Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "Canada wants 100 million people by 2100" video.

Immigrants don't cause real estate bubbles, rich people (both local and foreign) do. Said bubbles actually drive out immigrants, who can't afford the rent (they're poorer on average than locals), to those less attractive regions.
6
banana aya playa Encouraging child-bearing has been tried in loads of places around the world. With very limited results. At most it gets some people to have the kids they wished to have already but were financially unsure of, but that's it. It doesn't raise your birth rate above replacement levels. Few people actually want more than two kids, and most are happy with one (or none). About the only exception to this are a few highly conservative religious communities, and they're not typically the most economically useful types of people.
5
@princepy2318 India's population growth rate is already at just around replacement rate - and still falling. Unlike China, which is gonna be facing a demographic catastrophe in the coming decades due to rapid aging. Population isn't India's problem - it's already sorting itself out, but gradually so. Sub-saharan Africa has fewer people, yet I'd say population is a bigger issue for them as it's still quite high and they aren't developing as fast as India.
4
@aw8851 So? Population isn't about space. It's literally possible to fit the entire human population into land space the size of a small state if we all lived as densely populated as, say, Greater Tokyo or Manila. And even India has plenty of empty space, punctuated by some densely populated cities, but with plenty of land between them. That land may be used for farming, but if humankind could be convinced to live more efficiently (as the Japanese do, for instance), consider that you would literally have well over 95% of the planet's landmass available for all other uses. Population is an economics issue, it never was nor will be a space issue.
4
Encouraging child-bearing has been tried in loads of places around the world. With very limited results. At most it gets some people to have the kids they wished to have already but were financially unsure of, but that's it. It doesn't raise your birth rate above replacement levels. Few people actually want more than two kids, and most are happy with one (or none). About the only exception to this are a few highly conservative religious communities, and they're not typically the most economically useful types of people.
3
banana aya playa How many kids do you want to have? Remember that you need a growth rate of at least 2.1 to be sustainable. And since plenty of other people don't want to have kids, that means you and others like you are gonna have to raise some pretty BIG broods to make up for that. You up for that? And how many others like yourself do you think there are in the population, for how many kids per household? The evidence just isn't on your side on this one.
3
Accelerationist India has far greater diversity than the former Yugoslavia, but guess which one stayed together and grew. Most countries are quite diverse, and you learn to make do with that. Wishing diversity away doesn't make it go away - that happens through far uglier methods that also happen to retard socio-economic progress a lot. Whether you like diversity or not, in most places (save a few countries, like Japan or Iceland) you have to learn to adapt to it. The alternative is far worse. And plenty of countries have learned, btw. The ones who complain are typically from places that are now having to face up to that challenge. I'm guessing you're from one of them.
3
@ofthecaribbean See above comment. There's also been a lot of different marketing approaches used but, as you'd expect, it's just pretty dang hard (if not impossible) to convince people to have kids if they didn't already want to. And as mentioned above, you need them to have quite a few of them too. It doesn't work.
2
@vibesanm I said "at just around replacement rate - and still falling". India's TFR is currently at 2.2 (and that's from 2017). Replacement level is 2.1. And it is indeed steadily falling further, and has been for a long time. Its population is expected to plateau at around 1.6 billion, and be young for a long time after. As for robots, Japan has been pinning its hopes on them for over a decade, then on working women and now finally is tentatively taking steps to let in a trickle of immigrants. Point being that apparently even the most advanced nation on Earth isn't able to do without people quite yet, which explains why economists almost universally see an aging population as a negative national indicator. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=IN
2
@vibesanm "so have nothing other than cities and corporate farms, no forests, mountains." - where did this picture come from? Which (non-citystate) country is even like this? Even densely populated Japan isn't. The point of my analogy was to show that there was plenty of space for everyone, not that it was necessary to live as you describe. Classic example of stretching an argument to absurdity.
2
TheCrazyKid1381 White people are the most sought after racial group in the world lol. Mostly cos they tend to be richer on average wherever they are, but still. You may not have been able to get a gf, but that's hardly because you're white. The difference is that white people don't seem to want to actually have kids as much, and even that's not about race - richer people in general (across races) don't want kids much.
2
@kaio37k Encouraging child-bearing has been tried in loads of places around the world. With very limited results. At most it gets some people to have the kids they wished to have already but were financially unsure of, but that's it. It doesn't raise your birth rate above replacement levels. Few people actually want more than two kids, and most are happy with one (or none). About the only exception to this are a few highly conservative religious communities, and they're not typically the most economically useful types of people.
2
@alex1695lopez Encouraging child-bearing has been tried in loads of places around the world. With very limited results. At most it gets some people to have the kids they wished to have already but were financially unsure of, but that's it. It doesn't raise your birth rate above replacement levels. Few people actually want more than two kids, and most are happy with one (or none). About the only exception to this are a few highly conservative religious communities, and they're not typically the most economically useful types of people.
2
@realsemig What demand? Care to explain how mostly poorer immigrant workers are capable of driving up prices for housing that they themselves can't afford? The only housing demand they can spur is of the cheap variety. You seem to be the one struggling with "basics" - ordinary people don't contribute demand for private jets, only Toyota Corollas, no matter how much they might want it or how closely they share a city with people who can afford that stuff. In 'basic' economics that's called the ability to pay, and there's no demand without it.
1
@vibesanm "if we reproduce and occupy all the space" - lol, you wanna calculate how many people that'd require? You might be surprised. Next you went on a screed about resource utilization, which that comment said nothing about. That resource usage has nothing to do with the space people take up, but rather their consumption patterns and environmental regulation. Finally, "There is literally n reason for increasing our population" - sure, so? Did I argue we should increase it? My point to you earlier was simply that people aren't obsolete yet, so don't try pushing that Venus Project (look it up - basically your 'robots and automation will handle everything' idea) bs too early. And on the issue of overpopulation my stance is simply that it's overblown panic by people in developed first world countries who know it's the one thing they can't be blamed for (despite most of that resource drain has still been caused by them, simply due to the massive consumption level differences). Why is it overblown? Cos, as the other guy also said, it already sorts itself out with development. It's also a harmful cause - because the people who keep harping on about it typically shy away from talking about what to do about it, cos they know that wouldn't go down well. Why not? Cos all standard humane things that affect population growth are already done, even often without being labelled as population control (girls education, better healthcare, contraceptive access, income increases, etc.), which leaves only the more inhumane options. Everything from forced sterilization (which India already did before) to birth limits (which China has followed, but recently had to relax) to outright culling. More importantly, it distracts the very people who cause the most harm (rich first worlders) from changing their own consumption patterns to help save the planet. As I said earlier, India's population is already sorting itself out - that isn't what would worry me about the planets' future. Our collective (including the newly minted Indian middle class, but also the comfortable westerners judging them simply for being so many) inability to change lifestyles is. But going back to the original point - physical space isn't the problem. Go ahead and do that calculation to see for yourself.
1
@vibesanm "You said we have so much space and increasing population is a good thing" - I said space for people was not a problem, the second part is your own invention. All I've added afterwards is that your concern regarding population is pointless as it's going down anyway, not that it we should try to raise it.
1
@vibesanm Well yeah, the rate of growth is going down. It's shrinking in some places, albeit that's made up for by the growth in other places - but those places growth rates are also slowing and will eventually cease. The global population is expected to plateau out within this century. How we sustain that population will depend on how we structure our consumption and distribution patterns as well as technological development, but the problem certainly isn't going to be about having enough space for everyone.
1
@vibesanm I have been to Bengal, as a matter of fact. Also, I'm not talking about us ruining the planet in other ways due to how we choose to do things, merely about whether it's possible to sustain the population we have and can expect in future. Whether we will get our act together to do that is a different issue, I only speak of whether it's possible for a population that size to work. And to my knowledge it is, and yes that includes forests and food supply. Put another way, if things don't work out, my point is that that wasn't inevitable. There's plenty that needs fixing, but the absolute number of people isn't one of them. That's taking care of itself.
1
@vibesanm "If we had a functioning brain, we would probably inform the poor in 3rd world nations that they dont need to have 7 kids" - they don't need to be told that. They stop having those kids of their volition as soon as you provide them with good healthcare, women's rights and education. You want to know why people don't seem to talk much about population? Cos they really don't to (and often make things worse if they do). It fixes itself, if you just stop harping on about it and focus on making the world a better place - https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question Meanwhile, the real looming crisis we face isn't too many people, but too few kids (and too many old people) - https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521
1
@vibesanm "let's make a conscious effort to at least inform and discourage people in poor countries having too many kids" - that's called family planning, and it's already done. I forgot just how dense you've been all though this comment chain. What made you return to it, 6 months later, anyway? Allow me to put this in simple words - even if not done racially discriminatory, at best you're calling for forced sterilization, at worst outright culling of people. Oh, you didn't actually say that? Well then, what the hell are you campaigning for?! Everything you want that reduces population growth is already done! You want to go heckle these people to have fewer kids? Go right ahead. As if their own govts. haven't already encouraged that. I'm done taking your stupid cagey and empty ideologue-ing here seriously. If you're worried about population, then I expect you to make a case for mass sterilization and/or killing families or their excess children for exceeding your desired quota. Good luck trying to convince people of that. Else you're just wasting people's time promoting an empty and vacuous platitude (like saying "happiness is good" or some other useless shit) that does nothing but advertise your social perspective. So if you've got a good argument for violating the human rights of millions in order to control population, make it. Or else keep proseletyzing into the wind in this comment section if you want, but I won't bother responding. To repeat, I expect you to justify killing millions of people. If you can't do that, don't bother.
1
@vibesanm I didn't call you a genocidal maniac right now, I asked you to become one. Because right now all you are is a broken record spouting a vacuous idea that is trying to pretend it's different when in fact it's nothing of the sort. "I have literally said, by means of education" - so basically nothing new. Good to know. Maybe they'll one day institute an award for people making the most unoriginal and redundant policy suggestions, but I'm not aware of such a thing existing now. So I guess we can all go back to what we were doing already, since you apparently don't have anything new to add, even if you'd like to imagine you do.
1