Population: The Ultimate Price to a Sustainably Ethical World

There is a video that claims that the greatest mistake that mankind has made and continues to make is the failure to understand the exponential function. The video, readily available to be watched on YouTube contains 8 parts and can be found by searching for “The Most Important Video You’ll ever see.” It discusses how the exponential function predicts the size of anything at a constant growth rate such as economics and population. It also includes a detailed analysis into the population issue. This video discusses a few ways to control population, but each method seems to be and is sinister to consider. However, if population were to become a real issue, the maintenance of its size would be the least of our problems.

Part 1 of an 8 Part Series on The Importance of the Exponential Function in the Real World

With the environmental mess creeping closer and closer to our life as we know it, population and population control seems to be becoming a major issue. According to an article in Britain’s The Spectator, “the most sinister side of the environmentalist movement is the idea of an optimal population.” The quote may seem strong at first, but essentially what it is saying is the following. The idea of having an optimal (good sized) population is the most dangerous part of the environmental agenda.

“The most sinister side of the environmentalist movement is the idea of an optimal population.”
- The Spectator

It stands to reason that this statement be true. In Canada, the influx of new skilled workers doesn’t come close to matching that of the workforce of the baby boom generation and as a result, many jobs will have vacancies, our economy will slow down, and the weight of the massive amounts of retirees will break the back of an already ailing healthcare system. Therefore, in a country like Canada, and every country alike, an attempt to limit population growth in population will have repercussions on the economy and productivity as a whole. However, an important goal to achieve in our attempts to stop and undo the negative changes that we have made to this planet, population growth would have to be controlled because with the earth’s limited reservoir of resources, population cannot grow indefinitely. While our markets would crash as a result, suitable government reforms to the economic model known as capitalism and maybe even the creation of a new model will better suit the need for a smaller population at this time and remain sustainable in the future.

Reducing our population will require some rewiring in certain places, but should it rewire ethics? How would we reduce the population? At first, it would seem quite simple; tell the new generations not to reproduce… or not to reproduce as much. That kind of command is very vague, and if taken seriously has its own repercussions. With a lower growth rate, the replacement rate in jobs would drop and as a result the economy would slow down. The method that was and still is used in China is one of the most effective, yet unethical methods we have. If you have the optimal family in China, you will receive benefits from the state. If you don’t have the optimal family; on the other hand, you will be taxed severely. The Chinese children restriction policy is downright unethical – but without it, China would suffocate. With current population growth, resources are being used faster and in greater quantities. With the current population growth, many countries are headed for the same fate as China. Let’s face it, we cannot keep growing forever, eventually food and water resources will be gone and we will be in an awkward situation. The only way that the current world is able to deal with its population is through abusive industrial methods of mass production and harvesting. From an ethical perspective, what does this mean for human rights? Should people have the right to choose who lives and who dies? – Especially based on gender or race? Will ethics be sacrificed in order to secure the possibility of life on earth? If one thing is certain, without a planet, there won’t be any ethical issues to look at.

According to The World Bank, an organization that researches the development states of countries across the world, the rate of growth of the world population as of 2008 is 1.2% annually. Our current population is about 6.8 billion people. This would mean that if the global growth rate were to remain at 1.2% our population will be approximately 7.66 billion people in a decade. If the growth rate were to decline by 0.1%, the world population would be 7.58 billion people. The capitalist model feeds on this kind of exponential growth since profits too are exponential. However, in terms of the environment, this calculation based on current statistics is alarming.

P(t)=P_i(1+r%)^t

P(t): Final Population; P_i: Initial Population; r%: Rate of Growth in Decimal Form;  t: Time in Years

With dwindling supplies of fuel and energy sources, with over-worked farm lands that will be worked to its peak of un-usability and a squander in the world’s fresh water availability, our current population is having a steep negative impact on the environment, what would happen if 860 million people more are born within 10 years, how steep will our already negative impact become? With resources in exponential decline to meet the exponentially growing population’s needs, one has to realize that population growth cannot continue indefinitely. When shortages in resources apply, wars will be created – man’s need for power will never change. People will die for the possessive obsession of the elite and power hungry. The overall demand for food will starve the healthy. Water will become a closed and bought source.

With the occurrence of change to the planet and all it has to offer and the destabilization of its equilibrium, it will attempt to regain a new equilibrium and the harder we pull on a spring, the harder it will retract. The formation of this new equilibrium won’t be pretty, and mankind, along with every other species on the planet will pay the ultimate price.

If we weigh our options, both results lead to disastrous conclusions. We can watch our economy collapse and human rights be abused in an attempt to save the planet that may be beyond saving, or we can ignore this aspect in the environmental movement and end up with worldwide famine and bloodshed.

It stands to reason that the “idea of an optimal population” is the “most sinister side of the environmentalist movement.” However, the creation of a sustainable economy based on optimal population size would be the best solution for the future. While the statement posted in The Spectacle is reasonable considering the consequences of reducing the population, but the consequence of climate change may be much more dire and devastating than an economic crash. With proper governance, a new economic model can be built to suit the current needs of the growing population. With the current strategies that are available, reducing the growth rate at an ethical rate with ethical policies is not very likely a method we will see, but where do ethics outweigh the value of life? Wouldn’t it be more ethical to save the planet and all of its species at the expense of our own rather than the opposite?

It remains safe to say that the population issue is controversial and while an “optimal population” is attainable, it would be attained at a cost of our rights, ethics, and depending on the measures used, possibly even our lives. One of the methods we could use can be considered as a paradox. In the film, war was mentioned, and if we assume that human nature will not change and that the rate of growth will not change and the rate of consumption remains constant, there will be war. War is no longer armies of people running at each other with spears. If the next war goes nuclear, the impact of that war alone will be much more devastating than our current polluting technologies which as of yet hasn’t completely destroyed the planet as we know it.

With a no win situation in our arsenal, should we heed the warning of the environmentalists on the issue of population, or should we ignore it and hope that by some miracle human survival instincts die within us? Should the industrialized countries scrap the concept of human rights to save a planet that might already be doomed? Is this idea of an “optimal population” really attainable? What further consequences are there of our ways?

While there are many questions to ask considering this issue, if one thing remains certain, without a planet, there is no economy or ethical ground to fight over.

Did the world dig itself an early grave? How much pain and agony will future generations go through because of our ignorance and lack of action? An “optimal population” is attainable, but at what ultimate price?

Can We Really Afford to Lose Our Identity?

What would your life be like without free access to healthcare? Would you be able to scrape up the money required should you need a doctor and the system be privatized? Would you really want your fate to be held in a monopoly by third party insurance companies? Giving Stephen Harper’s Conservative party a majority government would spell this disastrous fate upon Canada as it loses its identity in the favor of Corporate America.


The economies of the Canadian provinces are not harmonious. While Alberta enjoys a very strong economy, Quebec has weak economic sectors which lead to constant deficits and large debts due to its large expenditures in its social programs. Within these provinces, and within its cities, the classes of people are split. From the wealthy to the impoverished, the hierarchy extends. Canadians can consider themselves lucky that their healthcare system will take them free of charge and not play the insurance company monopoly.

“Federal transfer payments are a critical source of funding for public services such as health care and education in Quebec.”
- CBC News 

According to an article on CBC that was released in March, Quebec politicians from all political parties are claiming that “federal transfer payments are a critical source of funding for public services such as health care and education in Quebec.” In Quebec, the tuition fees to schooling are the lowest in the country and arguably many parts of the world. On another note, Quebec also has a strong social net for those who fall through the cracks. More importantly, Quebec has a very thorough healthcare system. While the wait times are despicable and the amount of family doctors dwindling, it is nothing more than a reaction to the dense populations that inhabit its large and growing cities. Quebec also has one of the weakest economies in Canada because of its high expenses. All of the aforementioned programs cost money that comes from tax payers and the major federal transfers that take place.

"This [bringing back a balanced federalism envisioned by the founders of Confederation] would be done by putting an end to all federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Instead of sending money to the provinces, Ottawa would cut its taxes and let them use the fiscal room that has been vacated. Such a transfer of tax points to the provinces would allow them to fully assume their responsibility without federal control."
- Maxime Bernier, CBC News

However, a backbench Conservative MP, Maxime Bernier, has introduced to the House of Commons last Wednesday a new way of federal transfers that would inevitably threaten our healthcare system. According to a CBC news article released last Wednesday, Bernier says: "This [bringing back a balanced federalism envisioned by the founders of Confederation] would be done by putting an end to all federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Instead of sending money to the provinces, Ottawa would cut its taxes and let them use the fiscal room that has been vacated. Such a transfer of tax points to the provinces would allow them to fully assume their responsibility without federal control."

“These changes [An increase in retirement rate with a lower replacement rate] will fundamentally affect the workforce. A scarcity of workers may lead to rising wages. This could encourage older workers to stay in the labor force longer or deter younger people from pursuing long-term postsecondary education. Also, employers may institute more automation and strive for greater workplace productivity.”
- Statistics Canada

Without federal control over provincial finance and affairs, provinces that have poor fiscal management and a weak economy will not be able to fund such programs which would lead to either large tax hikes or program cutting. Based on the economics and lack of economic power, these programs would be cut severely or completely dismantled. A Statistic Canada study published in 2004 predicts that, “These changes [An increase in retirement rate with a lower replacement rate] will fundamentally affect the workforce. A scarcity of workers may lead to rising wages. This could encourage older workers to stay in the labor force longer or deter younger people from pursuing long-term postsecondary education. Also, employers may institute more automation and strive for greater workplace productivity.” With this reality among us, the healthcare system could be privatized, and so would medical insurance. If this were to happen, Canada’s healthcare framework will crumble, and so will the budgets of the average middle and lower class Canadian.

"There would no longer be any ambiguity if each province stopped depending on federal transfers and raised the amount of money necessary to manage its own problems."
- Maxime Bernier, CBC News

"There would no longer be any ambiguity if each province stopped depending on federal transfers and raised the amount of money necessary to manage its own problems," Bernier claims with the growing demand for an increase to health transfers that is set to expire in 10 years. Therefore, if we think about it, electing a majority Conservative government would lead to the dismantling of Canada’s framework and inevitably our famed healthcare system. While we all complain, and look to the private sector, wait times in our American friends’ hospitals amount to be the same times as ours. The main difference between the Canadian and American model of healthcare is that Canada plays the collective soul and the United States play the battle of the fittest.

Canada is well respected worldwide for its hospitality and its open hand, the ability for a large array of people to live in harmony, in peace and be able to aid their neighbors without hesitation is what makes Canadians Canadian. With a change to the Canadian way of healthcare, to a more American style method, Canada would not benefit in wait times, nor would it benefit in quality, instead, the healthcare system would become a pool of sharks all vying at the glance of the sick person’s wallet. The inevitable rule of pure capitalism is to take advantage of the broken person for your own benefit and this is exactly what happens in the United States on a daily basis; people lose their homes, their cars, go deep into red ink just to be able to pay the doctor for being able to see them – once their health insurance provider has finished scanning their wallet the first time. Is this a humane fashion in which to run healthcare? Is a person’s life really worth the value of an artificial substance? We can make money any day we want, but can we create a human being in the same essence?

“Facebook, the world's largest social network, announced in July 2010, that it had 500 million users around the world.”
- New York Times

According to The New York Times, “Facebook, the world's largest social network, announced in July 2010, that it had 500 million users around the world.” In the United States, the misfortunate is forced to find money and look to the charity of complete strangers which is usually a gamble. They create Facebook groups and events, and those who are seriously ill get the hospitality, but often it is not enough to be able to secure the person’s life.

Canada, as a society of humane and decent people should be alarmed about such a threat to our healthcare system. When the Republicans bashed Obama’s Health Care Plan by mocking ours, Stephen Harper didn’t open his mouth once. Instead, he stayed silent because he, like the American Republicans, wants to scrap social policy and aid and fund the rich and those who follow him and his people. While Harper was trying his best to hide from the situation, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and New Democratic Leader Jack Layton hit the American airwaves in the defense of our system and our true socialistic values. The National Post’s article: “Jack Layton: In defense of Canadian Healthcare,” released in July 2009, displays the points that Jack Layton made as he joined the American debate.

We must tell Stephen Harper that his plan to scrap our healthcare system – just as he is our database and gun registry – is not in the best interest of Canadians. Harper already lost his seat on the UN Security Council due to his hypocritical views on the Environment and the war in the Gaza Strip along with skipping important meetings to campaign at Tim Horton’s. While the media will not highlight these events in their bias towards the Conservative Party, it is time that Canadians remove the divisive hold that Harper has come to grip on and reunite and be rid of his non-Canadian leadership. It is time we save the Canadian identity and our prized healthcare system. It is time that we de-seat Stephen Harper’s cabinet.

There is always an alternative to our current government. While the provinces are about to be loaded with a paralyzing weight with the Conservatives, the Liberals plan to centralize the system even more and help those whom have sick family members in their Liberal Family Care Plan. Healthcare and Education are the cores to our identity and we shall not be silenced.

Bad Timing, Bad Quality, F-35 Jet Fighters to Be More Pain than Solution

The Harper government announced on Friday that it would invest $9 billion dollars into replacing Canada’s aged military aircrafts. In a time of economic uncertainty and in a time of reducing spending, such a large investment in an area that isn’t as prioritized as getting people back to work and restoring normality in Canada, is such an investment the right one? Currently, there is no concrete proof that claims that our current fighter jets absolutely need to be replaced immediately. Currently, there is no bids for the contract as it has already been made without consultation and without prior research. Currently, Canada is in debt and deficit and must focus on recovery in an ever so fragile state of the world.



The planes that the Harper government plans to buy are the exact same planes that the Americans bought and used in their military. However, these planes aren’t the best planes that we can have and both Republicans and Democrats in the United States are debating on whether the gamble was really worth it. While a long video, this video will thoroughly explain the main problems of this model of plane that will have a larger maintenance burden and lower quality as Americans have experienced.

The Americans have tried these planes and are now unsatisfied with the consequence of their gamble, why should Canada make the same mistake?

If the F-35 jet fighters pose so many problems to the American military and budget, what will happen to ours? There is no definite need for our current planes to be replaced for the moment as there is no solid and public evidence to support it. Our country’s books are unbalanced and in the red, we should focus on the population before we look at our military’s toys. The process of getting these planes is flawed. There should be research into the manner and a competitive bid for the contract, model and price should be executed before even considering taking a one-way street.

The Conservative government has once again displayed incompetence and poor strategic thinking. Before looking at a military, the Canadian framework and economy should be solid. We shouldn’t buy from the United States because they are our best allies, but because their company won the bid. Based on the experiences of the American military and budget, the purchase of these planes was a costly mistake. If Stephen Harper wishes to make the mistakes that other countries have made, then so be it, but be ready to pay for these mistakes, and be ready to deal with an ever-growing frustration in the public’s eye. Now is no time to be looking at such an investment and now is no time to purchase without looking at every single aspect of its economic and quality-wise consequences.

If the Harper Conservatives aren’t ready to do their homework, then maybe they aren’t ready to govern or to position Canada’s economy onto the right track. Let us not forget that it is due to the Liberal government’s sound approach that brought this country great surpluses and stability that the country’s economy didn’t plunge as far as that of the United States. It wasn’t Harper, it was the framework that he is sitting on. The purchase of these planes pose as a great expense in manufacturing and a still unknown cost in maintenance. The Americans can easily say at this point that the purchase of these planes was a mistake. What will it take to convince the Conservative government that their closed room deals will cost us all billions in the future?

Rethinking the Past to Generate a Better Future

Anyone who is thinking of going to Alberta should be aware of the fact that they are aiding a great environmental flop. As Alberta’s Tar Sands serve as the largest supplier of oil to the United States (or will when the Conservatives are done with it), a new string of American attack ads peg Canada as one of the worst countries in the world with regard to oil. Let us not forget that Canada won the colossal fossil award and our current conservative government is reluctant to make the necessary changes to prepare Canada for a 21st century economy. Rethink Alberta is a well-developed site by Corporate Ethics International and is attacking the oil sands from one aspect to another. In a time when technology is evolving at a rate that could very well make fossil fuels redundant, the Conservative government of Canada would rather prevent the greening progress of the United States than aid it. The Copenhagen Summit, and several Environmental conferences are very good examples of how Canada is setting the wrong example for the world and how world leaders are mocking Canadians as we speak.



Here is an excerpt from the British tabloid during the Copenhagen Summit. The exact quote can be found for looking for Canada in the interactive display under The Crucial Data marker.

“A pathetic 3% cut on their 1990 emissions levels by 2020 – an offer mired in thick black tar.”
-The Guardian

Is this the way that the world should view Canada?

This attack could hurt the economy, although, it isn’t like the profits from oil won’t cover the loss of tourism… If the American oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t a good enough warning of the future of Alberta’s prized landscape if the drilling is continued and extended, then there is no good enough warning. Recessions are a good time to reformat and to rethink a country's economy. Investing in new sectors stimulates new competition and a new drive on the market. The race and demand for greener technology is one that should be the center piece of the new economy, not the backbench road block. It is when a country or person continues its old ways that the results run flat and the disaster repeats itself.

In a modernizing economy, we should look at modernization. If we continue to prop up old and inefficient methods of generating revenue, we will continue to prop up old and unsettling disasters in both the economic and environmental spectrums.

“In Canada, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach wasted no time in travelling to the U.S. to point out that the oil sands development in the northern reaches of his province — which have come under widespread international criticism — should suddenly be looking a little more attractive. At the very same time that the inquiry began in Washington, the drilling of the deepest-ever offshore oil well in Newfoundland began.”
-MSN Money

Our landscapes are worth preserving along with our unique values and culture and tourism industry. Shall the tourism industry falter, any new economic opportunities will be blocked and the Canadian economy will not improve and without improvement, it as well will falter. It isn’t only time to rethink Alberta; maybe it’s also time to rethink Canada and its Conservative government.

The Battle Begins

One always is amused when political parties go head to head and it’s about time that the Liberal Party grew the guts to take on the Conservatives. While Stephen Harper throws a cheap shot at Michael Ignatieff’s property outside of Canada, the Liberal Party war room takes full advantage of Harper’s mischief in poor timing. Money seems to be the decider of power these days. It was money that brought the Conservatives to power and it’s the money that will throw them out. It just goes to show that maybe doing the job properly and fairly has more merits than defacing political opponents and calling costly – yet worthless – election campaigns and running away from parliament when things don’t go their way. That is no way to conduct a government and that is the definition of fear. Paul Martin was able to stare defeat in the face, but Stephen Harper runs from it because he knows that if he doesn’t hold on to his short rope, he will never be able to grab on again.


Every great empire falls eventually, Rome and Greece are great examples and their fall comes as a consequence of shaky leadership and divides in the power. Politicians are equivalent in their tactics but unique in their visions and it is a party with a vision that will win the heart and soul of the electorate… The American Dream has been working wonders for the Republicans.

The Liberals have unveiled their reminder for Canadians, one that Harper will come to fear, as political analysts praise the timing and Canadians never take lightly when politicians use tax payer’s dollars on ego trips.

The Liberal response to economic mismanagement

This attack ad is effective and is very much needed by the Liberals for if they ever dream of coming to power, they better start gaining a face soon.

An Update to The Blog Platform

To all of the readers of this blog,

This site will become more and more of a source of contraversy than a blog site. If you haven’t noticed, tabs are appearing on the top of this blog and each of these tabs will serve as a quick and easy update mechanism. This way, we can keep up to date with the current politics and players and gain insight on the pros and cons of each of them. Embrace the changes that are to come and enjoy its benefits as we unleash the Canadian political scene as the media fears to present it as. Welcome to the next generation of politics.

The Silence is Broken

Reaching YouTube's most viewed video position, the world is now aware of what Canadian’s think of their government’s budgeting abilities. The video: If I Had a Billion Dollars, a modified remake of the original by the Bare-naked Ladies has become the anthem to ridicule Stephen Harper’s fake lake and meeting filled with “rubber bullets.”





As rumors go around about a Liberal-New Democrat merger, it is important to keep to the main issues. While such a party merger would be controversial, and might end the left wing vote split, it isn’t something that we can confirm or control. However, Canadian’s tax money is being mismanaged and this issue isn’t going to slip under the table due to a lack of media coverage. However, for any kind of justice for a billion of our dollars wasted, is it really worth watching the moves of the opposition? Shouldn’t we be pressuring the government to NOT waste OUR money?

Take back your democracy, have the guts to make your voices heard. This is Canada, not a dictatorship. We pay taxes to fund our social programs that aid Canadian families and are the envy of the world, not for major tax cuts for companies who abuse their powers and for government luxuries. Politicians are public servants, they serve the people, not themselves.

If you had a billion dollars, what would you do with it?

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has proved yet again that their mandate isn’t to govern the country, it is to create positive media footage to mask their incompetence. In 2008, the signs of the on-coming economic disaster was looming but Harper’s “leadership” failed to recognize it. Instead, he called a snap election in a failed attempt to win a majority government.


The recession has forced his government to work on the economy and The Economic Action Plan came out which seemed to be more about the commercials than the work that was being done – if there was work being done.

The theme of the upcoming G8 meetings is to create viable ways to cut spending and restart the economic motor but with a 53 billion dollar deficit, the Harper Conservatives have decided that there is room in the budget for 1.2 billion dollars to treat their international buddies to a luxury environment that is completely artificial and secured. While Canada is hosting the world, in the circumstances and parameters that are set in place, Canada doesn’t need to spend all of that money. A 57 thousand dollar fake lake, now down from 1.9 million dollars as the government tries to save its face, has nothing to do with spending cuts among the board. the luxurious media distraction will serve to be yet another of the government’s ploys to hide their actual dealings and build their propaganda machine.

Toilet replacements is a part of this deal and these toilets are in the riding of industry minister Tony Clement which is enough of a distance away from where the G8 meetings will be held.

Across the country, Canadians are outraged by the fact that they felt the economic punch and their so called relief package is cuts by a government who will first spend a billion on themselves even as they are responsible for the economic chaos. Where do Stephen Harper and his buddies get off going on a spending spree for temporary events which the average Canadian would never see?

This is the perfect opportunity for Canada’s opposition parties to defeat the government. Seeing as how this government has shown in broad daylight their reckless spending habits and truly distasteful attitude toward the Canadian people, now is the time. Although it seems that the opposition is ready to let this slip under the rug – just as they have with everything else. What voice does Canada have in parliament?

What would you do with a billion dollars? One will probably never live to see that salary, but within a summit of just a few days, Stephen Harper will enjoy all of it as he ironically discusses spending cuts which will likely hurt the population in the end.