Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I asked a version of this question on the weather forum a while ago and want to get another perspective. If Canada wasn't located next to the US but say in tropical latitudes and/or perhaps on the other side of the world, do you think it would still be as great and prosperous as it is today in its current situation? I'm not just talking about climate but access to markets, economy, resource development, immigration etc.
I asked a version of this question on the weather forum a while ago and want to get another perspective. If Canada wasn't located next to the US but say in tropical latitudes and/or perhaps on the other side of the world, do you think it would still be as great and prosperous as it is today in its current situation? I'm not just talking about climate but access to markets, economy, resource development, immigration etc.
I don't need to imagine anything, what you described exists and is called Australia. We ended up being remarkably similar, all things considered. If Australia had originally been colonized by France and had a majority Francophone state the country would literally be indistinguishable from your thought experiment and it would doubtlessly remain a developed country were that to have been the case.
Sure it would. Let Canada trade places with Australia which is on the other side of the world and in the southern hemisphere. They would both still be first world nations because of who they were settled by. First World designation is not about location and climate, it's about people, education, industrialization, government and quality of life.
Australia isn't entirely tropical though.... in fact approximately half the country is located in the temperate zone and its biggest cities - Sydney and Melbourne are certainly not tropical.
If Canada was entirely tropical would it make a difference?
Why was the UK so much more successful at making first world countries out of their colonies than other European powers?
You're missing the point, and perhaps not understanding the definition of First World. First World designation has nothing to do with geographical location or climate.
To answer your question, if Canada was entirely tropical it would not make a bit of difference.
You need to look at these, it might give you a better understanding of the definition of the concept of First World and what makes a nation a First World nation.
You're missing the point, and perhaps not understanding the definition of First World. First World designation has nothing to do with geographical location or climate.
To answer your question, if Canada was entirely tropical it would not make a bit of difference.
You need to look at these, it might give you a better understanding of the definition of the concept of First World and what makes a nation a First World nation.
Australia isn't entirely tropical though.... in fact approximately half the country is located in the temperate zone and its biggest cities - Sydney and Melbourne are certainly not tropical.
If Canada was entirely tropical would it make a difference?
Why was the UK so much more successful at making first world countries out of their colonies than other European powers?
Doubt it would make a difference. Singapore is entirely tropical and it is also a fully developed former British colony, as is Hong Kong. If Australia were shifted north to roughly the location of Singapore I doubt it would be a developing country. I think the British Empire was successful at spawning developed countries because of the sorts of strong institutions it left behind and because many of its colonies were not heavily agricultural and had large land areas full of resources and not too many people. Its mostly agricultural colonies, especially the ones based on plantation agriculture, haven't done as well as the ones based on trade or the ones that were really big and thus could also support industry and resource extraction. Mauritius vs. Singapore is a decent case study, but even Mauritius, despite having been based on plantation agriculture and not have lots of land, still has the best quality of life in Africa because of the legacy of strong institutions. Its best performing colonies were settler states because these had lots of British people who had been provided with education and human capital who could build from those institutions. Ones dominated by exploited and uneducated farm workers or indigenous peoples with no resources or support obviously had a harder go trying to build strong industrial democracies.
Doubt it would make a difference. Singapore is entirely tropical and it is also a fully developed former British colony, as is Hong Kong. If Australia were shifted north to roughly the location of Singapore I doubt it would be a developing country. I think the British Empire was successful at spawning developed countries because of the sorts of strong institutions it left behind and because many of its colonies were not heavily agricultural and had large land areas full of resources and not too many people. Its mostly agricultural colonies, especially the ones based on plantation agriculture, haven't done as well as the ones based on trade or the ones that were really big and thus could also support industry and resource extraction. Mauritius vs. Singapore is a decent case study, but even Mauritius, despite having been based on plantation agriculture and not have lots of land, still has the best quality of life in Africa because of the legacy of strong institutions. Its best performing colonies were settler states because these had lots of British people who had been provided with education and human capital who could build from those institutions. Ones dominated by exploited and uneducated farm workers or indigenous peoples with no resources or support obviously had a harder go trying to build strong industrial democracies.
Interesting. Do you think the UK could attract a lot of settlers to settle in a tropical jungle similar to the Amazon which much of Canada would become in this scenario? Or do you think it would be too hard for them to make a go of it since the climate is so unlike anything in the UK? I read about this and thought the situation might repeat itself if Canada were tropical
Well, the climate in much of Canada is not really like the UK either, winters for the most part are much harsher here. This country is vast, it would not have been easy to get around in, specially during the winter months. The Amazon jungle is not a heavily populated area, most South Americans live along the coast or in mountainous Andes regions. Had the British settled a region of tropical South america in the same way they did in Canada and Australia, I don't see why that region wouldn't have become first world. I think Australia is a good example. Sure, only the northern part of it is in the tropics, but why would Australia not be first world if the entire country was fully in the tropics?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
