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.
I doubt anyone would want to do that instantly, but it's actually a valid question because it could happen and only take a few days, less than a week.
All we'd need is for the Yellowstone caldera to blow it's top. It's long overdue to erupt and it's a super-volcano so a super-eruption from Yellowstone could be apocalyptic for vast regions of North America. Canada's population could double or possibly triple within a week with temporary disaster refugees from the very immediate south whose homes lie in the direct path of heavy ash-fall and toxic gases. Millions of American people would only be able to head north or to the south west to get away from it. Parts of southern and eastern Canada would get some of that ash-fall too.
So it could happen. Where would we put an additional 35 - 50 million disaster refugees who arrive en masse within a week?
.
I don't think a natural disaster is what the O/P intended as his premise. I believe the intent was specific to being "supreme being" or governmental choice driven.
BUT, having said that, temporarily redoubling of Canada's population under those terms would involve very little choice and far more spur of the moment reflex decisions from individual family "taking in" whoever arrives in their area such as that usually happening after every natural disaster that displaces large numbers of people.
Under those conditions, one would need imagine all those things that have happened during any wartime period such as rationing of food and fuel, imposed curfews, deployment of military to urban centres as looting would almost certainly occur by very desperate people needing immediate supplies.
You cannot fantasy colour such an event without also considering the terrible consequences of a MASS migration such as that you describe.
Right. Well we won't take the volcanic disaster route then, it doesn't bear thinking about even though it could happen without notice. Climate change could do it too, only at a slightly slower rate and we've already had plenty of notice. The end results would be the same when the south turns into a desert.
Which brings us back to the OP's fantasy question "if you could double Canada's population tomorrow, how would you distribute the additional 36 million people in existing cities ....?" I guess the answer is "It would be an unmitigated disaster any which way you look at it so let's not think about it."
lol sorry. Still riding high from the Blue Jays win last night.
I guess I should have been more specific. Let's just assume 100 years from now Canada's population has doubled to around 75 million (through continued immigration and current birth rates), how do you think those additional 35-40 million people would be spread throughout cities across the country? Would Toronto continue to be the undisputed alpha city of the nation? Could Halifax become a coastal metropolis? And would you prefer that current growth rates change so that certain areas of the country receive more growth than others? Just wanted to get your guys thoughts.
I think climate change will be a factor in population distribution. I also think technology (e.g. ability to work from home, use of robots, less need for infrastructure, etc.) will reduce the need to live in large cities.
I'd send all the women and all children under the age of 6 to Manitopiaaa's house to be his house-guests for an indeterminate period of time.
Just joking.
If I had the power to distribute 36 million people across Canada it would mean I had the power to make other important decisions on Canada's behalf. So I would not send those 36 million to any of the already existing cities. To do so would create unimaginable hardships and discord for EVERYBODY in Canada. Instead I would provide them with all the necessary supplies and equipment needed and distribute them to specific undeveloped locations across Canada to create new cities and industries.
I'd send all the women and all children under the age of 6 to Manitopiaaa's house to be his house-guests for an indeterminate period of time.
Just joking.
If I had the power to distribute 36 million people across Canada it would mean I had the power to make other important decisions on Canada's behalf. So I would not send those 36 million to any of the already existing cities. To do so would create unimaginable hardships and discord for EVERYBODY in Canada. Instead I would provide them with all the necessary supplies and equipment needed and distribute them to specific undeveloped locations across Canada to create new cities and industries.
.
Yes, send some to the Maritimes.
They need more people, east coast is under populated, maybe it'll get their
economy revved up.
LOL The reason I said Toronto is, a poster on here is always saying Toronto is only a medium sized city and would like to see it more crowded.
Vancouver is fine the way it is.
That was me.
If Canada had 36 million more people, I would distribute them this way
Southern Ontario -- 15 million
GTA + 6 million. A metropolitan area of 12 million sounds about right. Toronto the city itself should at least double its size to 6M.
London and Windsor should add 2 million each.
Add 1 million to Niagara Falls, Kingston, Bruce Peninsula, Cottage countries etc. They look so sparsely populated.
BC - 10 million (yeah, shudder in fear, BCers, you would cease to be farmers!)
Vancouver + 4 million, Essentially triple its size and become as populous as Toronto, instead of being this incredible lonely dead quiet city yet somehow is famous.
Vancouver Island + 6 million. Best weather in wretched Canada, should have a few large cities. Then it would probably make sense to build a bridge. (scream "pristine nature", I don't care. Sick of those words. With 8M more people, the island would still be 90% pristine nature).
AB - 4M
Calgary/Edmonton: add 2 million each. Not more because of the horrible weather.
Quebec - 8M
Montreal: 4M more. The remaining 3M the rest of Quebec. I'd prefer a larger Quebec population.
I don't care for SK/MB because I don't want to put millions of people in that kind of climate. Nor do I plan to add people in the Maritimes - let it just slowly die out. I don't care. I also don't want more people in Ottawa because I deeply loathe Ottawa. I wish the capital would move to somewhere else.
Of course that won't happen tomorrow. Only a fool would suggest that. It is all based on the assumption that the growth is gradual and sustainable.
you had it backwards. People leave because the economy is screwed up, not that the economy is bad because there are few people.
What is with your hate on us from Atlantic Canada?
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.
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.
or governmental choice driven.
