An increase in immigration will drive down tech salaries in Canada - that's the entire point.
And along the way they will drive up housing prices, and drive up general revenue and consumer spending since there are simply more bodies in the economy.
The system benefits the owners of capital and the migrants themselves, but not existing ('legacy') Canadians.
Along the way you get all kinds of social problems caused by the excess of males and the preponderance of Asian families to selectively abort female fetuses.
The advantage of space colonisation is that you can control everything - the microbes, the infrastructure, the laws, the people.
There are no environmental regulations, no taxes, no diversity policies, and with appropriate screening, no human, plant or animal diseases.
To put it simply: imagine a space colony of a thousand of the best and brightest men and women Earth had to offer, where gonorrhea, AIDS, chlamydia, the common cold just didn't exist? Where one could work without the tax burden of paying for a huge welfare state?
This is something that Earth cannot offer. Even in the most remote desert you will have to deal with the local tribes and the United Nations. Space colonies could developer free of the burden of socialism.
It might make a lot of sense to airlift all kinds of species out of Africa and into other environments. With the population of the continent going to 4 billion by 2100, and with the massive levels of poaching and habitat destruction that will entail, the prospects for native flora and fauna there are not good.
Given that humans crossed it, resulting in the extinction of the majority of megafauna in the Americas... yes?
The Clovis people are long gone, and prosecuting their descendants would be pointless and cruel. So I find myself agreeing with the first half of your sentence.
Coronavirus is completely overblown. Regular influenza kills 12,000-61,000 Americans each year.
Coronavirus is only deadly to elderly with existing medical problems. Its not worth shutting down the economy over. Reducing this population would also entail a reduction in healthcare and pension expenses, benefiting younger workers.
Wow. Regular flu kills around 300-650k people per year worldwide, but in general it only has a 0.1% mortality rate; and guess what, it also only basically kills the elderly.
Now you have a virus with a mortality rate of 2-3%, so it'll kill a lot more people once it begins to spread. The sick people from the coronavirus also needs a lot more medical work and efforts to separate them from the rest of the populace.
The whole idea is that you don't need both in countries where it is not present. Using that reasoning: why do you care when malaria kills >300k yearly? We all know the numbers.
We probably just don't need as many nukes - the world will be much less populated with near-peer adversaries in 2040.
For example in 20 years time there will be as many Russian military-age males as in 1969, and as many Chinese as in 1973, and the populations will be declining continuously.
sure, but they will have just as much land to distribute their launch sites across. part of why the US has so many missiles is to have a decent chance of hitting all enemy launch sites
The bigger amount of waste is from food prepared in excess to demand. That's why food is repurposed as much as possible - leftover meat into stews, leftover vegetables into hash etc.
Yup. Kitchen makes a few hundred sheet pans of stuff according to a menu that's set well in advance (so that the ship can take on the proper supplies) and then because of the way things just happen to turn out certain dishes will get mostly eaten and others mostly trashed.
You simply can't optimize beyond a certain level because you need room to absorb changes in customer demand. You can't not serve soup on Thursday because the customers ate all your beef Wednesday and you have no stock.
People can easily be tracked via their mobile phone.
This is just another area where Europe is lagging behind the rest of the world (ie. the USA) and wants to slow everyone else down so its native conglomerates can catch up. Same thing with the recent regulation on autonomous vehicles.
“We can already be tracked by X” doesn’t mean that we should stop caring about the other areas in which abuse can happen. It’s complacency, and it allows for the situation to become worse to the point of no return. We’ve seen so many examples of that in the past decade.
I‘m happy that the EU is considering taking more time to implement things properly (or at least attempting to do so).
It seems like the biggest problem that 'Mariah' at the top of the article faces is that she has too many children, no partner, and her car is too fuel inefficient.
The best way to help people in her situation is to encourage family planning, marriage, and cheap electric vehicles.
And along the way they will drive up housing prices, and drive up general revenue and consumer spending since there are simply more bodies in the economy.
The system benefits the owners of capital and the migrants themselves, but not existing ('legacy') Canadians.
Along the way you get all kinds of social problems caused by the excess of males and the preponderance of Asian families to selectively abort female fetuses.