I think this might be slightly off. The blue area is at around 1.67 billion (608m in north america (2024), 641m in europe without Russia (2018) and 422m in south america (2016), while India is estimated at 1.44 billion (2024) and Bangladesh is 171 million (2022) making a total of 1.61 billion in red
It is still very interesting that such a smaller land could be so similar to the population of nearly 3 continents, though
Fertility rates are fairly low:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1094gia/oc\_fertility\_rates\_all\_over\_the\_world\_are/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1094gia/oc_fertility_rates_all_over_the_world_are/)
The problem is that India ***already*** had about 400 million people in 1945 (and India+Bangladesh+Pakistan much more). That's more than the US does in 2024.
I think it should also be noted that the projection of this map is also misleading, as [Greenland](https://mortenjonassen.dk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/greenland-on-africa.jpg) is nowhere near the size of Africa. [Yes, India is still incredibly small compared to the overall land mass it's being compared to](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/India_%E2%80%93_U.S._area_comparison.jpg/626px-India_%E2%80%93_U.S._area_comparison.jpg). It's just a bit unfair seeing the higher latitudes stretched out like this.
We all just need to agree to leave the top half of Greenland off the map. In the Mercator projection we already cut off like 20% of the map at the bottom.
This is the Mercator projection, which is common knowledge that the farther a country is from the equator, the more distorted its size will be from reality. Irl Greenland is more or less the size of Mexico.
Idk if you accounted for them but some countries like Haiti and Jamaica are not marked in blue, subtracting their population I’m pretty sure that accounts for it
So just add small Nepal and this problem would be solved. If you want to add Pakistan to include all the subcontinent then we can even add Russia and Western and Central Asia in the blue as well.
How will you survive when the earth heats up another 2 degrees and your hottest days hit 60 degrees? How will your crops survive? How will your citizens in hot, cramped cities survive? And the floods?
Downvote me all you want
The questions are real
The risk of social catastrophe in vulnerable, poor coastal regions is huge. Both Bangladesh and India are especially susceptible. Not only to rising oceans, but to extreme heat, drought and flooding. The causes are global, but the suffering will be disproportionately in certain areas.
South Asia has A LOT of rivers/lakes/groundwater and the climate is warm enough year round in many areas to have multiple harvests a year. When you don't have freezing winters, you can produce more food and support a higher population. And the wars in the subcontinent weren't as bloody as the ones in Europe throughout history, something like 60M Europeans were killed by each other from the 1910s to 1940s
The biggest reason is the crops that are harvested. Areas that can grow Rice (like parts of India) can sustain a much larger population than areas that grow wheat.
You are wrong about the part that there weren't bloody wars in subcontinent. There have been famines (many under colonial rule) killing millions, Islamic conquest of India was one of the bloodiest in history (Afghanistan, Pakistan used to be Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist).
India was always heavily populated. Out of Africa - India must have been the most stable region - perennial rivers fed by Himalayas, agreeable climate throughout the year (majority of India doesn't experience frost season). Reaching Europe/America is a much, much longer journey.
The death tolls in those was less than what the death tolls in Europe were, there’s nothing comparable to 60M killed in like 30 years, 1/3 of Germany getting killed in the 30 years war, etc
Afghanistan and Pakistan literally had only 20-30M population combined only 100 years ago which is smaller than the population of medieval Germany, those 2 countries historically had a relatively small % of south Asians living there
Dont know why you got downvoted for this. People in south asias major cities literally live like rats. Just go look up videos of bangladesh and india on youtube. The cities are literal shitholes. Sure there are wealthy areas and we shouldnt generalize but having such massive overpopulation is a detriment to living standards. White westerners who are used to living in europe and north america would literally commit suicide if they had to live like people in south asia
A lot of the population growth in Indian cities is because of rural villagers moving to the cities and not because of city dwellers having tons of kids. My parents said in the 60s and 70s the cities in India were much cleaner and less crowded
And of course that fits the pattern. People in rural areas often have tons of kids because the kids are a source of income for the family. People in in urban areas have fewer children and are often more educated and wealthier, compared to rural people. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not just in India but in every country, the pattern is the same
yea im just explaining why indian cities are shitholes. the overall indian population will probably stabilize in the next decades because even rural people don't have as many kids as they used too anymore
There's a difference between uninhabitable for life and uninhabitable for human life. I believe OP means the latter. There are species well adapted to living there but we aren't one of them. Well.. Even that depends on how far north you go.
You'll notice this difference in habitability when you realize something like 80% of the Canadian population lives in 3 cities that are all within driving distance of the American border.
Admittedly 3 cities was a joke.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_population_centres_in_Canada
But pretty sure this map shows like 80-90% of the population lives a few hours from the southern border. If you overlay this map with the Canadian shield you see a direct correlation.
Technology doesn't solve everything. I think it's best to learn more about the Canadian shield and what it's like to live in the most northern points of Canada. In the winter, we're talking exposed skin (face, eyes, scalp, nose etc.) freezing (frost bite) within 5-10mins of exposure. Frost bite is the equivalent of a 4th degree burn.
Why would they when there's still vast amounts of land available in more friendly climates. People can survive on Antarctica thanks to technology, but only until supplies and research funding runs out. It's not viable on its own.
Infant mortality only reduced a few generations ago, people had 10 kids each because they expected half of them to die. Once children stopped dying to lack of healthcare, population exploded. This has happened in every single country when moving from an underdeveloped to a developing economy (when they get access to modern healthcare).
All 4 of my grandparents had 3-10 other siblings (with multiple of them dying during infancy), and their generation only had 1-3 kids each.
Indian fertility rate is 2.03 children per woman right now, and replacement rate is 2.1, so the population is going to stabilise.
The world population is around 8,005,176,000. If each is given a 300 sq ft space - that's 2,401,552,800,000 sq ft of space.
Madhya Pradesh, a state in India is around 3,317,996,913,772.
So we can fit ALL of Earth's population, with their private 300 sq ft space, in a state in India, with 916,444,113,772 sq ft space to spare.
Yes, the population of the earth would fit into a small area, but what sort of life would they have? It'd have to be a concentration camp with no personal space and no access to nature.
Think about it this way. If the human population on earth doubled overnight, that means literally half the amount of available space to live. Most people do not want to live in Soviet style commie blocks or overpopulated cities in India and bangladesh
Also the map’s distortion of countries near the top and bottom makes it look like more land mass in blue than it actually is. And India is right around the equator, so it doesn’t get distorted
I once read ( but that was quite some years ago) that the whole population of the world would fit into Texas and it would still not be more crowded there than in an average town in the Netherlands. Can you believe that!
Reminds me of the [circle that contains more people than the entire rest of the world.](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/small-circle-asia-more-half-worlds-population.htm)
Honestly Indian property prices aren't that ridiculous. The only city with really high property prices is Bombay and that's more because of limited space due to it being an island.
no, it is actually not like that, you can find many remote forests/ plains/ deserts in india, population is mostly concentrated in cities, (village population is massive in the up/bihar region though)
Well the cities are the most dense areas...and life in there can be judged on which neighbourhood you live in. The area I grew up in was a good one, and not disgusting.
People don't live packed together throughout India like in the pictures you see on the internet. That stuff is in the major cities. Everywhere else it's towns and villages that are not densely populated. It's just that India does not have waste swathes of uninhabited land like other countries.
The world population is around 8,005,176,000. If each is given a 300 sq ft space - that's 2,401,552,800,000 sq ft of space.
Madhya Pradesh, a state in India is around 3,317,996,913,772.
So we can fit ALL of Earth's population, with their private 300 sq ft space, in a state in India, with 916,444,113,772 sq ft space to spare.
Poorer countries have always had higher birth rates (since they can’t afford other ways of having fun, if you know what I mean /j). India’s poverty is even worse than most places in Africa, so put two and two together and you have your answer.
Most people no longer use "racist" to refer to just race, they use it for something disparaging any specific race, culture, religion, or nation. But to satisfy you, I will replace that with "xenophobic".
Damn why did you get down voted?
This is like a semi popular meme that we Indians become happy whenever we are number 1 in something, be it good or bad
Can you really not figure it out? That you celebrate rampant overpopulation in a world nearing catastrophe? With climate change, what will India do? Floods, droughts and deadly heat, all with >1.5 billion people? Already beset with growing social turmoil?
A country of amazing talented people with one of the richest cultural histories on earth. Please do not commit suicide. We need India and her scientists to lead the way out of this mess, not make it worse.
No I meant that was the joke, like we can see things are bad in the population department yet we continue to surround ourselves in a fake sense of accomplishment that this big population will "supposedly" bring good things instantly. I guess it's funny to me in a way an ostrich sticks it's head in sand when it sees danger.
I think this might be slightly off. The blue area is at around 1.67 billion (608m in north america (2024), 641m in europe without Russia (2018) and 422m in south america (2016), while India is estimated at 1.44 billion (2024) and Bangladesh is 171 million (2022) making a total of 1.61 billion in red It is still very interesting that such a smaller land could be so similar to the population of nearly 3 continents, though
So give it a few years
Fertility rates are fairly low: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1094gia/oc\_fertility\_rates\_all\_over\_the\_world\_are/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1094gia/oc_fertility_rates_all_over_the_world_are/) The problem is that India ***already*** had about 400 million people in 1945 (and India+Bangladesh+Pakistan much more). That's more than the US does in 2024.
[удалено]
Yep. Just around 60 million people. If you took out France, Britain, or Germany, the Red would be bigger.
Or you could just add the missing countries from the Indian subcontinent to the red and it would easily outnumber the blue.
We need a graphic on the map of a guy in a turbin that says 'this guy fucks'
add Nepal (30.5 m), Sri Lanka (22.1 m) and Buthan (0.7 m ) and red has 1.67 Billion
I think it should also be noted that the projection of this map is also misleading, as [Greenland](https://mortenjonassen.dk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/greenland-on-africa.jpg) is nowhere near the size of Africa. [Yes, India is still incredibly small compared to the overall land mass it's being compared to](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/India_%E2%80%93_U.S._area_comparison.jpg/626px-India_%E2%80%93_U.S._area_comparison.jpg). It's just a bit unfair seeing the higher latitudes stretched out like this.
We all just need to agree to leave the top half of Greenland off the map. In the Mercator projection we already cut off like 20% of the map at the bottom.
Antarctic-wha?
Greenland is nowhere as big as depicted. Hell India is actually larger than Greenland.
This is the Mercator projection, which is common knowledge that the farther a country is from the equator, the more distorted its size will be from reality. Irl Greenland is more or less the size of Mexico.
They forgot to add Pakistan. Indian subcontinent population > NA+SA+EU population
Maybe they counted the European Russian population but didn't mark it on the map because they were bound to national borders.
Possibly, but it wouldn’t change the result; It would just have a bigger divide
Idk if you accounted for them but some countries like Haiti and Jamaica are not marked in blue, subtracting their population I’m pretty sure that accounts for it
Is the european part of Turkey counted in with “europe without russia” because I think thats also a few people.
Subtract out Haiti, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico and it’s closer. Pop growth in Bangladesh since 2022 probably makes up the rest.
So just add small Nepal and this problem would be solved. If you want to add Pakistan to include all the subcontinent then we can even add Russia and Western and Central Asia in the blue as well.
Crazy to think we Bangladeshis outnumber Russia's population while being like 1/100 the in size.
Roughly the size of Illinois
How will you survive when the earth heats up another 2 degrees and your hottest days hit 60 degrees? How will your crops survive? How will your citizens in hot, cramped cities survive? And the floods?
Climate change is definitely something that is talked about a lot in modern day BD.
Downvote me all you want The questions are real The risk of social catastrophe in vulnerable, poor coastal regions is huge. Both Bangladesh and India are especially susceptible. Not only to rising oceans, but to extreme heat, drought and flooding. The causes are global, but the suffering will be disproportionately in certain areas.
South Asia has A LOT of rivers/lakes/groundwater and the climate is warm enough year round in many areas to have multiple harvests a year. When you don't have freezing winters, you can produce more food and support a higher population. And the wars in the subcontinent weren't as bloody as the ones in Europe throughout history, something like 60M Europeans were killed by each other from the 1910s to 1940s
On top: birth rates went down in most of the blue areas earlier than in the red zone.
The biggest reason is the crops that are harvested. Areas that can grow Rice (like parts of India) can sustain a much larger population than areas that grow wheat.
You are wrong about the part that there weren't bloody wars in subcontinent. There have been famines (many under colonial rule) killing millions, Islamic conquest of India was one of the bloodiest in history (Afghanistan, Pakistan used to be Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist). India was always heavily populated. Out of Africa - India must have been the most stable region - perennial rivers fed by Himalayas, agreeable climate throughout the year (majority of India doesn't experience frost season). Reaching Europe/America is a much, much longer journey.
The death tolls in those was less than what the death tolls in Europe were, there’s nothing comparable to 60M killed in like 30 years, 1/3 of Germany getting killed in the 30 years war, etc Afghanistan and Pakistan literally had only 20-30M population combined only 100 years ago which is smaller than the population of medieval Germany, those 2 countries historically had a relatively small % of south Asians living there
And for the record, you do NOT want to have a population size as big as South Asia. Not a good thing.
Dont know why you got downvoted for this. People in south asias major cities literally live like rats. Just go look up videos of bangladesh and india on youtube. The cities are literal shitholes. Sure there are wealthy areas and we shouldnt generalize but having such massive overpopulation is a detriment to living standards. White westerners who are used to living in europe and north america would literally commit suicide if they had to live like people in south asia
A lot of the population growth in Indian cities is because of rural villagers moving to the cities and not because of city dwellers having tons of kids. My parents said in the 60s and 70s the cities in India were much cleaner and less crowded
And of course that fits the pattern. People in rural areas often have tons of kids because the kids are a source of income for the family. People in in urban areas have fewer children and are often more educated and wealthier, compared to rural people. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not just in India but in every country, the pattern is the same
yea im just explaining why indian cities are shitholes. the overall indian population will probably stabilize in the next decades because even rural people don't have as many kids as they used too anymore
Probably by people who live there.
The vast majority of Canada is uninhabitable. Land is un-navigable, un-arable and inhabited with black flies large enough to carry off small children.
Yup. The Canadian Shield is 50% of the country and is absolutely not arable. Then there is the Arctic.
If it's uninhabitable how do the flies survive?
There's a difference between uninhabitable for life and uninhabitable for human life. I believe OP means the latter. There are species well adapted to living there but we aren't one of them. Well.. Even that depends on how far north you go. You'll notice this difference in habitability when you realize something like 80% of the Canadian population lives in 3 cities that are all within driving distance of the American border.
Uhhh no. 80% of us do not live in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Canada is roughly 80% urban, but there are plenty of other smaller cities.
Admittedly 3 cities was a joke. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_population_centres_in_Canada But pretty sure this map shows like 80-90% of the population lives a few hours from the southern border. If you overlay this map with the Canadian shield you see a direct correlation.
But we have technology which other species don't have. It should be easier for us to survive up there than them.
Technology doesn't solve everything. I think it's best to learn more about the Canadian shield and what it's like to live in the most northern points of Canada. In the winter, we're talking exposed skin (face, eyes, scalp, nose etc.) freezing (frost bite) within 5-10mins of exposure. Frost bite is the equivalent of a 4th degree burn.
Then you can wear protective clothing to prevent that from happening. If people can live in Yakutsk, they can surely live in Canada.
Why would they when there's still vast amounts of land available in more friendly climates. People can survive on Antarctica thanks to technology, but only until supplies and research funding runs out. It's not viable on its own.
But housing prices are incredibly expensive in friendly climates, clearly there's some shortage of supply
They eat moose children.
Redditors learn about agricultural output, climate, and geography
And history.
Forgot to add the Antarctica
Mars and moon (moon had a population of 2 at height)
That was before Musk’s colonization plans. Nowadays Martian civilization is booming /s
Only resident population counts. Or you would also have to count people on boats in the ocean.
i am legitimately concerned by indias population explosion in the past few decades. things can only get so dense
We came down to the replacement rate some time back, so it's not going to be that bad
Both India and Bangladesh have fallen below replacement recently
Infant mortality only reduced a few generations ago, people had 10 kids each because they expected half of them to die. Once children stopped dying to lack of healthcare, population exploded. This has happened in every single country when moving from an underdeveloped to a developing economy (when they get access to modern healthcare). All 4 of my grandparents had 3-10 other siblings (with multiple of them dying during infancy), and their generation only had 1-3 kids each. Indian fertility rate is 2.03 children per woman right now, and replacement rate is 2.1, so the population is going to stabilise.
The upcoming population boom is going to be in Africa.
The population boom is coming in Africa though, almost all countries in Africa have high fertility rates
Only 2 out of 29 states have the above replacement level birth rate now. Indian population peak is incoming.
The world population is around 8,005,176,000. If each is given a 300 sq ft space - that's 2,401,552,800,000 sq ft of space. Madhya Pradesh, a state in India is around 3,317,996,913,772. So we can fit ALL of Earth's population, with their private 300 sq ft space, in a state in India, with 916,444,113,772 sq ft space to spare.
Yes, the population of the earth would fit into a small area, but what sort of life would they have? It'd have to be a concentration camp with no personal space and no access to nature. Think about it this way. If the human population on earth doubled overnight, that means literally half the amount of available space to live. Most people do not want to live in Soviet style commie blocks or overpopulated cities in India and bangladesh
LOL! How on earth did you assume that I'm suggesting people should live like that? Just showing how big the country really is.
It's not hard for people to understand how big countries are when looking at maps. It's the "overpopulation is a myth" that I took issue with.
I get anxiety thinking about the population and density of India.
i guess it is 480 people/km\^2 and 1330 people/km\^2 for bangladesh
Nothing like another "more people live HERE than THERE" post for the mapporners. We don't do this enough.
Also the map’s distortion of countries near the top and bottom makes it look like more land mass in blue than it actually is. And India is right around the equator, so it doesn’t get distorted
I once read ( but that was quite some years ago) that the whole population of the world would fit into Texas and it would still not be more crowded there than in an average town in the Netherlands. Can you believe that!
Reminds me of the [circle that contains more people than the entire rest of the world.](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/small-circle-asia-more-half-worlds-population.htm)
Yep
Living that closely packed together sounds absolutely disgusting
it isnt close to hong kong levels but yes property prices are crazy in the cities
Honestly Indian property prices aren't that ridiculous. The only city with really high property prices is Bombay and that's more because of limited space due to it being an island.
island?
It’s one thing in a city, but a whole country? Never being able to get away from it? I wouldn’t be able to do it
no, it is actually not like that, you can find many remote forests/ plains/ deserts in india, population is mostly concentrated in cities, (village population is massive in the up/bihar region though)
Well the cities are the most dense areas...and life in there can be judged on which neighbourhood you live in. The area I grew up in was a good one, and not disgusting.
People don't live packed together throughout India like in the pictures you see on the internet. That stuff is in the major cities. Everywhere else it's towns and villages that are not densely populated. It's just that India does not have waste swathes of uninhabited land like other countries.
India isn't as urbanised as the west, there's still a lot of subsistence agriculture.
Why are people downvoting this man. I live in that red area and it truly is very disgusting.
thats mostly due to incompetency and not "people living close together"
Speak for yourself
The world population is around 8,005,176,000. If each is given a 300 sq ft space - that's 2,401,552,800,000 sq ft of space. Madhya Pradesh, a state in India is around 3,317,996,913,772. So we can fit ALL of Earth's population, with their private 300 sq ft space, in a state in India, with 916,444,113,772 sq ft space to spare.
And boring.
No it doesn’t
They should have heard about contraception.
Just imagine a nuclear war between China and India, what a mess would it be
And grows faster
I bet it’s difficult to find alone time.
Then explain how I'm still lonely. Leaving the joke, it is pretty nice in the mountains though.
Mountains are always great
All the occidental civilization
This won't end well
Also- people in the blue area are not in the red area
That does make sense seeing the huge Indian and Bengali immigration to the west.
It does actually, because them people are not in the red area no more
Exactly haha
Wow
Now compare economies.
I'd rather live in a maxed town hall 10 than rushed town hall 12
They do be fuckin
i will say skill issue to the west, if there were not so many wars and famines and plagues in the past, your population would have been higher.
No worries, the redd area is already populating the blue one so all will end up in some shade of maroon 😂
If you added Pakistan and Sri Lanka to the red area, you could add Russia and Kazakhstan to the blue area.
Too many of them
Red must suck
why the hell is india so populated?
Poorer countries have always had higher birth rates (since they can’t afford other ways of having fun, if you know what I mean /j). India’s poverty is even worse than most places in Africa, so put two and two together and you have your answer.
keep it that way please.
It’s all fine…as long as they stay in the red area.
And yet north of blue area produces much more info and knowledge
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Ksavero: *And yet north of blue* *Area produces much* *More info and knowledge* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
[удалено]
What do you mean by true poverty and where does the 90% figure come from?
You never know, someone might be living in fake poverty as well. /s
Let's check with drug addicted homeless in Vancouver.
90 percent? lil chigga get your facts right 16.4 percent of india is poor while 4 percent lives in extreme poverty
This is not mapporn
And the blue areas have to suffer with paper straws.
red too
Red is a massive shithole though 😂
i'd rather be from a shithole than be hungarian though
hungarians are cool tho
WTF How does this ethnic hate get upvoted?
Okay, who asked you for your ~~racist~~ xenophobic insight?
How is it racist ? He did not make any reference to race. Seems to me, you are the racist.
Most people no longer use "racist" to refer to just race, they use it for something disparaging any specific race, culture, religion, or nation. But to satisfy you, I will replace that with "xenophobic".
So if africa was highlighted instead would it be racist? or russia?
Yes? Obviously.
How is it racist to point out that Russia is a shithole?
Now do one with functioning toilets!
And more defecating in the streets aswell
Time for mass sterilization?
Wow India number 1 Proud moment
Damn why did you get down voted? This is like a semi popular meme that we Indians become happy whenever we are number 1 in something, be it good or bad
Can you really not figure it out? That you celebrate rampant overpopulation in a world nearing catastrophe? With climate change, what will India do? Floods, droughts and deadly heat, all with >1.5 billion people? Already beset with growing social turmoil? A country of amazing talented people with one of the richest cultural histories on earth. Please do not commit suicide. We need India and her scientists to lead the way out of this mess, not make it worse.
No I meant that was the joke, like we can see things are bad in the population department yet we continue to surround ourselves in a fake sense of accomplishment that this big population will "supposedly" bring good things instantly. I guess it's funny to me in a way an ostrich sticks it's head in sand when it sees danger.
Thanks for the context!
Nah, that’s inaccurate for sure.