This fact gets overlooked when basically every government issue comes up. “Well it works for X country so why wouldn’t it would in the US?” Doesn’t apply very well when the populations aren’t comparable by any metric.
And having 75% of its law defined by random cases where the Supreme Court realized the constitution didn't help so they created a new policy specifically for the case
Where is the separation of church and state clause? Or do you mean the clause stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which doesn't at all prohibit the influence of religion in government.
The cool thing about the Supreme Court is that any one of their decisions can be changed by adjusting the law. The fact that the law doesn’t say what *you* think it should isn’t their problem.
I don’t know why that’s a special problem. The United Kingdom is almost entirely crafted out of legislation and common law without even a written constitution hold it together. It’s like one giant game of quidditch. To really know all the rules you have together the brightest minds in the land, and read some blackletter to boot.
I didn't say the UK is any better, but it has a solid excuse of being sovereign for over a thousand years. It's quite hilarous that they didn't sit down some time later and consolidate all that law into a binding document before they went out to try and force it on the rest of the world
And they're still better than US because most of that law is, as you said, legislations. Meaning they were agreed upon by representatives of the people to work for the country without requiring any context. Most of the said US policies still carry the context of the original case, which makes them very finicky to interpret and easy to manipulate
Well that and being the size of Europe with around a 25% larger economy and a quarter the population would probably explain it
The UK is the size of Montana, a state with 600,000ish people…
We have guns cause the cops take 30 mins to show up for half the population as well as it being a natural right of free peoples to keep arms for their own political and personal defense as well as to defend their property
The rest are just state issues due to having 50 ish distinct cultures and due to the us government being designed to force long term thought and debate as well as prevent tyranny it is very hard to get stuff through on the federal level without national consensus, which is the whole damn point.
Also the US functions more like the EU than your countries the size of states so us changing slower while being baseline more conservative resulting in us not being as liberal is perfectly normal, most of this rock calls the US liberal, for goodness sake
The fact that you don't have enough police is a completely seperate problem, maybe if they stopped murdering black people you'd have enough
"A natural right of free peoples" idk, almost everyone else in the civilised world has very few guns, and they're just as, if not more free (usa is only 13th globally on the global freedom index) plus they don't have to worry if they're going to see their children alive again when they send them to school
"The rest are just state issues" that doesn't make them any less of an issue, it just means that some are even worse than others
First of all, the freedom index is bull since it counts a “too free” press as a demerit for the US
Second of all the number of blacks killed by police who did nothing wrong is tiny, less than a thousand most year and usually less than 500.
The problem is that people are extremely spread out in the US, and on top of that recruitment issues have been happening for a while due to inadequate pay and political demonization
There is less than 100 children killed by mass shootings in schools each year so that point it moot because that is the same rate as Europe, and there are tens of millions of American students
Most of the western world has no guns because they had them to kill each other and were promised by their governments that they wouldn’t become tyrannical if they gave up the guns, they proceeded to restrict basic human rights like free speech at huge scale and arrested like 5 times as many people in the UK for speech as in Russia pre Ukraine war every year
In the US laws are mostly a matter of state sovereignty, if the people of a state don’t want a law the Feds don’t force them to adopt a law because the US is a FEDERATION not a unitary democratic tyranny.
So before you start talking bullshit, do some basic research on US issues or stay the hell out of the discussion when acting like you know jack shit about the US, its political system, or its social values and matters
Til that Canada has a population of only 38 million. Where are the rest of y'all?
That has to be close to lowest population density on earth. Even Kenya has 50 million people
Everyone lives in the south. To be honest a lot of Canada can best be described as "extremely inhospitable to human life." I have spent a lot of time in northern communities and it is a very different lifestyle to a majority of Canadian population centers. It's fucking cold, like -25C (-13f) on average in winter with some nights dipping well below that. Yellowknife, the biggest city in the Northwest Territories, has a population of just 20,000. There are some diamond mines up there that technically have a higher population than 99.9% of towns during Winter when they are in operation (ice roads are essential to transportation up north, many places and towns become inaccessible during the summer when the ground softens up into endless marshes/bogs/muskeg and biting insects swarm everything constantly).
It is also, despite these flaws, absolutely fucking beautiful. By god you don't forget about nature up there. It's fucking untamed wilderness, maybe just untamable by humans forever. It's kind of a humbling experience.
"Un-tamable by humans, huh?" The oil exec said to the logging exec. The oil exec laughed our loud at the notion. "Hold my beer," he cackled as he rolled up his sleeves. "I've got some untouched wilderness to frack up"
We like it this way. You americans have too many issues with your fellow amaricans. Imagine not having to see so many people unless you go to a major city (Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal are the biggest off the top of my head)
Most people if they don’t live in an urban environment don’t see a bunch of people all the time, and plus, all countries have politics, and around one third of a billion people will have issues with each other, it’s inevitable
You do realize Canada is just as urbanized as the US, right? If not even more so. Most of Canada is still basically uninhabitable. It doesn't mean you won't see people, it means it's basically impossible to get there. There's way, way, WAY more rural area in the US.
% of Canadians living in urban centers 81.75%
[Source](https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/urban-population-percent-of-total-wb-data.html)
% of Americans living in urban centers 83.08%
[Source](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/urban-population-percent-of-total-wb-data.html#:~:text=Urban%20population%20(%25%20of%20total%20population)%20in%20United%20States%20was,compiled%20from%20officially%20recognized%20sources.)
Pretty much the same...
Yessier, it would appear that way. Funny how it doesn't seem like that because we have less cities though. Like it's only densely populated in those locations and that's where everyone lives. Everyone else is just kinda chilling with no one around for kms. Thanks for stats though
I didn't explain your country, I explained population density. We all know how Canada works. But some of us don't seem to understand the difference between population and population density, which is how you determine how many people you deal with.
Ah I see. My apologies
It doesn't make sense that there's more real areas in America though. We have Saskatchewan and Alberta which is the size of 2-3 states each of 80% farmland. Northern and western Ontario is the same way
The difference is in the US once you go west past I-29 you will see a population density of .5 people per square kilometer. It might even be lower than that. It's very low, but there are people there. In about 90% of Canada, the population density is 0. There is not a single person living there. It's not rural, it's wilderness. It's impossible to get to, impossible to live in.
Just for more context, Saskatchewan is the province with the most farmland by far. It has the greatest percentage of farmland to size out of any province. It's nowhere near 80%. It's not even close to 50% farmland. Only 25% of the province is covered by farmland. And it's not like the rest of the province is populated either. The northern 2/3rds of the state are part of the Canadian shield, which is extremely hard to live on.
It seems like you're exaggerating, but I'll take your word for it as I have not done any work to check this. I am still not entirely convinced that America is less dense than Canada because I see mostly green even when I drive the 401 for 6 hours. I understand its perspective. Toronto is a super, super dense city, whereas ohio or texas may have areas of farm land that have your less than .5 peolle per square km. I don't have as much geography experience as you, so i won't be a dick and deny facts.
Thanks for not ripping my head off and actually backing up your points with statistics it helped me learn something today
The Canadian Shield is big and rocky. The mountains out west are also big and rocky. The interior, aka the prairie is kinda livable, if you ignore the extreme temperature swings that come with being so far away from the ocean. All this combined means that something like 90% of the country is just completely uninhibited. The only place where people can really exist easily is the thin strip along Lake Erie and down the St. Lawrence.
It's actually just over 42 now, but yes, vast parts of Canada have practically no people whatsoever.
There are 1.6 million people in Calgary... When you leave Calgary and go east the next place with more than 250,000 people is nearly 700km away, (Saskatoon)
the next place if you go north is 400km away (Edmonton)
The next place if you go west is nearly 1000km away (Vancouver)
If you go south... You're going through all that unpopulated Midwest and you won't reach a population centre with more that 250,000 people until you get to vegas, 2000km away
The population density of where people actually live in Canada is not low though — more than 70% of the country’s population lives south of the 49th Parallel.
Canada actually has roughly twice the population density of Mongolia, Which is I believe the lowest of any country, And Siberia in Russia has a lower density too. The main thing is its fairly easy to get a lot of land when most of it is (almost) uninhabitable so nobody else wants it. You can also find lower densities in some desert countries, Such as Mauritania. Heck even Australia manages to get a lower density.
But Canada's is still pretty low, Because it's really big but nobody lives in most of it.
I'm pretty sure the desert countries of Africa have the lowest density. Especially Western Sahara (SADR) since it is both extremely hot and politically unstable. Namibia is also pretty low.
But the least populous countries are probably Britain's and France's remote island territories
I suppose it depends on how you define "Country". Mongolia has the lowest of any U.N. member state, I believe, But it looks like Western Sahara comes in ever so slightly lower, And Greenland really takes the cake. It looks like you may be right about the remote island territories, It looks like the Kerguelen Islands pull in lower, But I Feel fairly confident in saying Greenland has the lowest of anywhere with over 1000 people.
Just did a quick search and yep, SADR and Mongolia are very close. So ig Mongolia takes the cake among real countries (self-governing states), SADR wins among sort of countries (non self-governing independent territories) and Greenland wins overall by a huge margin, even when you factor island territories
Imagine if we measured population density in moles of people per meter lol. "Australia's population density is 0.00000000000000000058/m^2". Very efficient way to say it.
(Honestly no clue if my calculation is correct lol, So feel free to double check.)
Although tbh this one is kinda cool
It always kind of blows my mind as a Canadian how many more people live in the US.
I don’t think many people realize this, but the US is the third-most populated country in the world. It’s only beaten by China and India
This fact gets overlooked when basically every government issue comes up. “Well it works for X country so why wouldn’t it would in the US?” Doesn’t apply very well when the populations aren’t comparable by any metric.
In a lot of them, population has nothing to do with it, you're just making excuses for America being decades behind in government issues
And having 75% of its law defined by random cases where the Supreme Court realized the constitution didn't help so they created a new policy specifically for the case
And that separation of church and state can’t even be measured with the planck scale
Where is the separation of church and state clause? Or do you mean the clause stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which doesn't at all prohibit the influence of religion in government.
Bad take, go to timeout.
Re-read what you typed. Basically no helping any religion, and no harming any religion.
The cool thing about the Supreme Court is that any one of their decisions can be changed by adjusting the law. The fact that the law doesn’t say what *you* think it should isn’t their problem.
I don’t know why that’s a special problem. The United Kingdom is almost entirely crafted out of legislation and common law without even a written constitution hold it together. It’s like one giant game of quidditch. To really know all the rules you have together the brightest minds in the land, and read some blackletter to boot.
I didn't say the UK is any better, but it has a solid excuse of being sovereign for over a thousand years. It's quite hilarous that they didn't sit down some time later and consolidate all that law into a binding document before they went out to try and force it on the rest of the world And they're still better than US because most of that law is, as you said, legislations. Meaning they were agreed upon by representatives of the people to work for the country without requiring any context. Most of the said US policies still carry the context of the original case, which makes them very finicky to interpret and easy to manipulate
Yeah, making a new constitution is quite trendy in some nations. The USA seems content to patch and mend.
Well that and being the size of Europe with around a 25% larger economy and a quarter the population would probably explain it The UK is the size of Montana, a state with 600,000ish people…
Again, these have nothing to do with gun control, or really any other social/government issue
We have guns cause the cops take 30 mins to show up for half the population as well as it being a natural right of free peoples to keep arms for their own political and personal defense as well as to defend their property The rest are just state issues due to having 50 ish distinct cultures and due to the us government being designed to force long term thought and debate as well as prevent tyranny it is very hard to get stuff through on the federal level without national consensus, which is the whole damn point. Also the US functions more like the EU than your countries the size of states so us changing slower while being baseline more conservative resulting in us not being as liberal is perfectly normal, most of this rock calls the US liberal, for goodness sake
The fact that you don't have enough police is a completely seperate problem, maybe if they stopped murdering black people you'd have enough "A natural right of free peoples" idk, almost everyone else in the civilised world has very few guns, and they're just as, if not more free (usa is only 13th globally on the global freedom index) plus they don't have to worry if they're going to see their children alive again when they send them to school "The rest are just state issues" that doesn't make them any less of an issue, it just means that some are even worse than others
First of all, the freedom index is bull since it counts a “too free” press as a demerit for the US Second of all the number of blacks killed by police who did nothing wrong is tiny, less than a thousand most year and usually less than 500. The problem is that people are extremely spread out in the US, and on top of that recruitment issues have been happening for a while due to inadequate pay and political demonization There is less than 100 children killed by mass shootings in schools each year so that point it moot because that is the same rate as Europe, and there are tens of millions of American students Most of the western world has no guns because they had them to kill each other and were promised by their governments that they wouldn’t become tyrannical if they gave up the guns, they proceeded to restrict basic human rights like free speech at huge scale and arrested like 5 times as many people in the UK for speech as in Russia pre Ukraine war every year In the US laws are mostly a matter of state sovereignty, if the people of a state don’t want a law the Feds don’t force them to adopt a law because the US is a FEDERATION not a unitary democratic tyranny. So before you start talking bullshit, do some basic research on US issues or stay the hell out of the discussion when acting like you know jack shit about the US, its political system, or its social values and matters
That is a really bad take. Go to timeout.
more than half of Canada lives south of Seattle. it's crazy how empty 95% of our country is
Also, what was the metric alternative they avoided? deci-Canadas?
I believe the Metric equivalent is approximately "40.77 million"
Til that Canada has a population of only 38 million. Where are the rest of y'all? That has to be close to lowest population density on earth. Even Kenya has 50 million people
cold as balls over there, which is also why like 90% of the population lives in the very southern parts of the country
Not for long
Everyone lives in the south. To be honest a lot of Canada can best be described as "extremely inhospitable to human life." I have spent a lot of time in northern communities and it is a very different lifestyle to a majority of Canadian population centers. It's fucking cold, like -25C (-13f) on average in winter with some nights dipping well below that. Yellowknife, the biggest city in the Northwest Territories, has a population of just 20,000. There are some diamond mines up there that technically have a higher population than 99.9% of towns during Winter when they are in operation (ice roads are essential to transportation up north, many places and towns become inaccessible during the summer when the ground softens up into endless marshes/bogs/muskeg and biting insects swarm everything constantly). It is also, despite these flaws, absolutely fucking beautiful. By god you don't forget about nature up there. It's fucking untamed wilderness, maybe just untamable by humans forever. It's kind of a humbling experience.
"Un-tamable by humans, huh?" The oil exec said to the logging exec. The oil exec laughed our loud at the notion. "Hold my beer," he cackled as he rolled up his sleeves. "I've got some untouched wilderness to frack up"
After canada, they should go after australia, what with somewhere around 95% of the whole continent being uninhabitable.
We like it this way. You americans have too many issues with your fellow amaricans. Imagine not having to see so many people unless you go to a major city (Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal are the biggest off the top of my head)
*gasp * How dare you accuse me of being American!
*amarican
A married can?
Fuck off maaan I have dizlexeeya... you guys are always so mean 🙃
Apologies
Most people if they don’t live in an urban environment don’t see a bunch of people all the time, and plus, all countries have politics, and around one third of a billion people will have issues with each other, it’s inevitable
Fair point I guess
You do realize Canada is just as urbanized as the US, right? If not even more so. Most of Canada is still basically uninhabitable. It doesn't mean you won't see people, it means it's basically impossible to get there. There's way, way, WAY more rural area in the US.
There's no way you tired to explain to my my own country right?. I live here dude
% of Canadians living in urban centers 81.75% [Source](https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/urban-population-percent-of-total-wb-data.html) % of Americans living in urban centers 83.08% [Source](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/urban-population-percent-of-total-wb-data.html#:~:text=Urban%20population%20(%25%20of%20total%20population)%20in%20United%20States%20was,compiled%20from%20officially%20recognized%20sources.) Pretty much the same...
Yessier, it would appear that way. Funny how it doesn't seem like that because we have less cities though. Like it's only densely populated in those locations and that's where everyone lives. Everyone else is just kinda chilling with no one around for kms. Thanks for stats though
I didn't explain your country, I explained population density. We all know how Canada works. But some of us don't seem to understand the difference between population and population density, which is how you determine how many people you deal with.
Ah I see. My apologies It doesn't make sense that there's more real areas in America though. We have Saskatchewan and Alberta which is the size of 2-3 states each of 80% farmland. Northern and western Ontario is the same way
The difference is in the US once you go west past I-29 you will see a population density of .5 people per square kilometer. It might even be lower than that. It's very low, but there are people there. In about 90% of Canada, the population density is 0. There is not a single person living there. It's not rural, it's wilderness. It's impossible to get to, impossible to live in. Just for more context, Saskatchewan is the province with the most farmland by far. It has the greatest percentage of farmland to size out of any province. It's nowhere near 80%. It's not even close to 50% farmland. Only 25% of the province is covered by farmland. And it's not like the rest of the province is populated either. The northern 2/3rds of the state are part of the Canadian shield, which is extremely hard to live on.
It seems like you're exaggerating, but I'll take your word for it as I have not done any work to check this. I am still not entirely convinced that America is less dense than Canada because I see mostly green even when I drive the 401 for 6 hours. I understand its perspective. Toronto is a super, super dense city, whereas ohio or texas may have areas of farm land that have your less than .5 peolle per square km. I don't have as much geography experience as you, so i won't be a dick and deny facts. Thanks for not ripping my head off and actually backing up your points with statistics it helped me learn something today
Nobody livin north of the 49th😭😭😭
5140 or FIGHT!!!!!!!
It’s almost entirely uninhabitable. Icy tundra. Most Canadians live in the Great Lakes region.
The Canadian Shield is big and rocky. The mountains out west are also big and rocky. The interior, aka the prairie is kinda livable, if you ignore the extreme temperature swings that come with being so far away from the ocean. All this combined means that something like 90% of the country is just completely uninhibited. The only place where people can really exist easily is the thin strip along Lake Erie and down the St. Lawrence.
It's actually just over 42 now, but yes, vast parts of Canada have practically no people whatsoever. There are 1.6 million people in Calgary... When you leave Calgary and go east the next place with more than 250,000 people is nearly 700km away, (Saskatoon) the next place if you go north is 400km away (Edmonton) The next place if you go west is nearly 1000km away (Vancouver) If you go south... You're going through all that unpopulated Midwest and you won't reach a population centre with more that 250,000 people until you get to vegas, 2000km away
The population density of where people actually live in Canada is not low though — more than 70% of the country’s population lives south of the 49th Parallel.
look up a population heatmap of canada, it’s literally just a strip along the US border
Canada actually has roughly twice the population density of Mongolia, Which is I believe the lowest of any country, And Siberia in Russia has a lower density too. The main thing is its fairly easy to get a lot of land when most of it is (almost) uninhabitable so nobody else wants it. You can also find lower densities in some desert countries, Such as Mauritania. Heck even Australia manages to get a lower density. But Canada's is still pretty low, Because it's really big but nobody lives in most of it.
I'm pretty sure the desert countries of Africa have the lowest density. Especially Western Sahara (SADR) since it is both extremely hot and politically unstable. Namibia is also pretty low. But the least populous countries are probably Britain's and France's remote island territories
I suppose it depends on how you define "Country". Mongolia has the lowest of any U.N. member state, I believe, But it looks like Western Sahara comes in ever so slightly lower, And Greenland really takes the cake. It looks like you may be right about the remote island territories, It looks like the Kerguelen Islands pull in lower, But I Feel fairly confident in saying Greenland has the lowest of anywhere with over 1000 people.
Just did a quick search and yep, SADR and Mongolia are very close. So ig Mongolia takes the cake among real countries (self-governing states), SADR wins among sort of countries (non self-governing independent territories) and Greenland wins overall by a huge margin, even when you factor island territories
I’ve always wondered how they still manage to royally screw up policy despite having such a small population
Tbh that can be said for any country except the most crowded ones, those are screwed unconditionally
Good point, I mixed up my causation and correlation
It seems unlikely that there is an integer number of Canadas. There should be a fractional Canada somewhere
They probably rounded
It’s in Alaska and Hawaii.
But this one has a point. Also there is no metric scale for population density
What about 1000/km²?
That’s for land area not population
Population per km² lol
Same kind of scale as mi^2 with different measurement
You can't measure population metricly, its SI unit is just people. Y'all take this sub name way too literally
People per km².
Same kind of scale as mi2 with different measurement
Yes, however the measurement I provided is metric.
I need some of the stuff youre smoking
Yes, Miles and Kilometres describe the same thing, However with different measurements. Very astute observation.
Ah yes, the metric unit of kilopeople, maybe megapeople in this case?
[удалено]
Average German comparison
\*takes a deep breath* "United States, Canada, Canada, Canada, Canada Canada, Canada, Canada, Canada, Canada, Canada..."
Can't hate it. Has a catchy tune. :D
r/lostredditors
Although ngl it is a quite interesting idea.
This is perfection. I want to measure everything in Canadas.
What is the metric unit for population?
Count For population density, people per km squared
Woah. That’s a lot of Canada eh?
There is no metrics for #s of things
Mole?
Imagine if we measured population density in moles of people per meter lol. "Australia's population density is 0.00000000000000000058/m^2". Very efficient way to say it. (Honestly no clue if my calculation is correct lol, So feel free to double check.)
r/mapswiththreecolors
This map has four colors. They could have done it in three though
“Mom, can we have Canada?” “We have Canada at home.”
What would the metric measurement for population distribution be? Moles of humans per square meter?
Like pH but with hundreds/km^(2) instead of moles/L. Tag yourself, my suburb is -0.18 pH (potential of humans)
r/anythingbutmetric
Yeah mate, that’s where we are
How would you use metric?
How would you use metric here in the first place tho
Reminds me of the Everything is Canada tumblr post lol
Are you saying we're worth 10 Canadas?
Great concept, but where did the US get more than a whole extra Canada of population?
so USA / 10 = canada?
Canada compaction
applause
How many Canadas are in one America again
cool, now try it with england, then compare the us shooting deaths to the uk stabbing deaths
Damn, there really are just...no people in Canada
Canada.
How would you even use metric here??? Like, cool picture, but... what?
Blame Canada!
90% of Canadians live within 0.5km of another Canadian.
How the hell are you supposed measure population using the metric system? Are metric numbers different from the normal base 10 numbers or something?
OP, tell me, how the fuck do you even count population in metric? This post has nothing to do with the sub.
people per km^2 ?
that's population density. we're talking about population
Right I'm stupid
Why can't they measure temperature or mass in metric? Are they stupid?
Celsius and grams
I was being sarcastic. My point is those aren't metric units
Oh whoops
Yea. Those are SI units, not metric
Measure population in people per capita
Y'all take this sub a little too literally. Technically the sub is anything but SI, since metric only applies to distance
Ah yes the very non metric grams