Canada - The new America?

[de Maistre]

Inuit have relatively dark pigmentation and they live in the dark for like half the year, but they eat fish and whale blubber all the time so it's cool.

 

[Ekolite]

All countries as far north as Canada have problems with vitamin D, regardless of whether they were born there or not, unless they are originally native to that area (ie. inuits). This is particularly the case if they have darker skin, and if you're black your pretty much screwed. However you can take supplements for vitamin D so I think its something that's manageable. I believe vitamin D deficiency is related to general emotional state, but it's main proprerty is its involvement in the digestion/absorbsion of calcium. D deficiency causes weaker teeth and bones, and (I think) an increased risk of osteoporposis.

And on the subject of the ''Canadian Dream'', it already exists, or at least it does in Britain. Many Brits emigrate each year to the colonies, and many more would love to do so if they could. I'm not sure, but I think Canada is our favourite destination of the anglo-saxon world, followed by Australlia and possibly then New Zealand. America I think comes quite a bit down the list after France, and Spain which I think has the highest population of British expats in the world.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

You didn't even manage to understand what you were quoting ?

Yes, I did understand your post perfectly and treated it with the same respect you treated my original post.

Moderator Action: Is there any serious discussion coming in this thread?

I'm not sure, but I hope so. Why wouldn't it, unless someone derails it?

I'm still waiting to see what any of this has to do with Canada being a "new America."

Plenty of resources and land, with other places on earth being poor and overpopulated..? Why is the "new America" analogy so strange and why do I need to explain myself?

Because I'm talking about what America has that Canada won't, even if America's current pleasant climate moves north. What's the confusion? None of this is a USA-is-better-than-Canada argument. It's just a simple, the-climate-can't-change-sun-exposure.

D-vitamin deficiency shouldn't be a factor that prevents populating the more northern areas, but sure, they won't be as attractive.

 

[Cutlass]

I think that the future belongs to Australia, not Canada.

Australia will never have as large a population as Canada (at least in the foreseeable future). It simply doesn't have the resources to support that. Even though it does have the land. Water and farmland are the constraints.

 

[gangleri2001]

Australia has more water than Spain and Spain has 46 milion people (which is the population experct think Australia will have by 2050). And I don't think farmland is a problem given their current levels of production.

 

[Akka]

Yes, I did understand your post perfectly and treated it with the same respect you treated my original post.

Not really, no.
I point two flaws in your reasoning, one being that "global warming" doesn't mean that temperatures will raise regularly everywhere, you answered something completely missing the point about how I supposedly say that Canada will become cooler.
No, I don't see anything you've actually understood.

 

[Maniacal]

Moderator Action: Is there any serious discussion coming in this thread?

Nope.avi

Canada has enough people anyway, every other country is overcrowded. And there are many other reasons that I don't have time to write about especially in a thread that isn't going anywhere.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Not really, no.
I point two flaws in your reasoning, one being that "global warming" doesn't mean that temperatures will raise regularly everywhere, you answered something completely missing the point about how I supposedly say that Canada will become cooler.
No, I don't see anything you've actually understood.

But what was your point of that post then? You said that climate changes will be chaotic without necessarily indicating that Canadian temperatures will be cooler. Why bring that up? What didn't he (and I) understand?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Not really, no.
I point two flaws in your reasoning, one being that "global warming" doesn't mean that temperatures will raise regularly everywhere, you answered something completely missing the point about how I supposedly say that Canada will become cooler.
No, I don't see anything you've actually understood.

Read my op again and read your answer to it. I never stated that global warming would mean that temperatures will raise regularly everywhere, so how is that a flaw in my reasoning? Canada could get warmer - do you refute that? If not, why can't you accept the possibility. I even looked it up briefly and it even seems it's plausible that Canada in fact would get warmer, which is beside the point since this in the end still is just a hypothetical question. So what's the point with this argument??? You make a strawman, I make a strawman.

There are a few Canadians here... Why wouldn't Canada become more settled? Are the northern parts inhabitable even if there would be a rise in temperature?

 

[Lone Wolf]

No, Russia will become the next paradise as a result of Global Warming, as its cold areas are warmed by it. However, the We$t hates Russia on a deep genetic level, and wants Russia to sign treaties in order to "prevent Global Warming" and prevent Russia becoming a warm paradise

 

[Azash]

Moderator Action: Is there any serious discussion coming in this thread?

Probably not. As soon as someone dares speak a really controversial opinion there's going to be red text all over the place.

 

[Kraznaya]

I think that the future belongs to Australia, not Canada.

Surely you're speaking of Aodaliya.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are a few Canadians here... Why wouldn't Canada become more settled? Are the northern parts inhabitable even if there would be a rise in temperature?

Except for geo-political instability, I think that Canada is a clear winner in a global warming scenario. We gain new sea routes, warmer lands where it's cold, and wetter lands where we already grow crops. We also environmentally protected our 'northern' aspect, and so the species that are forced to migrate northwards will have their habitats moved easily.

The downside to increasing settlement is that there's not much there to settle into. There's not much topsoil up there, because topsoil requires thousands of years to generate (this is why I am concerned about topsoil loss across the globe). As well, the main source of wealth in the modern world is through trade between people, and our greatest trading partner is south of us.

Now, maybe resource extraction gets easier with warmer temperatures, and so mines (etc.) will be easier. But we're not really talking about much difference. If there's money in minerals, we already have roughnecks working on it. But roughnecks aren't likely to bring their families to the new jobsites. They go in, work, and leave.

We'll likely not see much increase in our population, even with global warming. We're no longer a country of rural settlers.

 

[gangleri2001]

Surely you're speaking of Aodaliya.

Don't you mean 澳大利亚？ Ah, my friend Kraznaya! How many times our dear 共产党员 have remembered you not to use this 野蛮的 spelling while in 灌输课?

 

[Tee Kay]

澳洲自治区 has been part of China since time immemorial.

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: This is an english-only forum, people
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[wcbarney]

No, Russia will become the next paradise as a result of Global Warming, as its cold areas are warmed by it. However, the We$t hates Russia on a deep genetic level, and wants Russia to sign treaties in order to "prevent Global Warming" and prevent Russia becoming a warm paradise

Moderator Action: Is there any serious discussion coming in this thread?

Probably not. As soon as someone dares speak a really controversial opinion there's going to be red text all over the place.

It seems that this entire thread is based on the erroneous premise that the so-called "Global Warming" is a slam-dunk proven and verifiable scientific fact, upon which all future actions should be predicated.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Moderator Action: This thread is full of spam, PDMA, and not enough coherent discussion. If the OP wishes he may try again, making a title that accurately reflects what he wishes to discuss (in this case, the results of global warming on Canada). But this one is closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889