materials from Canada and sells finished goods back to Canada, but usually the mapping is the other way around for 'rich/poor' countries, i.e. US buys raw materials from 'some poor place' and that 'poor place' buys iPhones, software and machinery from the US. I think we really need to think about sustainability in population and it starts first with families, and then includes migration as a secondary but important factor.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
There are issues with both things. Population growth is bad for ecological reasons, and there have been fears of simply not being able to provide food and clean water for the earth's population. Family sizes didn't really go down immediately once we figured out modern hygiene and medicine practices (many children died before modern times). We have a better handle on much of this, in part due better ways of turning ocean water into fresh drinking water. Of course, we are still suffering from pollution and waste issues that theoretically would go down as the population drops. On the other hand, we have uneven population growth, so some places are still exploding (Africa and some asian countries, for example). Birth control isn't readily available to all, neither is some modern hygiene and medicine. Population growth is still a problem for parts of the world. On the other hand, other populations are shrinking and people aren't having enough children to simply replace their parents. This creates all sorts of issues in itself. Partly because of manpower issues: Who is going to take care of the elderly? Will we have enough doctors, nurses, and farmers in these areas? And things of that nature. Some countries have addressed this through sex education, teaching both how to avoid pregnancy and how to get pregnant (and things that go along with that). Others have not. The best-bet solutions would be things like more service jobs and more automation where humans don't need to physically work, robots for care, and more open immigration policies so countries that are having overpopulation issues can freely relocate to countries with shrinking populations. IT wasn't that you were lied to, it is just a complicated situation that has changed over time.

AFNobody 8y ago

More population is bad for ecological reasons. More population is vital for economic reasons. Its two competing philosophies. (i.e. Do the financially practical things for an individual/country vs. the wisest thing for the collective species)

kelnos 8y ago
I think saying "for economic reasons" doesn't really paint the whole picture. It's not just about "growing the economy", it's about ensuring that the economy is strong enough to support the population as it ages people out of the workforce.
- AFNobody 8y ago
  True, it is that too.

tzahola 8y ago

Don’t rock the boat!

civility 8y ago

A lot of people go around predicting calamity... They’re usually wrong. Generally not liars, just evolved monkeys who are trying to avoid problems.

xapata 8y ago
Calamity prediction may be right in estimating odds, despite being wrong in outcome. Wearing a seatbelt is still wise, despite never having crashed a car. Do you buy insurance?

Chyzwar 8y ago

Uncontrolled population growth is bad (Africa) - infrastructure, ecology, political stability. Lack of skilled workers is bad (technology) - innovation, productivity, economy. It is not one of another. It depends.

cup 8y ago
"Uncontrolled population growth is bad (Africa)" What do you even mean by this statement?
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  Let me give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest he's not talking about direct population control. I think this is reasonable because, well, nobody suggests this. By giving food and economic aid to African countries (the small portion that actually goes to the people after the dictator filter) we subsidize their birth rate in an unsustainable way. Specifically, if the Western counties that support them have an economic crash, for example, and become no longer able to support them, they'll be left with mouths they can't feed. Mouths they never could feed on their own. It will be a tragic loss of life.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I agree that the dependence on outside help is dangerous, but I don't see why they could never feed themselves. Africa is still a fertile continent, and it has a much lower population density than Europe or Asia.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - mnm1 8y ago
      Giving aid to counties essentially guts the local economy. Local businesses cannot compete and therefore the local economy never develops. The people become entirely dependent on outside help even when otherwise they would develop their own economy and self-sustaining systems. When you take that aid away, there is famine and death. Foreign aid is one of the biggest causes of poverty currently but slowly people are starting to realize that giving aid and gutting local economies is much worse than not giving at all. There is an excellent documentary on this on Netflix I think but the name escapes me right now. I think they even convince Bono that what he is doing is causing more harm than good (giving fish rather than teaching how to fish). It definitely is.

slavik81 8y ago

That doesn't match either my experience living in Canada for thirty years, nor does it match the history I have read. Canada has had an the immigration rate of ~0.7% of the population since at least the 1960s. It's long been among the highest in per capita immigration rates among countries of its size, and it is one of the few western nations in which public support for immigration has remained consistently strong.

CapitalistCartr 8y ago

In Asia, population growth is a problem. Canada can benefit from more people. Vast tracts of empty land; vast, still-untapped natural resources; 37 million people in 9 million square km.; sound infrastructure; educated, productive populace. India has about 1.3 billion people in under 3.3 million square km. with 1/6 Canada's per capita GDP. Population is a huge problem for them. If Canada were to double its population in this century, they'd probably be better off. If the World does, we'll be screwed.

patrickg_zill 8y ago
The actual arable land is much less, however. As well as habitable land, that is, places most people would feel comfortable living in year-round. Agricultural yields per acre or hectare are often less than in the USA, as well.
reustle 8y ago
> Vast tracts of empty land; vast, still-untapped natural resources You say it like it's a bad thing :)

forkLding 8y ago

Objectively, I think Canada does need more population growth, be it either immigration or more children from Canadians. I think people under-estimated the impact of working educated women and modern financial constraints on having more children and thus projected Canadian growth more aggressively than it is so not a deliberate lie. Immigration in Canada is definitely needed as we've been under the replacement rate for 40 yrs and it will be very hard with such a small population albeit declining and maintain the country in terms of taxes, pensions etc.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Immigration in Canada is definitely needed as we've been under the replacement rate for 40 yrs " I find this bizarre. If people are not having enough kids than the 1st-order solution is to 'have more kids'. Not 'bring in others' - that would somewhere down the list of solutions. There are plenty of things that can be done to encourage this, but they're not even trying. It's not even a policy. In Quebec, they have socialized early stage childcare and that seems to have actually made some of a difference. "Objectively, I think Canada does need more population growth," As a Canadian, I don't see for a moment why this is true. Most newcomers go to Toronto, Van or Montreal - Toronto has doubled in size since I was a kid and it can take 4 hours to drive from end to end: a sea of identical looking homes, malls and Starbuckses. Vancouver has become one of the most unaffordable places in the world to live. It's like SF but with much lower wages. Contrary to reasonable intuition - in the last 30 years, as we have increased 'diversity' in our population, paradoxically our industrial base has become less diverse. We are no more than ever dependent on basic things like banking, making cars, exporting natural resources and construction. In addition, our ability to make sophisticated products has gone down. Switzerland and the US lead the pack with creating high-end exports like software, financial services, drugs, machinery. UK, Germany, France, Japan do well there. But Canada has gone down on the value chain. This is illustrated by the weird trade paradox Canada has with China: China buys raw materials from Canada and sells finished goods back to Canada, but usually the mapping is the other way around for 'rich/poor' countries, i.e. US buys raw materials from 'some poor place' and that 'poor place' buys iPhones, software and machinery from the US. I think we really need to think about sustainability in population and it starts first with families, and then includes migration as a secondary but important factor.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

There are issues with both things. Population growth is bad for ecological reasons, and there have been fears of simply not being able to provide food and clean water for the earth's population. Family sizes didn't really go down immediately once we figured out modern hygiene and medicine practices (many children died before modern times). We have a better handle on much of this, in part due better ways of turning ocean water into fresh drinking water. Of course, we are still suffering from pollution and waste issues that theoretically would go down as the population drops. On the other hand, we have uneven population growth, so some places are still exploding (Africa and some asian countries, for example). Birth control isn't readily available to all, neither is some modern hygiene and medicine. Population growth is still a problem for parts of the world. On the other hand, other populations are shrinking and people aren't having enough children to simply replace their parents. This creates all sorts of issues in itself. Partly because of manpower issues: Who is going to take care of the elderly? Will we have enough doctors, nurses, and farmers in these areas? And things of that nature. Some countries have addressed this through sex education, teaching both how to avoid pregnancy and how to get pregnant (and things that go along with that). Others have not. The best-bet solutions would be things like more service jobs and more automation where humans don't need to physically work, robots for care, and more open immigration policies so countries that are having overpopulation issues can freely relocate to countries with shrinking populations. IT wasn't that you were lied to, it is just a complicated situation that has changed over time.