Demographics working against Canada
Demographics working against Canada
The trouble is that we have two competing objectives, viz reversing the global and particularly the Canadian and companion western-world demographic trend, on the one hand, and global population reduction, on the other. Both laudable in their own right, but in conflict with each other. What to do?
First, analyze the country in which we live. If you live in the US, you will note that the birthrate is almost adequate to support a self-sustaining population. So Americans can worry a little more about how to reduce the population in some achievable and sensible way and a little less about demographics. Not easy, but easier in the US than in most other western countries and almost all the others except China and perhaps Singapore.
We reside in Canada. What do we do? The only valid conclusion must take into account the size and resources of our country and the underpopulation we have relative thereto – our population is about 36 million. Russia is of comparable geographic size with comparable resources, and it has a population of 142 million, down 6½ million in the last 10 years. It has its own set of problems, and its policies and history are of little or no instructive value to us.
So even if there is a world overpopulation needing reduction, we have in Canada a small population ostensibly needing increase. Why do we need more people in Canada?
- For defence of Canada against prospective immigrants who may well decide to invade us after the Europeans become fed up and hostile.
- For defence of Canada against the Americans who want our water and other resources.
- To support vital needs, the manpower therefor, and the expense thereof. Two such needs are mentioned above. And as we have a huge coastline to defend, we have a serious inchoate need for much more extensive defence resources. No more defunct British submarines, please; let us revitalize our own aeronautical and shipbuilding industries. Give Bombardier something useful to do.
- For economic balance. Too much of our money is spent on transportation, because every part of Canada is remote from many other parts. A higher population would enable us to even out demand/supply capabilities.
- For reduction of dependence upon foreign sources of supply, and increased jobs for Canadians. We import huge quantities of almost everything because our domestic market is too small to support even vital industries, and foreigners tend to prefer to purchase their own made-at-home goods rather than Canadian exports.
You will readily be able to identify further Canadian needs that would be better satisfied by an increased Canadian population.
An increase in population can be achieved with massive immigration. But we have seen the tremendous damage done by mass immigration in Europe, so no thanks to increased immigration.
So what’s our plan? First of all, we have to recognize the factors that caused our demographic problem. The principal factors are feminist values coupled with almost universal birth control. These factors have enabled women to avoid marriage and/or other quasi-permanent relationships until their later years, and to have children, if at all, only as they approach their late childbearing years.
Have women stopped loving babies? I don’t think so. Baby humans are almost as attractive as kittens and puppies, and I don’t recall ever having observed a woman who did not take an immediate shine to an infant in a crib or a stroller or in a mother’s arms. Childbearing and infant care are as natural to a young woman as shopping.
So why aren’t the women responding positively to their natural instincts? At least part of the answer is that the feminists have adopted traditional masculine objectives, including pursuit of money, power, and challenging and rewarding vocations. And this pursuit has largely caught on; those women who are at home with small children feel the negative overtones of their interaction with the ardent feminists.
Can we alter our social and family values to accommodate both the feminists and the REAL women? I think it’s worth a try. Here’s one suggestion, requiring significant governmental intervention, which won’t appeal to some:
Provide financial, infrastructural, and social support to all young women, married or committed or otherwise, who bear one or preferably more children at a young age, preferably beginning at least as young as age 18. Provide extensive widespread child-care facilities for the care of young children, from babies up to, say, Grade 6. Provide half-day paying jobs for five days in these facilities to all mothers who have a child in a child-care facility. For the mating five half-days, provide jobs for such women in all vocations, and/or half-day attendance at educational facilities. Each of such women would serve five half-days per week in the child-care facility that houses her own child(ren), and the balancing five half-days in some other job or educational pursuit.
Pay a bonus to all women who bear more than two children. Perhaps an increasing bonus as the number of children borne increases above three.
By and large, such women could complete their child-bearing by their mid-twenties, and thereafter devote increasing attention to some other career. Their child-bearing and care of younger children would occur while they have maximum vim and vigour. With the increasing interpersonal skills and good judgment that begins in somewhat later years, they could optimize their other later pursuits.
Worth a try? If you don’t think so, please suggest some better solution to our demographic and population problems. Although results for any solution tried will not be felt for another generation or so, these problems do need urgent attention.