Canadian Maps and Graphics

[jonny24]

I like maps.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Architype

Southern Ontario alone is similar in area to that of England which has a population of around 56 million, greater than all of Canada. Southern Ontario even shares some other geographic characteristics with England, and could probably support a similar population.

Originally Posted by Architype

Considering how you might evaluate the various advantages or disadvantages influencing population distribution, you might even be able to make a theoretical case for the Maritimes having 50 million people as well, bringing Canada to well over 100 million in potential population, without even considering Quebec or the west.

The UK has had thousands of years of history and a global power with influence over large swaths of the planet. Unless Southern Ontario can do the same thing I doubt it'll match England's population for centuries to come. I can't think of any scenario for Maritimes with 50 million people.

Originally Posted by isaidso

We should probably throw those expert predictions out the window though. They're largely based on extrapolation yet demographic trends have changed substantially since those predictions were made. For a long time Canada was growing at a slower rate than the world average. For a number of years now, the reverse has been true. Like before, making long term predictions is problematic but falling to 47th seems unlikely at this point.

It will be hard for Canada to sustain its current 1.4% population growth rate but we'll likely stay ahead of the global population growth rate. Much of the world outside Africa is seeing the birth rate fall close to the replacement level or below. Canada is in a better position than most to mitigate against that. Canada will continue to get passed by African countries but reel in others like Poland, Ukraine, Spain, South Korea, Italy, etc. The net effect may be that we hold steady around 38th spot... perhaps slip 1-2 places.

Current World population (Nov. 2020): 7,824,515,635 yearly change: 1.05%
Projected World Population 2050 : 9,735,033,990 yearly change: 0.50 %


https://www.worldometers.info/popula...ountries/#past

Looking at the current population growth rate of countries.
Canada will likely take back it's 38th spot back soon when it surpasses Poland's population but it'll be a decade before it's projected to surpass Ukraine, or Spain which will likely be around 2045 if current growth rates stay fairly unchanged.

African countries like Ghana, Mozambique, Angola, Morocco will likely surpass Canada's population in 25years. Madagascar, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire likely in 35 years.
Yemen, Saudi Arabia will likely as well in 25 years, placing Canada at about 42th in the World by 2045.

Nepal, Peru, Uzbekistan, may not have larger population than Canada by 2045 but will likely be very close.



https://www.worldometers.info/world-...on-by-country/

[Architype]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

The UK has had thousands of years of history and a global power with influence over large swaths of the planet. Unless Southern Ontario can do the same thing I doubt it'll match England's population for centuries to come. I can't think of any scenario for Maritimes with 50 million people.
...

I did say it was just theoretical, and in response to Someone123's defense of the Maritimes being potentially equivalent to Ontario. I picked England because of it's similar area, conducive and similar climate, good agricultural land, somewhat isolated by water, strategic northerly location, adjacent to the European colossus, just as S. Ontario is to the US major population centers. Are the thousands of years of history still worth as much now?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Architype

I did say it was just theoretical, and in response to Someone123's defense of the Maritimes being potentially equivalent to Ontario.

I never actually wrote that or intended to suggest it. I was getting more at the notion that different areas with a comparable local natural environment may end up with different levels of development because of other factors like "critical mass" (proximity) and borders (which effectively increase travel distances or reduce what's easy to get to nearby), or simple accidents of history (e.g. 1/2 of the population getting murdered or deported). I specifically pointed out that in the Maritimes the areas with resources are more broken up than in Ontario. Since this is almost certain to be a negative factor, this is the opposite of claiming that the Maritimes are equivalent to Ontario.

Some people argue that the Maritimes are the way they are because of a total lack of natural resources or general ruggedness of the territory, etc. Ontarians tend to emphasize farmland a lot. But if you look at say New England you will not find a lot more farmland than the Maritimes or higher value of output even though they have a much higher population and a lot more economic development. It is the same with the fishery. I would not be surprised if the Maritimes out-produce New England for natural resources yet they have 1/8 the population. Having a lot of arable land or fish or trees or minerals is not a big determinant of growth and development in 2020.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

The UK has had thousands of years of history and a global power with influence over large swaths of the planet. Unless Southern Ontario can do the same thing I doubt it'll match England's population for centuries to come. I can't think of any scenario for Maritimes with 50 million people.

What a bizarre argument. That has practically no bearing on population change going forward nor would any of those things be required to grow southern Ontario's population 4 fold. Whether Canadians want 58 million people in Southern Ontario is another matter.

I know British politicians/media feed the line to Brits that the UK is a global power (I'm British born) but that hasn't been true for decades. The reality is that we live in a world with 2 extremely powerful countries (China, USA) and then there's everyone else. We're fooling ourselves if we think Germany, Japan, France, the UK, India, etc. play on that same level. None of these are global in their reach and/or capability. The UK is best described as a Middle Power (along with 10-15 other countries) although I realize the term 'Global Power' is more palatable in certain quarters.

And over the long term (50-80 years), I wouldn't be surprised if Australia and Canada grew to become the 2 largest economies in the Western world after the USA. Most of the West is in relative decline. Australia and Canada are still in ascension imo. They'll gradually reel in Italy, France, the UK, and Germany till they're sitting #2 and #3.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

I never actually wrote that or intended to suggest it. I was getting more at the notion that different areas with a comparable local natural environment may end up with different levels of development because of other factors like "critical mass" (proximity) and borders (which effectively increase travel distances or reduce what's easy to get to nearby), or simple accidents of history (e.g. 1/2 of the population getting murdered or deported). I specifically pointed out that in the Maritimes the areas with resources are more broken up than in Ontario. Since this is almost certain to be a negative factor, this is the opposite of claiming that the Maritimes are equivalent to Ontario.

Some people argue that the Maritimes are the way they are because of a total lack of natural resources or general ruggedness of the territory, etc. Ontarians tend to emphasize farmland a lot. But if you look at say New England you will not find a lot more farmland than the Maritimes or higher value of output even though they have a much higher population and a lot more economic development. It is the same with the fishery. I would not be surprised if the Maritimes out-produce New England for natural resources yet they have 1/8 the population. Having a lot of arable land or fish or trees or minerals is not a big determinant of growth and development in 2020.

Perhaps not in 2020, but these things only began to really change post industrial revolution, historically populations were almost exclusively dependent on agricultural land and resources, later augmented by newly invented modes of travel, which established trade, power, and economic dominance. However, I could still indulgently envision some minor Kingdom of the Maritimes if history had just taken some alternate course.

[Architype]

https://www.openculture.com/2012/01/...n_america.html

"The map above represents territory sizes in proportion to the number of papers published in 2001 that were written by scientists living there. The number of scientific papers published by researchers living in America was more than three times greater than the number published in the second-highest-publishing country, Japan."

However, a second map on the same page shows growth in research, and Canada is basically not there.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by isaidso

What a bizarre argument. That has practically no bearing on population change going forward nor would any of those things be required to grow southern Ontario's population 4 fold. Whether Canadians want 58 million people in Southern Ontario is another matter.

I know British politicians/media feed the line to Brits that the UK is a global power (I'm British born) but that hasn't been true for decades. The reality is that we live in a world with 2 extremely powerful countries (China, USA) and then there's everyone else. We're fooling ourselves if we think Germany, Japan, France, the UK, India, etc. play on that same level. None of these are global in their reach and/or capability. The UK is best described as a Middle Power (along with 10-15 other countries) although I realize the term 'Global Power' is more palatable in certain quarters.

And over the long term (50-80 years), I wouldn't be surprised if Australia and Canada grew to become the 2 largest economies in the Western world after the USA. Most of the West is in relative decline. Australia and Canada are still in ascension imo. They'll gradually reel in Italy, France, the UK, and Germany till they're sitting #2 and #3.

It depends on how one quantifies power.

Militarily, the UK is much more powerful than nations like Germany, Japan and Canada for political reasons. Between their nuclear deterrent and their force projection abilities, they've an ability to influence world events. In that sense, France might be its closest equal.

For economic power, the UK, Germany and Japan do make up a good chunk of the global heft for different areas. The UK provides capital/banking power, Germany and Japan industrial power. Depending on how one takes a view on power, the UK is definitely in the second-tier of nations by power.

Canada is somewhat of a weird outlier. We were almost second-tier for a bit post-WWII to the early 2000s. Not too shabby for a nation of 12-35 million people.

Now, we're not militarily powerful and have declined there since the Cold War. We're not a political force on the world stage anymore. We have a large GDP, but we seemingly produce less high-technology things as time goes on. So, we're deviating back to our historical roots of resource production, which makes the GDP large, but might offer a finite upper bound to our growth. Unless our mentality changes in the future?

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Andy6

On the other hand, is anyone remotely surprised that one of two or three solutions to the greatest global crisis in decades was developed in the UK? Was there ever even the slightest chance that a vaccine would be developed first in Canada?

No surprise from me that the UK is frontrunner on research. The UK is one of the most influential countries in the World in a lot of aspects and has a long history as such.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...onal-influence




Even just the fact that the English language has the most speakers out of any language on the planet suggests this.


https://www.visualcapitalist.com/100...ken-languages/


Canada did have a chance at developing a domestic Covid-19 vaccine but it currently doesn't have the manufacturing production facilities to mass produce it's own vaccine produced by VIDO-Intervac in Saskatoon which is currently going through human clinical trials. The Federal Liberals dropped the ball on this oversight early on in this pandemic.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...ines-1.5117395

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made an extraordinary admission yesterday at a press conference outside his home. Trudeau said that Canada “no longer has any domestic production capacity for vaccines.” The PM added that the United States, Germany and the U.K. are “obviously going to prioritize helping their citizens first.” But is it true that Canada no longer has that capacity?

Tory MP Michelle Rempel Garner begged to differ, pointing to recent federal funding for the VIDO-InterVac facility at the University of Saskatchewan.

Earlier this year, the PM did announce $23 million for VIDO-InterVAC that would only support “pre-clinical testing and clinical trials,” and eventually produce vaccine in large quantities by next year."

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ott...n-where-is-it/

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

https://www.openculture.com/2012/01/...n_america.html

"The map above represents territory sizes in proportion to the number of papers published in 2001 that were written by scientists living there. The number of scientific papers published by researchers living in America was more than three times greater than the number published in the second-highest-publishing country, Japan."

However, a second map on the same page shows growth in research, and Canada is basically not there.

Minor nitpick, but the map designer should've connected Alaska to the mainland of the USA. Alaska's as big as France, so that's a lot of papers that aren't "at first sight" represented by the size of the U.S. mainland.

Also, is South Korea the same color as China by mistake...? Looks like it...

[kwoldtimer]

Also, what’s with the big dark green blob above Brazil? Surely not Venezuela?

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Also, what’s with the big dark green blob above Brazil? Surely not Venezuela?

Pretty sure that is Guyana

[RoshanMcG]

It looks like Apple's version of Google Streetview (Lookaround) is now available in Canadian cities on the Maps app. It has a more 3D feel than Streetview.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

Pretty sure that is Guyana

Definitely Venezuela. Guyana's population isn't even 1 million people and has one of the lowest HDIs in the Western Hemisphere, they certainly don't have a large research community.

At that point in history, Venezuela was arguably the most developed country in Latin America, and easily had the best universities in the region. So for 2001, that makes sense. They have fallen far in a very short time.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by RoshanMcG

It looks like Apple's version of Google Streetview (Lookaround) is now available in Canadian cities on the Maps app. It has a more 3D feel than Streetview.

Thanks for mentioning that!! Just checked it out and they did Timmins!! Looking at my house right now. The images looks great, like HDR photos.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by lio45

Minor nitpick, but the map designer should've connected Alaska to the mainland of the USA. Alaska's as big as France, so that's a lot of papers that aren't "at first sight" represented by the size of the U.S. mainland.

Also, is South Korea the same color as China by mistake...? Looks like it...

Yes, you need to know what is being represented of course, otherwise it looks like Alaska had as many papers as France; obviously not. I think the colour coding similarities represent regions as well as countries.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by RoshanMcG

It looks like Apple's version of Google Streetview (Lookaround) is now available in Canadian cities on the Maps app. It has a more 3D feel than Streetview.

Looks good, although a bit dated in the images I looked at. My house, the image is at least 2 years old. Google at least shows the backyard project my neighbour was working on in early 2019.

[MonkeyRonin]

Topographic map of Toronto:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T...of_Toronto.png

[Chadillaccc]

Love that stuff, especially how you can see the sills of the ancient Lake Iroquois coastline. What is the difference in elevation between Toronto's highest and lowest points?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Love that stuff, especially how you can see the sills of the ancient Lake Iroquois coastline. What is the difference in elevation between Toronto's highest and lowest points?

Under 15O metres, I’d wager.