So how is all this mass immigration suppose to save the environment?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's not just an immigration problem, that's a population problem. If you want to save the planet, the planet needs less people who pollute and consume. Does it matter as much that more people in Canada are using resources if China does it at a far greater rate? I think the answer is no, but yes in that it makes these places less livable than they would be if these immigrants, refugees, and illegals were not. Especially since they're coming from these places that have no consideration for consumption or pollution(much less crime).

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Does it matter as much that more people in Canada are using resources if China does it at a far greater rate?

Per capita wise, it is far worse.

The people who come from the poorest third world jungles didn't drive cars often, or required heating to survive Winter.

Not to mention, when they come to the first world, they love to CONSOOM. Think of all the crap that Wal-Mart sells? That's their audience.

That's not just an immigration problem, that's a population problem.

When we grow our population naturally, it at least takes 18 years before they become productive adults who could do serious damage. That's at least enough time to build more infrastructure or plan ahead for future increases.

With immigration, you are dumping an already mature population by the millions, who can then ask more of their friends to come join them as well. Places like Hospitals, Schools, Shopping Centers, Gyms etc are all going to be maxed out when immigrants have instant access.

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant general world population. The places with the fastest population growth would require population reduction much more than areas that do not. Assuming that consumption and pollution has drastic global effects, the idea would be to have less people in these rapidly growing and consuming places to begin with.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The places with the fastest population growth would require population reduction much more than areas that do not.

Assuming that consumption and pollution has drastic global effects, the idea would be to have less people in these rapidly growing and consuming places to begin with.

Yes, but taking them from poor areas with low resource usage/pollution per capita, and moving them to rich countries with much higher resource usage/pollution doesn't seem like a particularly good idea either

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're correct, that's a terrible idea. Which is why things like birth control is required in those poor areas.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're correct, that's a terrible idea. Which is why things like birth control is required in those poor areas.

I'd also point to the financial and food aid we insist on providing populations that have exceeded their productive capacity for the population. We have known for decades that doing so only increases the population growth in these countries, but the bleeding heart liberals don't like to face the reality of this particular kind of 'green science'