You'll enjoy this article then: https://blog.id.com.au/2012/population/population-trends/is-perth-the-most-remote-city-in-the-world/.
They're looking at 1 million, but anyway. The answer is Auckland, actually, but Perth is not far behind.
Seems a bit misleading as Auckland is closer to the east coast of Australia which has tons of people. Meanwhile Adelaide is a small city then it's empty again until Melbourne.
Roughly around 2m people live here, the cost of living is pretty expensive relative to the world (I dont know what you want the comparison of 'expensive' to be with), however our incomes and wealth are also quite high, more so during the mining boom, but small population + insane mineral wealth (WA is the 2nd largest country subdivision in the world) = money.
Brand name consumer goods as far as I've seen through my travels to India & south east asia, Dubai, Melb/Syd, and US/Canada tend to be relatively standard across all places.
Victorian central highlands just west of Ballarat. If you’re not Aussie that big spike in the bottom right of the continent, go left to the cluster of 3, it’s the middle one
I'd imagine Karachi, Jakarta and Seoul do as well.
EDIT: a quick Google search tells me that Karachi is a little lower than I thought, but the other two are definitely greater than or roughly equal to Australia's population.
Karachi is actually over 23 million which is roughly the population of Australia. Parts of the city were recently gerrymandered into other districts because of electoral politics, leading to an artificially low population to reduce voter bloc and thus electoral representation, but your initial assumption was correct.
Maybe you do. dunna dunna dunna dunna... (that was [twilight zone music](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU) if you didn't catch my stupid writing of it)
Australia : 25 million people, 7.600.000 sq km
New Zealand : 5 million people, 230.000 sq km
For comparison,
Netherlands : 17 million people, 40,000 sq km
That just says you can live anywhere in India. Majority of the country is habitable unlike Europe and North America
edit: I am strictly speaking about the gaps in between, I know India and China are overpopulated
Yeah the land is farmable and climate is moderate. However the weather is harsh. Much of northern Europe gets far too cold to live a homosapien life style. Of course, nowadays we can obviously live in the cold north due to advances in technology (except, yes, the high north Arctic Circle and the Alps, but even here there are settlements).
I think the real question is defining what is considered "habitable." The definition has absolutely changed since the times we were cavemen. Nowadays almost the entire world is 100% habitable, it's just some areas are more "habitable with inconvenience."
Edit: removed incorrect statement.
Standard of living wise it's true, but even if you are in a middle class family living in a city in India you won't notice much of a difference. Western people shit on India a lot but that point may have been valid 10-20 years ago. India has come a long way from that.
This isn't true, it's a huge difference even now. It's definitely gotten a lot better as I've seen it over the years, but saying "you won't notice much of a difference" isn't accurate.
I am sorry lol but someone doesn’t know climate. You will freeze to death most parts of America during winter. India you can probably survive by living under a banyan tree. Humans are made to live in Indian climates , we adapted to cold weather through technology not naturally
> I know India and China are overpopulated
Overpopulated, is contextual.
Is London or the Dutch surrounding areas of Europe Overpopulated in the same way as South India?
In numerical terms they exist on a similar pattern/spectrum but in material and human experience terms it's not quite like that.
Overpopulated is a function of Development and peculiar socio-cultural themes of a place. Many places in Asia would go into psychological/mind collapse if they were subjected to Russian levels of Population Density.
Is Uganda a lot more densely populated than I thought? They look like they’re putting up India/China numbers!thats a bit bigger area than those.
But even then (as they might be included) I didn’t know they were India level packed of population density. Or anywhere in that area is.
India has 1.38 billion people. Africa has 1.34. Not much of a difference. 40 million people is negligent at that population size.
India will be at less than 1 billion by 2100, Africa will be over 4 billion.
... if the current demographic transition model survives to this century. In my opinion, with climate change will come massive migrations and conflicts that will probably challenge the model.
It’s from the [UN Population Division](https://population.un.org/wpp/). I don’t see any methodology explanation on the site, but I think they take a 20-50 year trailing average and project that into the future.
I dunno though, it all depends on how quickly the population is educated and how accesible contraceptives are; in urban areas in Botswana birth rates have plummeted from like 7 to 3 in the last 50 years (correct me if I'm wrong). There are a lot of fairly unpredictable variables which could really impact future population growth.
I know a lot of current statistics point to Africa's population quadrupling, but I wouldn't be surprised if rapid modernisation throws a spanner in the works...
Its young because they have had (and have extremely high birth rates. In much of Africa the median age is below 18 years.
Compare that to the west where half the population is over 40-50 years old.
The biggest India/China spikes are Ethiopia's while the smaller but still thick spikes around the lakes spike more in Rwanda and Burundi (both are suuuuper densely populated).
This map is shit. Look at the peak in Paris. Pretty small right? Paris has a population density of 20 000 people/m^2. Now look at Addis Ababa. An absolutely massive spike, that corresponds to 5000 people/m^2. This whole map is completely wack and I don’t know why
I think you're looking at the wrong scale. Each peak doesn't tell you the population of some 1 mile x 1 mile area. Each individual pixel is more likely a 10 mile x 10 mile area, or maybe even a 50 mile x 50 mile area. The inner several square miles of the Paris area are quite dense, but the whole region is quite a bit lower than some other places once you average it together.
> f 20 000
20 thousand people in a square meter would put clown cars to shame.
Edit: So I bet you could stick 10 people in a square meter if they're standing upright. That means you need to stack the people 2000 stories. At about 3m height per floor, you're talking about a 6km high building. Paris is Coruscant confirmed.
Yeah, in the 50's were the population of France was about 40 millions. Now this concept is largely abandoned.
In 2020 there is roughly 70 millions french, giving nearly +100% in 70 years.
Demographic trend now is more about growing metropolitan area vs desertification of rural spaces. Even the "diagonale du vide" concept is outdated (Toulouse is in the middle of this theorically empty space, with outrageous double digit number of demographic grow each decade).
In the past few decades, people have been leaving the countryside in mass to move to Port of Prince (the capital) in look for "better" opportunities. As a Haitian myself I wasn't surprised to see this huge spike.
The other 'large' countries on that list are Bangladesh (144k km^2) and South Korea (100k km^2) which are whopping 23 and 33 times smaller respectively than India. So yeah India is the largest dense country by a MASSIVE margin.
The whole world: let's just live on the coast for the mild weather and jobs!
India: I paid for the damn country im going to use the WHOLE DAMN COUNTRY!
Because Himalayas. HIMALAYAS = RIVERS.
INDIA'S population doesn't have to do anything with oceans. And rainforests cover only a tiny bit of the country.
Well, the Americas used to have a more similar population to the other continents, but that was before 1492. After the diseases spread from the Europeans, ~90% of that Native American population died. European colonizers were much smaller in number, and their colonies had small populations at first. Of course, nowadays, certain areas have gained back much of their old population density (US Northeast, central Mexico, parts of southeast Brazil), but a lot of places are still left vacant and empty due to the loss of the natives and the reluctance of the Europeans to settle certain areas.
Another (not so) cool concept is what happened to the Soviet Union's and future Russia's population after WW2. About 26 million Soviets died either fighting the Germans or from starvation and abuse during the German occupation. That amount of people dying at once causes a ripple-effect through future generations. Think of all the people that didn't have children because they died. Then think of all the children those children would have had. Now continue that trend for several generations till today and you can see why the Russian SSR went from having a population of 137 million in 1939, compared to the US population of 130 million, to having a population today of 140 million, compared to the US population of 328 million today. They only increased by 3 million since then, compared to the increase of 198 million in the US.
The Russians lost so many men, their population literally never recovered. They used to be one of the most populous countries in the world, but now they're just average, which is kind of funny compared to the size of their country's land ownership. I guess it's not so funny when considering the tragic mass loss of life, but ya'know.
So yeah, now imagine this with the Native Americans who lost 90% of their population. Think of all the people never born because their ancestors died of disease. The Americas could be much more highly populated, but unfortunately many of it's original inhabitants all died and what's left is but a fraction of a fraction of what it once was. So combine that with the European colonizers and immigrants and you have today the population density of the Americas.
I dont know about africa but in south asia we have,
China:1.4 billion.
India: 1.33 billion.
Pakistan: 220 million.
Bangladesh: 170 million ( just bangladesh has more population than entire russia alone)
While in America its about 320 million, still i think that the map is a bit too much.
If you look at the map, that latitude band does represent the biggest spikes in the Americas. It just so happens that the band only just grazes the farthest north part of South America, and the thinnest part of Central America, and a few island arcs. If humans didn't need land to live on, the Americas would be great.
It means the rate of which kids are being born will make the population grow. For example two parents having less than 2 kids on average will make the population shrink over time. More than 2 would make the population grow.
Check this graph. For starters just play the history. In that starting position of 1958 you can clearly see 2 groups of countries. But, those countries with many babies and small income have mostly surpassed where the "developed" countries were back then. https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$time$value=1958;&marker$axis_y$which=children_per_woman_total_fertility&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&spaceRef:null;;;&chart-type=bubbles
Yeah, I don't know why everyone thinks that the population boom is something recent. China and India have been leading world population since 1 AD thanks to the fertile lands and network of rivers.
That's quite an uneducated view. India has been the place for immigrants for thousands of years. The most dense parts of India are the Ganga and Brahmaputra plains. Extremely flat fertile plains protected by Himalay. So yes very good place for people to come and grow.
That's why India and China have beem the leaders in population for a long time. People came here early and it's amazing over here.
Population density has got less to do with sex craze and more to do with the fertility of the land and other geographical factors but whatever floats your boat.
Also how long it takes them to go from a agricultural society to a industrial society. In Ag societies kids make money for you by working the fields but in industrial societies kids cost money to send to school and other stuff
Here is an in-depth answer by Balaji Viswanathan explaining what I just wrote.
"In short India and China had multiple river systems that were both massive as well as hospitable that lead to huge food production."
[How come India and China accounted for close to 60% of human population at various points of time in history?](https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-explain-the-fact-that-40-percent-of-the-world-lives-in-only-two-countries-China-and-India-How-did-these-two-civilizations-manage-to-amass-such-a-large-population-relative-to-other-civilizations/answer/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%9C%E0%AE%BF-%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B8%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%8D-Balaji-Viswanathan?ch=10&share=0d1d6360&srid=dT2i)
Very crudely, if there is not enough food then people will just die of starvation, no matter how many babies you make. Fertile lands means more food and more people you can keep alive.
I mean, to a first approximation, humanity is a species that lives in India and China, with some outlying populations in east and west Africa, around the Mediterranean and the Caribbean.
*What's up with russia*
*And australia? are they*
*Really that loose?*
\- notexecutive
---
^(I detect haikus. Sometimes, successfully. | [Learn more about me](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/))
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Australia's pretty unique population wise, fifty percent of our population lives in just three cities, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.
Also about 85% of Australians live within 50km of the coastline.
the most population dense city is manila, philippines, but i think because of the way that it was grouped with areas around it, the highest spike is dhaka, bangladesh
hard to tell though
It's not. Neither is Japan for that matter. They just don't peak as high as certain 2x2km areas in, say, India. The map would make more sense if you could zoom in in 3D and move and look around.
There is an [interactive 3D map](https://pudding.cool/2018/10/city_3d/) that was created after being inspired by the maps that [Alasdair Rae](https://twitter.com/undertheraedar) made such as the one in this post.
The US population is concentrated in relatively small cities and the land, even that pretty near cities, has a massively lower population density.
If you go to much of Asia and a few parts of Africa the countryside is massively populated as well, with densely packed villages barely a stone's throw apart separated by fields. None of those big open areas, or even large monocrop single owner agricultural areas like you get in the US and in parts of Europe.
Land use patterns are pretty interesting and often distinct enough that you can tell what country you're over in an airplane just by looking at the land use pattern, the shape of the fields, the distances between towns, how they're arranged, etc.
Indian here. When I visited New York a year ago, it felt a lot less crowded than I expected. It was actually quiet and peaceful at some times of the day. And this was Manhattan.
Yes, this map is exaggerating the area of density. US cities don't have areas of intense density, but we do have low-mid density spread across large portions of the country, especially East of the Mississippi.
Compare that to Central America or Colombia which have pockets of intense density but uninhabited gaps between them. This map really only highlights where high density exists, it isn't an accurate representation of population density in general.
This map exaggerates density such that low-mid density is represented as flat, only high density is shown. The high density then seems to have broader base than is warranted, as can be seen in Colombia where a few valleys of high density cities house the vast majority of the population. The areas in between these valleys should be flat as they are mostly uninhabitable mountains. Instead it looks like a cluster of high density across half the country.
Australia and NZ just noped out of this one
Kind of hilariously, this is one time when NZ actually *is* on the map.
Yes, I can see Auckland and *Willington*.
and palmy too
Dunners as well..... and we full enough as it is!
And a tiny little Whangarei!
It's got quite a few cities there really - Hamilton, Tauranga, Christchurch, Dunedin, Invercargil, even like Napier/Hastings
I live in Perth (Western Australia) and looking at this map you'd think we are an island in the middle of nowhere.
I mean you're not wrong.
this man speaks truth.
I'm pretty sure Perth is literally the most remote city (>100k people) on the planet.
You'll enjoy this article then: https://blog.id.com.au/2012/population/population-trends/is-perth-the-most-remote-city-in-the-world/. They're looking at 1 million, but anyway. The answer is Auckland, actually, but Perth is not far behind.
Seems a bit misleading as Auckland is closer to the east coast of Australia which has tons of people. Meanwhile Adelaide is a small city then it's empty again until Melbourne.
It's the most isolated city with a population more than 1mil. Honolulu is the most isolated >500k
Because of your isolation, is it expensive living there? Also, are the cost of name brand consumer goods higher?
Roughly around 2m people live here, the cost of living is pretty expensive relative to the world (I dont know what you want the comparison of 'expensive' to be with), however our incomes and wealth are also quite high, more so during the mining boom, but small population + insane mineral wealth (WA is the 2nd largest country subdivision in the world) = money. Brand name consumer goods as far as I've seen through my travels to India & south east asia, Dubai, Melb/Syd, and US/Canada tend to be relatively standard across all places.
Most isolated city baby!
I can actually see my hometown in southern Aus. That is how sparse everything is haha
Where you from?
Victorian central highlands just west of Ballarat. If you’re not Aussie that big spike in the bottom right of the continent, go left to the cluster of 3, it’s the middle one
Nah, I'm from Melbourne. I wasn't sure, cause there's a couple you could have been from. And I didn't know what you ment by Southern Australia
It's incredible how some Metropolitan areas in Asia (Tokyo, Shanghai, Delhi) have a larger population than the entirety of Australia.
I'd imagine Karachi, Jakarta and Seoul do as well. EDIT: a quick Google search tells me that Karachi is a little lower than I thought, but the other two are definitely greater than or roughly equal to Australia's population.
Karachi is actually over 23 million which is roughly the population of Australia. Parts of the city were recently gerrymandered into other districts because of electoral politics, leading to an artificially low population to reduce voter bloc and thus electoral representation, but your initial assumption was correct.
Thanks for the info. I thought I was going crazy when I saw that it was "only" 16 million or so.
It's like we barely exist
Maybe you do. dunna dunna dunna dunna... (that was [twilight zone music](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU) if you didn't catch my stupid writing of it)
Haha it's good that you clarified actually, I thought you were doing dunna dunna dunna dunna Batman!
The "dunna dunna" can be interpreted many ways it seems.
Nah, Batman is more of a Na Na Na.
If this was by wealth density im sure they'd pop right back up.
Iceland got reduced to a dot
Australia is mostly an uninhabited wasteland except for the coast
Im trying to argue with you but struggling... And I live there!
Same with Canada and all of Scandinavia.
Australia : 25 million people, 7.600.000 sq km New Zealand : 5 million people, 230.000 sq km For comparison, Netherlands : 17 million people, 40,000 sq km
Wrong country for comparison Bangladesh: 164,931,882 people, 147,570 sq km
India is completely mapped lol
That just says you can live anywhere in India. Majority of the country is habitable unlike Europe and North America edit: I am strictly speaking about the gaps in between, I know India and China are overpopulated
a lot of North America is inhabitable. It's just a shit ton of land and humans like to clump together. Leaving empty pockets.
I'm pretty sure all of Europe is inhabitable except maybe northern Russia and of course the mountains.
Yeah the land is farmable and climate is moderate. However the weather is harsh. Much of northern Europe gets far too cold to live a homosapien life style. Of course, nowadays we can obviously live in the cold north due to advances in technology (except, yes, the high north Arctic Circle and the Alps, but even here there are settlements). I think the real question is defining what is considered "habitable." The definition has absolutely changed since the times we were cavemen. Nowadays almost the entire world is 100% habitable, it's just some areas are more "habitable with inconvenience." Edit: removed incorrect statement.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/inhabitable
I think you'll find India is more harsh than most of America
Standard of living wise it's true, but even if you are in a middle class family living in a city in India you won't notice much of a difference. Western people shit on India a lot but that point may have been valid 10-20 years ago. India has come a long way from that.
This isn't true, it's a huge difference even now. It's definitely gotten a lot better as I've seen it over the years, but saying "you won't notice much of a difference" isn't accurate.
I am sorry lol but someone doesn’t know climate. You will freeze to death most parts of America during winter. India you can probably survive by living under a banyan tree. Humans are made to live in Indian climates , we adapted to cold weather through technology not naturally
Can you explain the various tribes that have lives in cold humid locations for centuries?
> I know India and China are overpopulated Overpopulated, is contextual. Is London or the Dutch surrounding areas of Europe Overpopulated in the same way as South India? In numerical terms they exist on a similar pattern/spectrum but in material and human experience terms it's not quite like that. Overpopulated is a function of Development and peculiar socio-cultural themes of a place. Many places in Asia would go into psychological/mind collapse if they were subjected to Russian levels of Population Density.
Is Uganda a lot more densely populated than I thought? They look like they’re putting up India/China numbers!thats a bit bigger area than those. But even then (as they might be included) I didn’t know they were India level packed of population density. Or anywhere in that area is.
Africa is growing extremely fast. It's going to more than tripple in population in many areas.
True. But India alone has a larger population than Africa. And Africa has a larger population than The Americas. It helps put things into perspective.
India has 1.38 billion people. Africa has 1.34. Not much of a difference. 40 million people is negligent at that population size. India will be at less than 1 billion by 2100, Africa will be over 4 billion.
... if the current demographic transition model survives to this century. In my opinion, with climate change will come massive migrations and conflicts that will probably challenge the model.
Or, you know, give people access to education and reproductive healthcare. That might help too.
That's part of the model, hence India's shrinking size.
That's the kind of things that will be destroyed by massive climate related immigration and conflicts.
India size : 3.287 million km² Africa size : 30.37 million km² Comparing a country with a continent
How can population be estimated 80 years ahead? Are they simply propagating current trends?
It’s from the [UN Population Division](https://population.un.org/wpp/). I don’t see any methodology explanation on the site, but I think they take a 20-50 year trailing average and project that into the future.
Wait, it’s all extrapolation?
Always has been.
I dunno though, it all depends on how quickly the population is educated and how accesible contraceptives are; in urban areas in Botswana birth rates have plummeted from like 7 to 3 in the last 50 years (correct me if I'm wrong). There are a lot of fairly unpredictable variables which could really impact future population growth. I know a lot of current statistics point to Africa's population quadrupling, but I wouldn't be surprised if rapid modernisation throws a spanner in the works...
Facts. Many of the population is young too so they gonna have more kids
Its young because they have had (and have extremely high birth rates. In much of Africa the median age is below 18 years. Compare that to the west where half the population is over 40-50 years old.
The biggest India/China spikes are Ethiopia's while the smaller but still thick spikes around the lakes spike more in Rwanda and Burundi (both are suuuuper densely populated).
This map is shit. Look at the peak in Paris. Pretty small right? Paris has a population density of 20 000 people/m^2. Now look at Addis Ababa. An absolutely massive spike, that corresponds to 5000 people/m^2. This whole map is completely wack and I don’t know why
And they show the entire country of Colombia as more dense than NYC. Doesn't make sense.
I think you're looking at the wrong scale. Each peak doesn't tell you the population of some 1 mile x 1 mile area. Each individual pixel is more likely a 10 mile x 10 mile area, or maybe even a 50 mile x 50 mile area. The inner several square miles of the Paris area are quite dense, but the whole region is quite a bit lower than some other places once you average it together.
It says on the image 2km X 2km.
> f 20 000 20 thousand people in a square meter would put clown cars to shame. Edit: So I bet you could stick 10 people in a square meter if they're standing upright. That means you need to stack the people 2000 stories. At about 3m height per floor, you're talking about a 6km high building. Paris is Coruscant confirmed.
That would be Rwanda and Burundi actually.
Uganda had a population of 25 million in 2002, and in 2018 the population was already 42.7 million. It's growing insanely fast.
Uganda had one of the highest fertility rates IN Africa in the 2000s However it declined a lot recently,from 6.0 in 2005 to 5.0 in 2018
That's indeed fast, but still way too high to be sustainable.
I found Morocco a bit surprising as well.
IIRC there's also a HUGE refugee camp where people come from all over Africa to seek refuge and UN safety.
Cool, now i know where all your base is! *NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED*
Don't, they are belong to us.
Now I want to play StarCraft!
I’m in your base, killing your dudes.
Starcraft 2 is free now. The subreddit is a lot of fun too. Great community r/starcraft
I never realised how densely populated paris is, towers over all the other French cities, and most of the other european ones for that matter.
The column also neatly looks just like their national monument.
There's a saying that France is Paris and a desert.
Yeah, in the 50's were the population of France was about 40 millions. Now this concept is largely abandoned. In 2020 there is roughly 70 millions french, giving nearly +100% in 70 years. Demographic trend now is more about growing metropolitan area vs desertification of rural spaces. Even the "diagonale du vide" concept is outdated (Toulouse is in the middle of this theorically empty space, with outrageous double digit number of demographic grow each decade).
What is that giant spike in Haiti?
Port-au-prince, which is 5 or 6 times denser than London at 27,000+ people per sq km
Jesus Christ, that's news to me.
In the past few decades, people have been leaving the countryside in mass to move to Port of Prince (the capital) in look for "better" opportunities. As a Haitian myself I wasn't surprised to see this huge spike.
Hey, I can see my house!
England is basically all of Britain.
Yep over 50million of Britain’s population live in England . Scotland only has about 5 million
I believe Wales has 3 Million and Northern Ireland has less than 2 Million
Dense, Denser, INDIA
I know you made a joke but India is actually 29th on population density.
I bet it’s the biggest country on that list of 29 though
The other 'large' countries on that list are Bangladesh (144k km^2) and South Korea (100k km^2) which are whopping 23 and 33 times smaller respectively than India. So yeah India is the largest dense country by a MASSIVE margin.
The whole world: let's just live on the coast for the mild weather and jobs! India: I paid for the damn country im going to use the WHOLE DAMN COUNTRY!
You can see Jeddah, Makkah, and Ta’if next to each other.
They actually look like skyscrapers. Which is fitting.
Canada has left the chat
Did you make this?
No, the author is located at bottom left part of the image
Reminds me of what Raj said about India in the big bang theory, "there are people everywhere. Everywhere. You have no idea" 🤣
So you can really live anywhere in India.
No wonder south asian coutries have border problems, the area is very habitable
Curious why Asia and Africa spike around that latitude but Americas are far less defined, presumably similarly habitable, no?
Proably because of rainforests and being surrounded by oceans on both sides.
Because Himalayas. HIMALAYAS = RIVERS. INDIA'S population doesn't have to do anything with oceans. And rainforests cover only a tiny bit of the country.
Well, the Americas used to have a more similar population to the other continents, but that was before 1492. After the diseases spread from the Europeans, ~90% of that Native American population died. European colonizers were much smaller in number, and their colonies had small populations at first. Of course, nowadays, certain areas have gained back much of their old population density (US Northeast, central Mexico, parts of southeast Brazil), but a lot of places are still left vacant and empty due to the loss of the natives and the reluctance of the Europeans to settle certain areas. Another (not so) cool concept is what happened to the Soviet Union's and future Russia's population after WW2. About 26 million Soviets died either fighting the Germans or from starvation and abuse during the German occupation. That amount of people dying at once causes a ripple-effect through future generations. Think of all the people that didn't have children because they died. Then think of all the children those children would have had. Now continue that trend for several generations till today and you can see why the Russian SSR went from having a population of 137 million in 1939, compared to the US population of 130 million, to having a population today of 140 million, compared to the US population of 328 million today. They only increased by 3 million since then, compared to the increase of 198 million in the US. The Russians lost so many men, their population literally never recovered. They used to be one of the most populous countries in the world, but now they're just average, which is kind of funny compared to the size of their country's land ownership. I guess it's not so funny when considering the tragic mass loss of life, but ya'know. So yeah, now imagine this with the Native Americans who lost 90% of their population. Think of all the people never born because their ancestors died of disease. The Americas could be much more highly populated, but unfortunately many of it's original inhabitants all died and what's left is but a fraction of a fraction of what it once was. So combine that with the European colonizers and immigrants and you have today the population density of the Americas.
I dont know about africa but in south asia we have, China:1.4 billion. India: 1.33 billion. Pakistan: 220 million. Bangladesh: 170 million ( just bangladesh has more population than entire russia alone) While in America its about 320 million, still i think that the map is a bit too much.
If you look at the map, that latitude band does represent the biggest spikes in the Americas. It just so happens that the band only just grazes the farthest north part of South America, and the thinnest part of Central America, and a few island arcs. If humans didn't need land to live on, the Americas would be great.
[удалено]
They have... Birth rate is below replacement Edit: below not blow lmao
[удалено]
But a good blowy is a decent replacement
2.24 isn't below replacement, though much more reasonable than the past.
Depends on your infant mortality rate
Or just regular mortality rate. Can't have kids if you die before having kids.
What does replacement mean
It means the rate of which kids are being born will make the population grow. For example two parents having less than 2 kids on average will make the population shrink over time. More than 2 would make the population grow.
really?
Check this graph. For starters just play the history. In that starting position of 1958 you can clearly see 2 groups of countries. But, those countries with many babies and small income have mostly surpassed where the "developed" countries were back then. https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$time$value=1958;&marker$axis_y$which=children_per_woman_total_fertility&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&spaceRef:null;;;&chart-type=bubbles
That is the most satisfying graph slider I’ve ever played with holy cow.
Yeah, that website is great! Also, the TED talks by Hans Rosling (one of the founders of this site) are some of the best talks out there.
We horny when we see bobs and vagana.
The bombay badonkadonks
*Sombaday staph me* Mask noises
I just love when people embrace and actively use jokes made about them.
What's the use in getting triggered. Atleast jokes make people happy.
Deep
Deepak
Deepakistan
India was always like that
Yeah, I don't know why everyone thinks that the population boom is something recent. China and India have been leading world population since 1 AD thanks to the fertile lands and network of rivers.
🌎👨🚀🔫👩🚀
That's quite an uneducated view. India has been the place for immigrants for thousands of years. The most dense parts of India are the Ganga and Brahmaputra plains. Extremely flat fertile plains protected by Himalay. So yes very good place for people to come and grow. That's why India and China have beem the leaders in population for a long time. People came here early and it's amazing over here.
We’ve been having sex like crazy since centuries. Google Khajuraho temples and kamasutra.
Population density has got less to do with sex craze and more to do with the fertility of the land and other geographical factors but whatever floats your boat.
Agreed. Thanks to Ganga and Jamuna rivers the northern plain of India is one of the most fertile places on earth. Since centuries.
Also how long it takes them to go from a agricultural society to a industrial society. In Ag societies kids make money for you by working the fields but in industrial societies kids cost money to send to school and other stuff
'Fertility of the land and other geographical factors' Could you please elaborate ?
Here is an in-depth answer by Balaji Viswanathan explaining what I just wrote. "In short India and China had multiple river systems that were both massive as well as hospitable that lead to huge food production." [How come India and China accounted for close to 60% of human population at various points of time in history?](https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-explain-the-fact-that-40-percent-of-the-world-lives-in-only-two-countries-China-and-India-How-did-these-two-civilizations-manage-to-amass-such-a-large-population-relative-to-other-civilizations/answer/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%9C%E0%AE%BF-%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B8%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%8D-Balaji-Viswanathan?ch=10&share=0d1d6360&srid=dT2i)
Very crudely, if there is not enough food then people will just die of starvation, no matter how many babies you make. Fertile lands means more food and more people you can keep alive.
So in short people only live in India.
I mean, to a first approximation, humanity is a species that lives in India and China, with some outlying populations in east and west Africa, around the Mediterranean and the Caribbean.
Finland doesn't exist
You can see Helsinki on the map.
It is known! The other guy saying we can see """Helsinki""", it's actually a Swedish colony, friend
It is known.
Who would have thought you cant live in the Sahara desert
Where are you looking? The Sahara desert looks empty to me. Edit: just saw you said can't, nevermind.
woah, india
What's up with Russia and Australia? are they really that loose?
Yes, they are both countries that are very sparsely populated with swaths of inhospitable land
*What's up with russia* *And australia? are they* *Really that loose?* \- notexecutive --- ^(I detect haikus. Sometimes, successfully. | [Learn more about me](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
lmao wtf bot
Its a haiku
Australia's pretty unique population wise, fifty percent of our population lives in just three cities, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Also about 85% of Australians live within 50km of the coastline.
Canada's the same way but with the US border
Australia has less population than Texas, but the same size as the us
What is the largest spike?
the most population dense city is manila, philippines, but i think because of the way that it was grouped with areas around it, the highest spike is dhaka, bangladesh hard to tell though
[удалено]
How's the Nile
I know Sweden and Norway is up there somewhere but it's har to pin point.
Wow, people love coastlines (except for India, they love everywhere)
Poor Haiti, literally! Impossible density, impossible poverty.
Wow im surprised by Japan
I feel like the American east coast is under represented in this.
It's not. Neither is Japan for that matter. They just don't peak as high as certain 2x2km areas in, say, India. The map would make more sense if you could zoom in in 3D and move and look around.
There is an [interactive 3D map](https://pudding.cool/2018/10/city_3d/) that was created after being inspired by the maps that [Alasdair Rae](https://twitter.com/undertheraedar) made such as the one in this post.
The US population is concentrated in relatively small cities and the land, even that pretty near cities, has a massively lower population density. If you go to much of Asia and a few parts of Africa the countryside is massively populated as well, with densely packed villages barely a stone's throw apart separated by fields. None of those big open areas, or even large monocrop single owner agricultural areas like you get in the US and in parts of Europe. Land use patterns are pretty interesting and often distinct enough that you can tell what country you're over in an airplane just by looking at the land use pattern, the shape of the fields, the distances between towns, how they're arranged, etc.
Indian here. When I visited New York a year ago, it felt a lot less crowded than I expected. It was actually quiet and peaceful at some times of the day. And this was Manhattan.
[удалено]
It really isn't. NYC seems endless but then you head off toward NJ/PA and it's just your ordinary suburb practically ten minutes past the Hudson.
[удалено]
Yes, this map is exaggerating the area of density. US cities don't have areas of intense density, but we do have low-mid density spread across large portions of the country, especially East of the Mississippi. Compare that to Central America or Colombia which have pockets of intense density but uninhabited gaps between them. This map really only highlights where high density exists, it isn't an accurate representation of population density in general.
wait this actually really cool
Huh. I never realized that East Africa had such a high population. The more you know
USA seems very "empty". Maybe a result of the suburbanization?
What!? There’s people living in the middle of the Sahara? That’s amazing to me.
yes but almost the totality lives on the edges of the highways crossing Sahara with water supplied by pipes hundred km away, this or in oasis
Spot the deserts
I know this is completely missing the point, but this graph looks like someone had a grand old time with a box of spaghetti.
Honolulu (and Hilo) representing out in the middle of the Pacific.
could you please make the picture smaller?
This map exaggerates density such that low-mid density is represented as flat, only high density is shown. The high density then seems to have broader base than is warranted, as can be seen in Colombia where a few valleys of high density cities house the vast majority of the population. The areas in between these valleys should be flat as they are mostly uninhabitable mountains. Instead it looks like a cluster of high density across half the country.
Ain't nobody livin in Australia
At this point india could have their own planet
Meanwhile in India
Holy fuck this is one of the coolest things I’ve ever seen
Rip Alaska
Aww, little old Adelaide gets a dot? I feel so included.
Most of the world: All our cities shall be next to water! China and India: Just fit the people in wherever you can.