Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Ironhorse]

Unfortunately the majority of the world appears to have a lot of kids, and adults are living longer. You don't think that the world population doubling since 1980 (quadrupling since the 1930's) has an effect on our overall climate?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by chemgear

People and countries aren't even remotely willing to talk about slowing down having kids. When having a single kid more than offsets dozens upon dozens of people that might actually throw their car into the junkyard or switch to electric. It's the single most destructive thing you can choose to do regarding global warming. If anything, there is encouragement for people to have more kids.

What are you talking about? Birth rates are now below replacement in nearly every first world country. Population growth in the west is almost solely dependent on immigration from poor countries where birth rates are higher.

If you think less people is an important goal, by far the best way to accomlish that is with economic growth - every country has lower birth rates as they get richer. If you can get African and Asian countries richer their birthrates will drop.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

What are you talking about? Birth rates are now below replacement in nearly every first world country. Population growth in the west is almost solely dependent on immigration from poor countries where birth rates are higher.

If you think less people is an important goal, by far the best way to accomlish that is with economic growth - every country has lower birth rates as they get richer. If you can get African and Asian countries richer their birthrates will drop.

Richer, and better educated. I would probably argue that education (and sex education) are the bigger factors than just wealth.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I don't give a bolloxs about the climate at this point, not because I don't believe in global warming, I do, but because I see no point in Canadians taking it up the arse financially when it will make sod all difference to climate change

Unless it comes on a global level then piss on it, might as well march to our extinction reasonably well off as a country

I mean I like the government giving me my money back and making me feel good about doing something at the same time.

It also seems to be the only thing that isn't means-tested.

Getting interest free loans from the government seems to be the opposite of taking it up the arse financially.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Richer, and better educated. I would probably argue that education (and sex education) are the bigger factors than just wealth.

Industrialization and urbanization are by far the two things that result in lower birth rates. More people working jobs and offered less space to live will result in people having fewer children.

Its been a demographic trend for 250 years. Look at South Korea as an example. 80 years ago it was not Industrialized at all. Since that time it might be the fastest urbanization and industrialization in history...its also resulted in a total crash of the birthrate.

Education is a byproduct of Industrialization and urbanization as people look to it as a means of improving their standard within that setting. I'd argue that the better off people within that setting are more likely to move to a SFD in the burbs and have two kids, or have a 1.5 million dollar condo with more space. Its just that the two engineer or two teacher couple likely only ever have two kids even though they could afford more.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Industrialization and urbanization are by far the two things that result in lower birth rates. More people working jobs and offered less space to live will result in people having fewer children.

Its been a demographic trend for 250 years. Look at South Korea as an example. 80 years ago it was not Industrialized at all. Since that time it might be the fastest urbanization and industrialization in history...its also resulted in a total crash of the birthrate.

Education is a byproduct of Industrialization and urbanization as people look to it as a means of improving their standard within that setting. I'd argue that the better off people within that setting are more likely to move to a SFD in the burbs and have two kids, or have a 1.5 million dollar condo with more space. Its just that the two engineer or two teacher couple likely only ever have two kids even though they could afford more.

Look at North America. More often than not it is the educated people who are in the nice house with 1-2 kids. The uneducated people are typically having kids as teenagers and then keep having kids as a way of life.

A quick internet search pulled up a recent supporting study: Association between Education and Fertility: New Evidence from the Study in Pakistan

To cherrypick from the abstract: In any country, education is considered the reason to control fertility levels. and The results provide evidence that women with secondary and higher education have a negative and significant association with fertility and thus support the hypothesis that educated women have lower fertility.

It is not an accident that the same people who are undermining education are also the people who are against abortion and women's rights. They want people dumb, poor, and having lots of dumb and poor babies to basically be their slave workforce within their oligarchy societies.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Look at North America. More often than not it is the educated people who are in the nice house with 1-2 kids. The uneducated people are typically having kids as teenagers and then keep having kids as a way of life.

A quick internet search pulled up a recent supporting study: Association between Education and Fertility: New Evidence from the Study in Pakistan

To cherrypick from the abstract: In any country, education is considered the reason to control fertility levels. and The results provide evidence that women with secondary and higher education have a negative and significant association with fertility and thus support the hypothesis that educated women have lower fertility.

It is not an accident that the same people who are undermining education are also the people who are against abortion and women's rights. They want people dumb, poor, and having lots of dumb and poor babies to basically be their slave workforce within their oligarchy societies.

Well I don't have the time you do to invest in arguments. But your claim that only dumb people have kids young seems a touch harsh. Sure there are some religions where families have 4 or 5 kids. Rural people on farms who have lots of space might have that many too. But a big reason why those families are a lot less common is because in the last 70 years Canada in particular has highly urbanized its population.

As countries industrialize and move people off the farm and into cities, the education levels do rise. The two do go hand in hand. I'll even offer up that equal rights for women do bring birthrates down since women are less subject to abuse than they would be in a place like Pakistan. Is China a high education country, or is it authoritarian?

If countries like Pakistan were more Industrialized with more people in cities and participating in the labour force, eventually education levels would rise and birthrates would come down. In Industrial revolution era Britain and Germany this is how it played out. I think the chances of that happening in Pakistsn are a lot greater than the state suddenly going to the countryside and educating all the young girls.

So I don't think our stance is not as drasticly different as you seem to make it out to be.

But man are you're ever condescending with your views. The UCP is crazy...but you seem to make it sound like they're the Chinese Communist Party in terms of the power they have. They're a blowhard provincial government who probably lose the next election.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Well I don't have the time you do to invest in arguments. But your claim that only dumb people have kids young seems a touch harsh. Sure there are some religions where families have 4 or 5 kids. Rural people on farms who have lots of space might have that many too. But a big reason why those families are a lot less common is because in the last 70 years Canada in particular has highly urbanized its population.

As countries industrialize and move people off the farm and into cities, the education levels do rise. The two do go hand in hand. I'll even offer up that equal rights for women do bring birthrates down since women are less subject to abuse than they would be in a place like Pakistan. Is China a high education country, or is it authoritarian?

If countries like Pakistan were more Industrialized with more people in cities and participating in the labour force, eventually education levels would rise and birthrates would come down. In Industrial revolution era Britain and Germany this is how it played out. I think the chances of that happening in Pakistsn are a lot greater than the state suddenly going to the countryside and educating all the young girls.

So I don't think our stance is not as drasticly different as you seem to make it out to be.

But man are you're ever condescending with your views. The UCP is crazy...but you seem to make it sound like they're the Chinese Communist Party in terms of the power they have. They're a blowhard provincial government who probably lose the next election.

I didn't say "only dumb people have kids young", I said "The uneducated people are typically having kids as teenagers and then keep having kids as a way of life." It is a bit less harsh when you actually use the words I used, especially if you underline the word "typically".

Anyway, I agree that our stances are not that different but I felt that the distinction is important enough to throw a comment at, when you pushed back I provided enough effort to support my opinion instead of just running my mouth off in disagreement. You're welcome.

You are right that industrialization and education go hand in hand, but I think it is important to highlight the education factor because in societies like ours (or America's) where the industrialization is essentially done, the outlier is whether or not people are getting the education (and sex education) to be responsible enough to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Certain groups, specifically right wing political and religious groups, work really hard to try and restrict sex education and lower the quality of education for the average citizen. They are not doing this for good reasons.

We literally have a province that just changed sex education from an opt out to and opt in and I think they would happily take the next step to eliminate sex education if they can invent enough data to show that parents are not opting in.

This is also a big deal when you look at the CPC and their last few leadership races. Guys like MacKay and Charest lost the leadership races to people who said they would be willing to go after abortion rights (Sheer, O'Toole, PP). I personally believe that had MacKay beat O'Toole in their race that MacKay would have beat Trudeau in the following election. But the Conservatives do not just want to form government anymore, they want to form a government that does things like eliminate abortions. That is dangerous and we are seeing just how dangerous it can get south of the border.

Calling me condescending is interesting. It is probably not entirely wrong, but I think there are smart people in this forum and I often learn things when reading here and thus I take the time to not just run my mouth but to back up what I say with information that I find elsewhere that may elevate the conversation here. I have fun learning so the effort is worth it to me.

Also, I do think that the UCP (and CPC) are dangerous parties now. They are not operating on their own, which you can see from their international organization memberships (for example, https://www.idu.org/). When you look at the list of terrible things that the UPC has done in the last 6 years it should make you more than casually concerned especially when we start hearing about gerrymandering Lethbridge or attempts to allocate the new MLA ridings to rural areas instead of Calgary and Edmonton where the population has grown the most. They are trying to lock in power because they know the voters are going to turn on them.

[TheIronMaiden]

The Liberals ditching their Environmentalism creates the gap the NDP were desperate for.

[TorqueDog]

I'm feeling all sorts of awesome now knowing that I can roll around in my V8s and still lay claim that I'm doing my part for the environment simply because we're child-free and we recycle.

Next up, changing up the lightbulbs! Where's my Greenpeace t-shirt at?

[calgarygeologist]

It seems like quite a few high profile Liberals might be running away from the Carney government soon if this article is true. If there are half a dozen by-elections in the near term it will certainly be interesting to see how those votes go.

Then-Transport minister Chrystia Freeland (University-Rosedale, Ont.) announced last week that she was stepping down from cabinet to become Canada’s special representative for the reconstruction of Ukraine. She also confirmed she would not re-offer in the next general election. While she will remain an MP for now, some media reports suggest Freeland may resign her seat in the next few months.

According to government sources, former cabinet ministers Bill Blair (Scarborough Southwest, Ont.) and Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver-Capilano, B.C.) will soon resign from their House seats for high-profile diplomatic appointments in Europe.

Four-term Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches-East York, Ont.) may step down from his seat in the coming months depending on the outcome of the Ontario Liberal leadership race.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Que.) could also step down in the coming months, according to Liberal sources.

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2025...ine-up/474086/

[btimbit]

Wait those are the MLA's everyone hates, why is it a bad thing if they get pushed out?

Framing it as 'running away from Carney' is hilarious.

[Firebot]

I'm certainly not shedding a tear, unless you count them as tears of joy (well let's not go that far). Freeland, Wilkinson, Guilbeault were some of the absolute worst the Liberals had to offer and continuously enabled toxic and destructive Trudeau policies.
Carney can fix some of his early cabinet mistakes by adding some old school progressive conservatives or traditional radical centrists in these roles. The country is healing and so has the Liberal party, we are heading the right direction.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Wait those are the MLA's everyone hates, why is it a bad thing if they get pushed out?

Framing it as 'running away from Carney' is hilarious.

Well the RW propagandist is running out of material on here! hahahah

Remember PP's sloagan? A vote for Carney is a vote for the same... PP crying in his body pillow right now too.