Shifting Borders in Anticipation of Climate Change

Throughout history, borders have changed for various reasons from ecological(pestilence,famine,drought) to economical to usurping of power through force.

If one were to take a macro perspective look at the planet today in 2020, they would notice many things but one things they may notice is that 400 million people are situated with a majority of the land, and fresh water.

Obviously, 6+ billion people sharing 50 percent of the world’s resources will only last for so long, whether the resources are exhausted or the 6+ billion simply want more of the pie.

If I were elected Prime Minister of Canada for the Conservative Party, I would immediately draw up a framework to start moving people to Canada. I am not taking about simple migration either. I would sell the eastern side of Hudson’s Bay to China for 1 trillion plus dollars. I would have them move 200 million people here and build a new China, Chanada?

The reason I would sell the East side is because i would be having an oil pipeiline come from Alberta-Manitoba-to Churchill connecting us to the ocean or tidewater as the landlocked folk call it. Once the chinese has built the city with ports and everything, the Fed government built the pipeline as well as a highway from Timmins; I would then issue a remittance payment to every Canadian for 10k, at a price tag of 350 billion, I would pay off the countries entire debt of 500 billion, institute truly free healthcare and post secondary with 50 billion allotted.

Finally I would negotiate a North American (consisting of Us, Canada, Chanada) union military border and have America supply our army as we built it to be something Respectable as well as honouring our committment to NATO of 2 percent.

What do you all think? Should I negotiate away my land/resources today or lose it by force/whatever tomorrow?

I'd fight for what's mine but feel free to worry about an invasion that will likely never happen and how to negotiate a deal with other countries from a coward's stance.

“What’s mine” sounds like an Americanism...think about what you have contributed to planet and to mankind. Most likely you would owe us something for what you consume. What’s mine sounds so entitled and selfish which is the ultimate cowardice.

a reply to: ADUB77

Very bad, naive plan, something your avatar/hero "Che" might have cooked up...read up of Che...NOT a model...for anyone...

a reply to: M5xaz

You can make all the assumptions you want because that is your right, I will not address them because that is my right.

What I will tell you is that it may be a bad plan from an “American” perspective but American imperialism is over and Canada is in a far better position going forward, we just have to make sure the U.S doesn’t take us over by annexation or the Chinese by force, so brokering a deal while in a position of strength is only logical.

Mankinds wants and desires will destroy this world, it is not our needs that are destroying it.

originally posted by: ADUB77
“What’s mine” sounds like an Americanism...think about what you have contributed to planet and to mankind. Most likely you would owe us something for what you consume. What’s mine sounds so entitled and selfish which is the ultimate cowardice.

Really? Can I come to your place and use your things, borrow your car and your ATM card?
Like you don't think that your things are yours....ok

a reply to: ADUB77

humans aren't the only creatures that have the concept of "this is mine", it's only natural to need a home and land for survival, altruism means nothing to the earth and will just get you and your family killed if you don't protect what's yours.

Are you in the running to become elected as the Prime Minister of Canada?

JHumm and namehere, yes from a micro perspective having things that fulfill our base needs is our primary motivation. Obviously I like having my house, my vehicles, my things.

I asked you guys to think from a macro perspective, if collectively we own 60 percent of the world’s resources and are only 5 percent of the world population, then is it altruism, or sheer willful ignorance to think that we should have it all at the expense of the world population/what that world population will do to the earth in the name of self survival.

a reply to: ADUB77

60 percent of the resources with 5 percent of the population.

That being accomplished as one of the youngest countries.

So many of those other older countries had it all and lost it...why should I want to give it back?

a reply to: ADUB77

That's some bold, out of the box thinking there ADUB. Would it work, could it be done? Dunno. However it is some bold thinking. I agree that from ''a'' macro vision of human history, the migrations of humans has been fluid and borders and nations have moved and changed as you point out.

a reply to: ADUB77
So you would give a good chunk of Canada to China? You do of course know that the Chinese are the most selfish users of resources ever to occupy the planet. THEY are the ones shoving the most pollution into the Worlds atmosphere without thought for anyone else.
So for you it's OK to spread them around the globe because????

a reply to: Bluntone22

Canada nor America accomplished that feat...what you have here is a branch off of the British dynasty that went it’s own way. Then they fought eachother to establish the U.S, then they fought with eachother more in the civil war. Then the U.S fought France and expelled them from N.america (save for French Polynesia) then instead of fighting the world powers split up Africa but not before British massacred millions creating South Africa. Then the world powers split up the rest of Africa (France,Britain,Spain,Netherlands...) major atrocities again took place (note king Leopold)

Then finally the global powers fight it out in WW1+2, Cold War, and then proxy wars to establish American Imperialsim and control.

The U.S is a fighter, unlike any country known to man, and some of the things she accomplished is awe inspiring but the path forward will not be through military strength

a reply to: crayzeed

Chinese are also not going anywhere whether you like it or not, and give is a long way from the trillion dollar price tags I posted

a reply to: ADUB77

Yeah...whatever...

I'll pass on your grand plan.

curious how 'you' are going to sell what is Not 'yours' . A socialist I presume. Too bad this isn't the Mud Pit or WE could tell YOU what and where to do with your idea. But alas, courtesy rules here.

It'll Never Happen..!

That plan sounds suicidal, very suicidal. What happens when these implants refuse to adopt the native culture and way of life? What happens when they start multiplying with all of the freebies given out and soon your native population is a minority.

Then your abundant land and resources become scarce. Sounds like an invasion to me.

Even if you were able to make a profit, I wonder how much would filter down to the plebs?

Then free energy is found and you entire scheme goes 'poof'. OK, so the last item is a pipe dream. But if it is ever found or allowed to be released to the public, a homogeneous tight knit community of small size will be ideal for the revolution.

a reply to: ADUB77

Sounds like a globalist, one-world-authoritarian idea to me.

So I'm a "no".

That is moronic. You would lose your own culture and destroy your country. Not every Canadian is going to want to commit suicide with you. You sound like a Bernie Bro.