Some folks on here have been repeating this garbage as well

  • DerisionConsulting
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    I would avoid using terms like “replacing” when it comes to humans. You may not mean it, but people may read what you wrote as supporting the “Le Grand Remplacement

    My family mostly came over prior to the 1800’s, and they changed their last name to appear less Scottish when they did so. I believe that we should continue to welcome new immigrants to Canada.

    How different the city will evolve in either case ?

    Well, I lived in one prairie town of less than 20k people on the prairies that basically only encouraged temporary farm labour as opposed to immigration. It’s dying a slow death and losing population. The town looks shabby, and when you leave high school, you leave town. There isn’t a reason to stay unless you got someone pregnant, or you work at one of the 2 factories.

    I now live in another prairie town that actively reaches out to new Canadians, having a welcome centre, and includes non-religious holiday celebrations. It’s growing, it’s vibrant, it’s safe, and it’s clean. People with different experiences come up with different solutions to problems, so as long as everyone is reasonable, it leads to better outcomes.

    What does this say on our communities ?

    It means that (white) Canadians don’t have a long history of being as exploited and that Canada is a nation with general political stability, allowing for the development of a more robust economy.

    Our places are so crappy that you can’t even have your own children ?

    I see people with kids here every day. Some people, including myself, have chosen to not have kids. It’s considered common knowledge that the richer a nation is, the lower the birth rate. I see less accidental children now than I did 20 years ago, which may be linked to the availability of birth control options.

    What’s the point of a community ?

    Humans are social creatures. Communities give a place of belonging, as well a group of people who generally help each other.
    I don’t really get why you’re asking this question.

    • Smk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s cool that you have great anecdotes about how great it is for you. I am an immigrant myself so I’m absolutely not against immigration, far from it. I’m not saying ImMiGrAnTs ArE rUiNiNg OuT NaTiOn. I’m saying that our communities are not for community anymore but more an organisation that is for profit.

      I know that it’s common knowledge that the richer you get, the less children you want but why is that the case? I feel like there’s something wrong when your cities is less and less welcoming of families that you have to patch it with immigrants. It’s not about having immigrants or not. It’s how the cities are organizing themseves and that somehow prevents people from having families. Or maybe everyone just chooses to not have children which I would love to see a paper about it.

      • EhForumUser
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I know that it’s common knowledge that the richer you get, the less children you want but why is that the case?

        Is it actually the richer you get, or the further away from an agrarian lifestyle you get? Societies become richer when they industrialize, so there is no doubt a correlation to be seen.

        If we look to the provinces, there appears to be some link between agricultural’s share of the GDP and fertility rate. In other words, this suggests the more agrarian a province is, the more likely it is to have a high (relatively speaking) fertility rate. Zooming out to look at nations which are poorly industrialized, and much more agrarian focused, then the fertility rate runs much higher. This would indicate that more children are had to lend a hand. Something that doesn’t help where industry sees little hands being of no use.

        The question, it seems, is: What would the rich need them for?

        It’s how the cities are organizing themseves and that somehow prevents people from having families.

        The province with the lowest fertility rate is Nova Scotia. Nearly half of its population lives rurally, and 70% of its population live outside of cities. What makes you think it is a city problem?

        • Smk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          What makes you think it is a city problem?

          It feels like a city problem but really, it’s the way we drive our community. We live with each other and yet, we don’t really. There is no opportunity to know our neighbors unless we do the weird knock on their door and just talk. No one is doing that.

          It feels that in rural area, this opportunity is more present because there is less people and therefore, you will meet them. In my city, I have never saw my neighbors in a grocery store in many years. From my point of view, that is one element that drive the fertility rate down. Feeling alone and not supported won’t make you feel safe to bring a child.

          But I may be completely “out there” because this is just what I feel. I don’t have data about it and I wouldn’t know how to begin.

          Maybe I’m just ranting about how we are so close together and yet, so far apart. Is this the real reason why fertility is down ? I don’t know and I wonder.

          • EhForumUser
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Canada’s fertility rate started falling sharply 60 years ago when the birth control pill became available. It bottomed out over the next following years as more and more adopted improved contraception and the fertility rate has now held stagnant for the past 50 years.

            It does not seem that there is any real societal magic going on, simply that newer technology allowed people to take control of how many kids they want to have. Which, it appears, is not many unless there is a utilitarian benefit to having many helpful hands (such as on farms).

            The question, it seems, is: What would the rich need them for?

            • Smk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              What do you think of this:

              In Canada, unlike many other countries, fertility rates and desires rise with income: richer Canadians have more children. Children increasingly come as a capstone to material and relational success, and thus later in life, rather than as a building block for family life.

              https://www.cardus.ca/research/family/reports/she-s-not-having-a-baby/

              I have no idea how trustworthy this is but so far, it feels ok.

              • EhForumUser
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                I think that aligns. The average dairy farmer in Canada, for example, makes $230,000 per year. The average worker clocking in at a job that forbids children lending a hand makes $50,000 per year.

                In many countries the agrarian life is where the poor are found. Lacking the modern technology we have, they are toiling in the fields, which is something the rich want no part of. But in Canada, with our advanced farming practices, the high capital costs of those advanced practices means only the wealthy get to try to farm. As such, the rich are most likely to be involved in the agrarian life we have.

                • Smk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Though question to crack. Anyway, thanks for the conversation, I really appreciate it. Cheers!