Do you think Canada would be more habitable overall if it was tropical? (temperatures, days)

[gordo]

Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus

It certainly would be less habitable for me if it was tropical . But more seriously, I think 30 million people* is proof that it's already habitable enough as it is. Vast wildernesses to go with the populated areas makes it a better country in my view. Overpopulation and overcrowding brings its own set of problems that detract from "habitability". I opt for a lower population density myself .

*Yes, the vast majority live in the southern section, but people do inhabit every region.

I can't see "Tropical Canada" as having much more of a population then what Canada is now, for all of the reasons Ariete pointed out. After all Australia in similar circumstances certainly isn't overpopulated. So overpopulation problems probably wouldn't be detracting from habitability. Another thing to consider is Western Canada having large mountains down the whole length. This means a lot of the cooler highland areas would be settled for those escaping the heat. After all look at Quito and Lima.

[Weatherfan2]

I think it would be. Maybe as much population density as in the US.

[tom77falcons]

Originally Posted by deneb78

Interesting points. Brazil which is a mostly tropical country has a large population and a fast growing economy today. It's not as wealthy as North America but it's not Africa either. So, I don't know if I entirely agree with your premise Ariete. In addition, Australia is a first world country and is about half tropical and most of the rest is subtropical.

Keep in mind that Australia has only 20M people on such a huge landmass. It may be first world, but it is not a major player with such a small population. The vast majority of the population lives in a few major metropolitan population centers. I'm not sure if the climate is what is keeping the Australian population low or the sheer distance from the rest of the populated world.

[Superluminal]

Originally Posted by Ariete

The Canadian continent would have been discovered by Europeans in the 1520's, probably by Ferdinand Magellan. As the distance from Europe would be enormous and the continent hard to reach, it could have been largely 'forgotten' until the early 19th century.

Magellan "discovered" the Philippines on behalf of Spain in 1521, where they established and maintained a colony for over 300 years, at more than twice the distance that Canada would be from what deneb78 is proposing - in fact, it's on the other side of the world from Europe. The Portuguese achieved the same with their colony in Macau. And later, the British with Singapore Manila, Macau and Singapore were hardly "forgotten" or uninhabited places!

Originally Posted by Ariete

The indigenous cultures would not have been very developed, as history shows that it's very difficult to manage a sustainable advanced culture in the tropics.

Some counterexamples:

- The Aztecs
-The Mayans
-The Incas
-The various empires of South-East Asia (Sri Vijaya, Bali, etc....)
-The Indus Valley Civilization (their territory extended to the tropical coast of India/Pakistan)
-India itself, which is partly tropical, was one of the most advanced civilisations prior to the arrival of the British.
-The Mesopotamian empire, especially Sumer which was centered on southern Iraq near present-day Basra. This area is almost tropical today but would have been even warmer (and wetter) during the Sumerian era.

So while I agree with you that tropical climates were challenging for Europeans to cultivate, indigenous peoples managed quite well.

So maybe we should be asking, "habitable" for whom?

[Patricius Maximus]

Originally Posted by Superluminal

Some counterexamples:

- The Aztecs
-The Mayans
-The Incas
-The various empires of South-East Asia (Sri Vijaya, Bali, etc....)
-The Indus Valley Civilization (their territory extended to the tropical coast of India/Pakistan)
-India itself, which is partly tropical, was one of the most advanced civilisations prior to the arrival of the British.
-The Mesopotamian empire, especially Sumer which was centered on southern Iraq near present-day Basra. This area is almost tropical today but would have been even warmer (and wetter) during the Sumerian era.

It is true that the tropics have been home to thriving and sometimes advanced civilizations, but none of those were in tropical rainforest climates. The Maya are the only advanced jungle civilization that I'm aware of, and it should be pointed out that the Aztecs and Inca are marginal cases, since they were more centered around subtropical highlands than jungles. Otherwise, I agree.

So while I agree with you that tropical climates were challenging for Europeans to cultivate, indigenous peoples managed quite well.

So maybe we should be asking, "habitable" for whom?

For whom? At the risk of sounding racist, I think we're talking about a predominately white population (like most cities in present-day Canada), as opposed to a mostly indigenous population.

[Mac15]

Well at that longtitude it would probably be a totally different country. More populated with pacific people.

[Mac15]

Originally Posted by Weatherfan2

I think it would be. Maybe as much population density as in the US.

Europeans would not travel to 178e thats half way round the world.

[dhdh]

OP: Yes.

[theunbrainwashed]

I say no for the same reasons Ariete outlined. The people that voted yes are looking at this through a 21st century lens, not a historical one which is extremely important. No one is making a beeline towards Australia, for example. Most of the people moving there are already from tropical or subtropical climates, as well.

[deneb78]

People seem to be disregarding Brazil as an example of a mostly tropical country which is doing well today and in the 19th and early 20th century had many millions of immigrants arrive there and this was well before the invention of air conditioning so it's not in a 21st century context.

Immigration to Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia