Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Bownesian · 07-05-2009, 12:09 PM

I certainly don't think that accepting larger numbers of immigrants provides a disincentive for thirld world people to limit their family size. Only government action such as that taken by China and/or educating and liberating women in the third world can make a difference to the world's population.

Personally, I have done a lot of travelling outside of Canada (and the Americas) and what I have learned is that we have something very special here. Canadians have an enormous amount of wealth and space and individually consume an enormous number of resources per capita to live amazingly lavish lifestyles. When the people below our poverty line includes people with televisions and cars, our view of what it means to be "poor" is pretty skewed.

The reality of the uneven distribution of wealth in the world is analagous to comparing the super-rich in the first world to the average citizen there. Even if we were to liquidate all of the money owned by the forbes 500 list and split it among the members of the first world, it would work out to less than 1000$ per first world citizen. Similarly, if the wealth that we in the first world (~50 trillion dollars worth) were spread equitably among the world's population (6.7 Billion) it would work out to 7500$ per person.

The point of this rant is that immigration and wealth distribution from rich to poor is not a solution to the world's problems, hence there is almost nothing we can do to directly help the ultra-poor of the world. People in the first world who want to continue to have even a small portion of their current lifestyle should look to protecting that wealth, like our governments have been silently doing on our behalf in the years since WWII. My point in all this was to bring some intellectual honesty to the facts about how we do and must protect that wealth through methods that include limiting immigration.

Back to the point about individual family size decisions being influenced by what Canada does or does not do, one of the few ways that someone in the poorest parts of the world can do is hope that they or one of their offspring wins the lottery so to speak and gets picked for immigration to somewhere where there is real wealth and can then move the family there. Granted, it's a tenuous point at best but it's no more whispy than the idea that we can solve the world's problems by importing more members of the third world to our country while somehow not affecting our qualtiy of life.

07-05-2009, 12:09 PM	#6
Bownesian Scoring Winger Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Bowness Exp:	I certainly don't think that accepting larger numbers of immigrants provides a disincentive for thirld world people to limit their family size. Only government action such as that taken by China and/or educating and liberating women in the third world can make a difference to the world's population. Personally, I have done a lot of travelling outside of Canada (and the Americas) and what I have learned is that we have something very special here. Canadians have an enormous amount of wealth and space and individually consume an enormous number of resources per capita to live amazingly lavish lifestyles. When the people below our poverty line includes people with televisions and cars, our view of what it means to be "poor" is pretty skewed. The reality of the uneven distribution of wealth in the world is analagous to comparing the super-rich in the first world to the average citizen there. Even if we were to liquidate all of the money owned by the forbes 500 list and split it among the members of the first world, it would work out to less than 1000$ per first world citizen. Similarly, if the wealth that we in the first world (~50 trillion dollars worth) were spread equitably among the world's population (6.7 Billion) it would work out to 7500$ per person. The point of this rant is that immigration and wealth distribution from rich to poor is not a solution to the world's problems, hence there is almost nothing we can do to directly help the ultra-poor of the world. People in the first world who want to continue to have even a small portion of their current lifestyle should look to protecting that wealth, like our governments have been silently doing on our behalf in the years since WWII. My point in all this was to bring some intellectual honesty to the facts about how we do and must protect that wealth through methods that include limiting immigration. Back to the point about individual family size decisions being influenced by what Canada does or does not do, one of the few ways that someone in the poorest parts of the world can do is hope that they or one of their offspring wins the lottery so to speak and gets picked for immigration to somewhere where there is real wealth and can then move the family there. Granted, it's a tenuous point at best but it's no more whispy than the idea that we can solve the world's problems by importing more members of the third world to our country while somehow not affecting our qualtiy of life.