I wonder when white people will be speaking in Indian accents here

Isn’t the world’s population supposed to peak by 2070 and then decline? Sounds like a capitalist going on about the need for endless growth to make him billions. Has anyone thought about what Canada would be like to live in if there were 70 million extra people?

Keep in mind this is an American opinion site and they don’t often understand how America is different from other G7s.

If we stop growing we will have a smaller economy. If we stop growing, we’ll be less important in the world, as the rest of the world grows around us.

The planet will not sustain human life in 2100 if every country believes in this crap.

Stop rewarding growth and start rewarding sustainability.

Welp, a bigger economy is how we can increase the feasibility of having HSR built in Canada so bring it on.

If BlackRock thinks that population growth in Canada is important, it seems to me they’re actually in a far better position to make that happen than the average Canadian.

BlackRock owns a fuck ton of property in Canada, they are in a strong position to make rents and housing, much more affordable. Which will drive the economy up significantly.

Families will be more willing to “grow the population’ if they’re not allocating 50+ percent of their income towards housing.

Affordable housing also makes us a better destination people immigrating to Canada.

But that would require BlackRock to be less greedy… so

Wiseman added that a larger population means greater contributions into social programs like health care and education.

If you’re loosing 5c per unit on an item you can’t make up for it with more volume. 40M people already can’t cover the costs of government services for 40M people.

ffs no. we had the population under control until some fucking retard decided to import 2 million hindus. Endless growth is not a fucking goal, i mean, ffs, we’d been trying to limit population for the last 50 years no?

Blackrock continues to demonstrate that they’re a bunch of idiots living in a financial delusion.

God, save us from our own stupidity, we seem unable to do it ourselves

Wiseman added that a larger population means greater contributions into social programs like health care and education. However, he also cautioned that an eye towards large-scale growth will also require immediate action to build out transit, housing, education and – crucially – child care, which would allow a greater number of women to contribute to the workforce.

Our governments can’t plan a few years ahead, let alone decades. We haven’t been able to line up healthcare, child care, transit, or housing improvements to cover the relatively small population increase of the last ten years.

“Cells must continue to divide uncontrollably!” says cancerous tumour.

So we have a smaller economy, so fucking what!? Does line always have to go up? Can we not just make a reasonable profit and cover expenses with a little bit left over for a nice dinner out? Are you fuckers not already rich enough?

Tell you what, here’s the deal: you have have a hundred million people if we can have marginal tax rates like it’s 1960 again.

So if we need to grow our population to 100M by 2100 in order to have nice things, what happens when we reach that goal? Would we finally be able to have nice things with that population or would Mr Wiseman Prime say we need to grow our population to 200M by 2200 in order to have nice things? If yes, then it’s clearly not possible to have nice things under this model. If no, then we don’t need to grow our population to 100M in order to have nice things. And by we I mean the majority of Canadians, the workers. I do understand that Mr Wiseman cannot get a lot more nice things from the current population.

I’m loosing my fucking mind when listening to people able to ignore so much of reality while making sweeping policy agendas that will drastically affect the reality of most Canadians.

deleted by creator

Why would we ever want even more people when we struggle to properly serve the current population? And we’ve struggled for many years. Immigration is critically important, not for population, but for diversity. Monoculture in all forms is weakness.

I have no problem with urban lifestyles and actually miss some aspects of it. But we are rapidly losing our ability to support alternative lifestyles. Small cities that once thrived now struggle. Towns and villages are becoming less viable. Yet campgrounds are collapsing under the weight of demand.

I’ve lived my whole life, 67 years, in Saskatchewan. Our population grew by 10-20 percent during the time that Canada’s population grew by 50 percent or more. In the 1960s an 70s it was rare to not be able to find openings at any campground on the spur of the moment. That started changing in the 80s and 90s when popular places would fill up on long weekends. By 2000, we had to start making reservations. Today, all but the most out of the way campgrounds require weeks or even months of planning and, often, all but the earliest of birds are shut completely out.

It may seem strange to focus on campgrounds, but I think that this demand is at least partly driven by the loss of non-urban choices in lifestyle. To a first approximation, it was never the villagers and farmers and ranchers who were driving campground demand, but the residents of cities. If everything is to be urbanised, what is left for those for who would choose something different? If we cannot serve the variety of human needs or even such a simple and basic human need to occasionally escape, what hope is there for anything else?

At some point, whether in 50 years or 500, we are going to have to find ways to deal with steady or even falling populations. Nothing about this little rock is infinite. The sooner we recognize that and start building our economies, societies, and institutions accordingly, the less aggressively we need to act. And the less aggressively we need to act, the easier it will be on people, businesses, and nature.