Writing for the Globe and Mail, Doug Saunders provocatively argues that Canada needs to dramatically increase its population to 100 million to become a fully formed nation.
The two arguments I found most interesting were that Canada would better safeguard environmental protections through immigration, and that a larger population was necessary in order to foster a national culture.
He notes that "Canada’s environment would probably be far better protected: Densely populated places like California and France tend to do better at conservation than empty zones like the Asian steppe, which produced such ecological catastrophes as the Aral Sea disaster unobserved. The threats of global warming – notably ocean-level rises – will require large-scale infrastructure projects that must rely on a large tax base. And it’s no coincidence that the most progressive climate-change policies are found in the countries with the most dense populations"
My family friend Julie Campoli does research in praise of urban residential density, which seems somewhat consistent with this, and Canadian cities seem like some of the least dense urban environments on earth, almost like the Chinese ghost cities. Calgary felt like some futuristic planner demanded skyscrapers without the people to fill them. Beautiful Vancouver was also full of empty skyscrapers (but high rents) due to investment from Hong Kong and Mainland China.
However, Canada has a long history as a commodity driven economy, and has successfully walked the delicate balance between using commodities to fuel growth and protecting the environment in part due to low population density. Although I imagine that the goal of increased immigration would be to diversify away from commodities into a more domestic consumption driven economy, recent immigrants are flocking to Alberta. Immigrants who come to work in the oil and gas sector may not become a force for environmental preservation.
Saunders also writes that "The challenge is not simply economic. The greatest price of underpopulation is loneliness: We are often unable to talk intelligently to each other, not to mention the world, because we just don’t have enough people to support the institutions of dialogue and culture – whether they’re universities, magazines, movie industries, think tanks or publishing houses. Unlike the tightly packed countries of Europe, Canada has multiple, dispersed audiences with different regional cultures – and therefore needs a larger base population, especially in its cities."
I would love to hear Benedict Anderson's take on that. It's also a much fresher take than the idea that proximity and similarity to the USA depress the development of pan-Canadian culture. I am looking forward to seeing how my Canadian friends react to it.
The two arguments I found most interesting were that Canada would better safeguard environmental protections through immigration, and that a larger population was necessary in order to foster a national culture.
He notes that "Canada’s environment would probably be far better protected: Densely populated places like California and France tend to do better at conservation than empty zones like the Asian steppe, which produced such ecological catastrophes as the Aral Sea disaster unobserved. The threats of global warming – notably ocean-level rises – will require large-scale infrastructure projects that must rely on a large tax base. And it’s no coincidence that the most progressive climate-change policies are found in the countries with the most dense populations"
My family friend Julie Campoli does research in praise of urban residential density, which seems somewhat consistent with this, and Canadian cities seem like some of the least dense urban environments on earth, almost like the Chinese ghost cities. Calgary felt like some futuristic planner demanded skyscrapers without the people to fill them. Beautiful Vancouver was also full of empty skyscrapers (but high rents) due to investment from Hong Kong and Mainland China.
However, Canada has a long history as a commodity driven economy, and has successfully walked the delicate balance between using commodities to fuel growth and protecting the environment in part due to low population density. Although I imagine that the goal of increased immigration would be to diversify away from commodities into a more domestic consumption driven economy, recent immigrants are flocking to Alberta. Immigrants who come to work in the oil and gas sector may not become a force for environmental preservation.
Saunders also writes that "The challenge is not simply economic. The greatest price of underpopulation is loneliness: We are often unable to talk intelligently to each other, not to mention the world, because we just don’t have enough people to support the institutions of dialogue and culture – whether they’re universities, magazines, movie industries, think tanks or publishing houses. Unlike the tightly packed countries of Europe, Canada has multiple, dispersed audiences with different regional cultures – and therefore needs a larger base population, especially in its cities."
I would love to hear Benedict Anderson's take on that. It's also a much fresher take than the idea that proximity and similarity to the USA depress the development of pan-Canadian culture. I am looking forward to seeing how my Canadian friends react to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment