Quote:
Originally Posted by $5 submissions
Good points . You raise a very interesting point: It appears that part of the reason for Canada's migration policy is the need to import labor to fund the benefits of an aging population.
But maybe there's an alternative solution involving AUTOMATION/ROBOTICS and also, changes in benefits/incentives.
Ultimately, it goes to a core question: Is there a law that a country should have a large population?
Interestingly enough, Scandinavian countries with comparatively small populations routinely rank high in Human development and happiness indices.
Also, I agree with the point raised by another poster above, EDUCATION and STANDARDS OF LIVING tend to have an inverse relationship with BIRTH RATES.
Maybe this should be the focus in the developing world. Less migration. Lower global population overall.
From a historical perspective, it's only since medical advances in the late 1700s and onwards that resulted in an ALGAE-LIKE EXPLOSION IN HUMAN POPULATION.
From a purely historical perspective, it doesn't really fit the natural pattern.
Maybe the REAL carrying capacity of the planet is lower.
What's wrong with a happier, well-fed, low population planet where there's less competing mouths to feed?
|
yep, where there is less education and more religious involvement there are more people having kids. around here when people do decide to have kids they are already in their 30's. i probably know more people who will never have kids than will/already do. they have lots of disposible income to have fun with and gone are the expectations from society to have a family. 40 years ago you were looked at as a weirdo if you didn't get married and have kids. now its the norm. the people with big families in suburban ottawa is 90% immigrants. they are often educated and do well for themselves but remain highly religious which is i'm guessing the reason for the big family.