U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-25-2012, 03:48 PM
 
3,060 posts, read 7,175,173 times
Reputation: 3260

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
...I don't know why people are so scared of 100M people. Most of us will be better off without sacrificing anything.
Better off? By the time Canada hits 100 million we'll all be dead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2012, 08:50 AM
 
2,291 posts, read 3,946,956 times
Reputation: 2062
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
I don't know why people are so scared of 100M people. Most of us will be better off without sacrificing anything.
You're confusing fear with disagreement here. Arguing for economies of scale is not exactly the same as proving there would be any.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2012, 08:51 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,310,849 times
Reputation: 7587
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
You're confusing fear with disagreement here. Arguing for economies of scale is not exactly the same as proving there would be any.
I have seen a lot of disagreement here, but not a convincing one regarding why it is a bad thing. People talks as if the current population is ideal, which I guess means the US has 90% too many people?

Most arguments are about losing farmland or nature, or just empty land, that kind of thing but as I said, Canada has a LOT of them, really A LOT, and some of it becoming urban areas doesn't really change much, and we will still have plenty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2012, 12:56 AM
 
Location: British Columbia ☀️ ♥ 🍁 ♥ ☀️
7,359 posts, read 6,643,926 times
Reputation: 14489
Boticelli, where do you live? How much of Canada have you travelled through?

There is no such thing as empty land.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2012, 03:29 PM
 
2,291 posts, read 3,946,956 times
Reputation: 2062
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
I have seen a lot of disagreement here, but not a convincing one regarding why it is a bad thing. People talks as if the current population is ideal, which I guess means the US has 90% too many people?

Most arguments are about losing farmland or nature, or just empty land, that kind of thing but as I said, Canada has a LOT of them, really A LOT, and some of it becoming urban areas doesn't really change much, and we will still have plenty.
I somewhat agree with you here: I'm not sure why 100M people would be worse than what Canada looks like now. I can see how it could be worse for some people (35 million people in Southern Ontario?) but I don't see how anyone can be sure that would happen. However, I also fail to see how having 100M people in Canada would lead to a higher quality of life, as if there was any correlation between population density and quality of life on this planet, and your conjectures about economies of scale ("small businesses will be better off"??) haven't convinced me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 04:35 PM
 
396 posts, read 731,579 times
Reputation: 191
This thread is pretty surprising, judging by some of the comments it's pretty clear, that many have no concept of geography. Canada is massive, comparisons to japan or whatever, is just plain crazy. Canada's at 100 hundred million would compare directly with norjway, hardly the most crowded place on earth. And please the permafrost comment is meaningless, with the exception of western europe, most countries in the world have large portions of their country that are vastly unpopulated, in norjway it's mountain/arctic areas, the uk scotland,china the entire west, japan the northern half, etc.

Granted the Vancouver/Toronto, area is pretty much maxed out. But there is still massive portions of the country that lack cities. If you actually look at the numbers and understand the realities of the 21st century, it's obvious that canada needs, atleast 20 million people relatively soon.
Basic laws of economic's and demographics pretty much demand we increase our population, otherwise large portions of the country will face declining populations, and continual government dependency for the rest of our live.

When you look at the numbers it's really hard to argue with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 05:00 PM
 
3,060 posts, read 7,175,173 times
Reputation: 3260
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikmaq32 View Post
This thread is pretty surprising, judging by some of the comments it's pretty clear, that many have no concept of geography. Canada is massive, comparisons to japan or whatever, is just plain crazy...
Stick around. We bring crazy to a whole new level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 02:58 AM
 
Location: British Columbia ☀️ ♥ 🍁 ♥ ☀️
7,359 posts, read 6,643,926 times
Reputation: 14489
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikmaq32 View Post

.... If you actually look at the numbers and understand the realities of the 21st century, it's obvious that canada needs, at least 20 million people relatively soon ......

When you look at the numbers it's really hard to argue with.
Yes, hard to argue with since Canada already surpassed 20 million in 1967 and is now approaching 35 million. Present estimate is 34,811,000. Population of Canada by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Or did you mean that Canada needs 20 million more people relatively soon?

How soon is relatively soon?

Canada is now very steadily increasing it's population by about 1 million people approximately every 3 years and looking at the population statistics it looks like it won't be long before it's 1 million every 2 years. I think that is a moderate and very practical increase over the course of the next few years.

Speaking of realities of the 21st century ..... I can't help but wonder if some of the folks who are pushing for drastically increased population are people who are youngsters worried about having to support their elders and Old Age Security pensioners in the next 20 years or so. And maybe even worried about who is going to be supporting them in 30 or 40 years from now.

Hmmmm?

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 09:26 AM
 
396 posts, read 731,579 times
Reputation: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Yes, hard to argue with since Canada already surpassed 20 million in 1967 and is now approaching 35 million. Present estimate is 34,811,000. Population of Canada by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Or did you mean that Canada needs 20 million more people relatively soon?

How soon is relatively soon?

Canada is now very steadily increasing it's population by about 1 million people approximately every 3 years and looking at the population statistics it looks like it won't be long before it's 1 million every 2 years. I think that is a moderate and very practical increase over the course of the next few years.

Speaking of realities of the 21st century ..... I can't help but wonder if some of the folks who are pushing for drastically increased population are people who are youngsters worried about having to support their elders and Old Age Security pensioners in the next 20 years or so. And maybe even worried about who is going to be supporting them in 30 or 40 years from now.

Hmmmm?

.
Who doesn't this affect, there is no age group that isn't directly effected, aside from those 70+. Youngsters are worried because there expected to hold on to this burden. But the older folk should be far more worried. If you think your retirement is a gaurentee your more than a bit optimistic.


Yes canada's population is increasing by a million every 2-3 years, but that's in certain regions. Other regions have stalled or are declinning, if this keeps up many places in canada, will start seeing very real demographic problems. The current immigration levels are just enough to keep 15-20 metro area's alive. If we don't want large portions of rural canada completely dependant on big cities, something is gonna have to change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 12:24 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ☀️ ♥ 🍁 ♥ ☀️
7,359 posts, read 6,643,926 times
Reputation: 14489
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikmaq32 View Post

The current immigration levels are just enough to keep 15-20 metro area's alive.

If we don't want large portions of rural canada completely dependant on big cities, something is gonna have to change.
Well, there are 33 large metropolitan areas presently flourishing in Canada. I guess you're suggesting that there should be more metro areas spread across the country.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean about large portions of rural Canada being dependant on big cities? I am not understanding that statement. Dependant on big cities for what?

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top