Canada's role in a overpopulated world.

[dirtybiker]

In the words of Dear Uncle Bob(RIP), "Those that can't win wars with bullets
can, and will, take over the World by Population."

[oldtrucker]

Problems feeding is not a population problem. It is a supply and distribution problem. We throw away far more food than we would ever need to, because it's more profitable to deliver 100% of food to a location that will pay a lot for 60% of it and discard the rest than it would be to provide the food to a place that will utilize 100% of it, but pay less.India alone could produce enough food to feed the entire world. Obviously they aren't the only ones producing food though, and there are malnourished people in parts of India

Agree( except the part about it not being a population problem). If everyone worked at it 20 billion could be fed. But why would we...better to stop at 7.8 billion.
Some lower income Canadians like people on social assistance or disability don't have food security.

[Vacancyrate]

The key to reducing overpopulation is educating women. We tend to want to do other things than be brood mares when given the opportunity. My Grandma had 8 kids and, while she loved us dearly, took glee in telling us if there was access to birth control back in the day, many of us would not exist today.

In the 3rd world women have numerous children because they know some will die, some will get addicted to drugs and some will be poor. The more children you have the greater chance that one of them will be successful and be able to take care of you. Good luck educating women not to play the lottery.

Here in Canada, our sky high housing and living costs do a great job keeping the domestic birthrate very low.

Economic birth control!

[floppi]

So does 2.1 births/couple assume a 10% non fertility rate then?

It's pretty simple, a reproducing couple have to produce 2 kids between them to at least replace themselves. The 0.1 accounts for sum of all the unforeseen deaths minus the births along the way before the next generation can reproduce themselves.

[floppi]

Ummmm...see that number for 2017 at 398.91 births per 1000? If one was to need 2.1 births per death for replacement population in Canada , the death rate needs to be around 190 death per 1000 instead of what it is at 275. See the problem?

To me the problem is why do we need a positive 2.1 births per death for replacement in a world who is outgrowing itself. We are already having a problem feeding the people we have in the world why is it necessary to keep the population rising. Are we not worsening one of our biggest problems?

Overpopulation is a global problem but in Canada we don't have that problem. We, like the developed countries in the world have the opposite problem, that is our death rate exceeds birthrate. I belive our replacement ratio is around 1.6 so we are already doing our bit to controll population. I and some other peeps have posted future social and economic implications of no immigration policy so I won't bother posting that again. However, I want to point out that most of the people on this forum that favor a no immigration policy are the same peeps who go to other threads and whine about how high. the taxes are or why we don't have this and that service or why our pensions like CPP and OAS are so feeble or why our economy is so weak. Imo, I could imagine a Depression type of senario before things got better if we implemented the no immigration policy. I cant say it enough , Japan is and will be going thur a world of hurt from their situation of very low birth rates and very very low immigration level. Imo, this will happen to Canada too if we cut back on immigration.

[Omnitheo]

The key to reducing overpopulation is educating women. We tend to want to do other things than be brood mares when given the opportunity. My Grandma had 8 kids and, while she loved us dearly, took glee in telling us if there was access to birth control back in the day, many of us would not exist today.

In the 3rd world women have numerous children because they know some will die, some will get addicted to drugs and some will be poor. The more children you have the greater chance that one of them will be successful and be able to take care of you. Good luck educating women not to play the lottery.

Here in Canada, our sky high housing and living costs do a great job keeping the domestic birthrate very low.

Economic birth control!

It is natural that in a developed country the birthdate will be lower. The point at which we are seeing “overpopulation” is in places where industrialization and modernization has occurred rapidly, leading to a higher population of children who were born under old conditions where it was expected many would die, instead having access to better healthcare and opportunities and living full lives. Their descendants though will on average have fewer kids and this will balance out.

This is a very well understood process of population mechanics, and has repeated throughout every nation. Some more rapidly than others.

[JLives]

In the 3rd world women have numerous children because they know some will die, some will get addicted to drugs and some will be poor. The more children you have the greater chance that one of them will be successful and be able to take care of you. Good luck educating women not to play the lottery.

Here in Canada, our sky high housing and living costs do a great job keeping the domestic birthrate very low.

Economic birth control!

Are you seriously under the impression women are having large numbers of children because they choose to? No. Lack of birth control, lack of education and the inability to say No to men is why. Pregnancy and birth is hard on us not to mention raising the resulting children. In the majority of cases (I won't say all) having less children is simply not a option for women.

[Vacancyrate]

Are you seriously under the impression women are having large numbers of children because they choose to? No. Lack of birth control, lack of education and the inability to say No to men is why.

https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-sur ... mortality/

40 out of 100 children born in Africa will die before they are 5.

In the 1990's the rate was 93/100.

Are you seriously suggesting people are unaware of those numbers? Mother's don't talk to one another and there is no cultural impact on communities where 40-50% of kids die before there are 5?

People in the 3rd world have multiple children because it's a crapshoot if their kids will even live to be teenagers. The more children they have the better chance one or two will make it to become adults.

Can't say no to men? Holy hell put down the kool aid.

[Catsumi]

And yet their population numbers continue to climb
They must get a handle on this problem soon.

[Jlabute]

Canada's roll is using abundant fossil fuels to manufacture cheap condoms for the third world. We also provide training and education.

[The Green Barbarian]

Canada's roll is using abundant fossil fuels to manufacture cheap condoms for the third world. We also provide training and education.

Forget the Third World, just hand them out to Leftists and the world's problems would be over in one generation.

[oldtrucker]

Are you seriously suggesting people are unaware of those numbers? Mother's don't talk to one another and there is no cultural impact on communities where 40-50% of kids die before there are 5?

Also...some of these places where no one has food ,shelter... lots of them have a brand new smartphone and all the education and info that comes with it...hmmm.
Approx 195,000 ppl added since my lost post.

[floppi]

Canada's roll is using abundant fossil fuels to manufacture cheap condoms for the third world. We also provide training and education.

That's in the right direction.

[Smurf]

floppi wrote:

Overpopulation is a global problem but in Canada we don't have that problem. We, like the developed countries in the world have the opposite problem, that is our death rate exceeds birthrate. I belive our replacement ratio is around 1.6 so we are already doing our bit to controll population. I and some other peeps have posted future social and economic implications of no immigration policy so I won't bother posting that again. However, I want to point out that most of the people on this forum that favor a no immigration policy are the same peeps who go to other threads and whine about how high. the taxes are or why we don't have this and that service or why our pensions like CPP and OAS are so feeble or why our economy is so weak. Imo, I could imagine a Depression type of senario before things got better if we implemented the no immigration policy. I cant say it enough , Japan is and will be going thur a world of hurt from their situation of very low birth rates and very very low immigration level. Imo, this will happen to Canada too if we cut back on immigration.

snip:
"that is our death rate exceeds birthrate"

Where are you getting your information from. Our birth rate is 1.6 higher than our death rate. In other words our population is increasing.

Population growth rate 0.73% (2017 est.)
Birth rate 10.3 births/1,000 population (2017 est.)
Death rate 8.7 deaths/1,000 population (2017 est.)

https://www.indexmundi.com/canada/demog ... ofile.html

Snip:
"However, I want to point out that most of the people on this forum that favor a no immigration policy".

Can you please show me where someone is in favor of a "no immigration policy". Many are in favor of a better run immigration policy including myself. We are in favor of properly controlled, vetted, immigration, not the free for all we currently have. Right now our waiting list is in the 10's of thousands with some waiting months. That should never be. They should be handled within 30 to 60 days at the most and cut off if we can't. It's not fair to them, it's not fair to Canadian's.

I personally doubt that the increase they bring in taxpayers etc is truly any improvement when you consider the extra infrastructure, schools, health, housing and all the things that go along with it. It sounds good but I'm not too sure how well it turns out in the end. Increased congestion, smog, harm to our environment, so many things. I am not against immigration, it is progress, but it should be controlled for the good of Canada, it's people and it's environment.

[floppi]

snip:
"that is our death rate exceeds birthrate"

Where are you getting your information from. Our birth rate is 1.6 higher than our death rate. In other words our population is increasing.

Population growth rate 0.73% (2017 est.)
Birth rate 10.3 births/1,000 population (2017 est.)
Death rate 8.7 deaths/1,000 population (2017 est.)

https://www.indexmundi.com/canada/demog ... ofile.html

Snip:
"However, I want to point out that most of the people on this forum that favor a no immigration policy".

Can you please show me where someone is in favor of a "no immigration policy". Many are in favor of a better run immigration policy including myself. We are in favor of properly controlled, vetted, immigration, not the free for all we currently have. Right now our waiting list is in the 10's of thousands with some waiting months. That should never be. They should be handled within 30 to 60 days at the most and cut off if we can't. It's not fair to them, it's not fair to Canadian's.

I personally doubt that the increase they bring in taxpayers etc is truly any improvement when you consider the extra infrastructure, schools, health, housing and all the things that go along with it. It sounds good but I'm not too sure how well it turns out in the end. Increased congestion, smog, harm to our environment, so many things. I am not against immigration, it is progress, but it should be controlled for the good of Canada, it's people and it's environment.

It's about replacement populations. I already tried to explain it but maybe you'll have better luck someone else explaining it.

The current and projected negative rates of natural increase are not related to high mortality rates, which by and large are at relatively low levels and have been declining globally. The negative rates are basically a result of fertility rates falling below the replacement level of about two births per woman. With more opportunities for higher education, employment, careers and economic independence, combined with highly effective contraception, young women are deciding to have fewer children or avoiding motherhood altogether.

It is estimated that 83 countries, representing 46 percent of the world’s population of 7.6 billion, are experiencing below-replacement fertility. The 10 most populous countries with fertility rates below two births per woman, by ranking, are: China, United States, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Vietnam, Germany, Iran, Thailand and Britain.

As a result of the negative rates of natural increase, coupled with what we demographers call “insufficient compensating immigration,” the populations of nearly 40 countries, including China, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain and Ukraine, are expected to become smaller by 2050 (Figure 2). The populations of more than 60 countries are projected to be smaller by the end of the century.

How countries will address their declining and aging populations is paramount in the 21st century — affecting all 193 countries at the UN. The governments of most of the countries grappling with this problem seem to be hoping for a return to a demographic past that is irrecoverable. The sooner that governments accept the immutable realities of demography and understand the historic changes that are underway, the sooner they can cope with the far-reaching consequences for their countries.

https://www.passblue.com/2017/10/02/whe ... on-effect/

It's a moot point about "no immigration policy" or not if a country can't get above replacement level even with immigration, there will be serious economic and social consequences down the road.