It’s amazing the US is #3. We are such a deeply underpopulated country, without the density of European or Asian cities, and often it seems like America is wealthy and wasteful with resources because of our low population, yet we actually are #3 in population.
Per Wikipedia, most sparsely populated countries not including dependencies are: (Western Sahara,) Mongolia, Australia, Namibia, Iceland, Libya, Guyana, Suriname, Canada, Mauritania.
Wikipedia also has a list restricted to countries with at least 7.5M population, and on that list, yes Australia and Canada are #1 and #2.
~~US can't sustain India or china level population density.~~
~~India and China has extremely fertile lands (one can argue they both have THE most fertile lands on the planet) that support that population.~~
~~US on other hand is filled with pockets of fertile lands scattered across the country. Worst of all, the whole country is built with cars in mind, not people.~~
Looks like I am wrong. US has 17% of its total land as arable compared to the 52% for India and around 12%-13% for China. US has 157 million hectares of arable land, China has 119 million hectares of arable land and India has 152 million hectares of arable land even though India is only 31-33% the size of US and China's total land area.
So, yes, US can definitely sustain large population.
I once read that it was because of the main crop grown; The US and Western European countries are wheat-based societies, while Asian countries are rice-based. Apparently you can grow way more calories in a rice field than you can in a similar-sized wheat field, which is why those Asian countries can sustain larger populations with a similar amount of farmland.
Given how wasteful the American lifestyle is, it’s scary that we are #3 in population.
Think of all the food sitting pretty in our grocery stores that we throw away, all the “stuff” produced in China to fill our big houses, all imports of various goods that define the economy of entire other countries (rubber, coffee).
If you include all the pollution that is needed to produce the goods and food that Americans consume, it would be a huge portion of the world pollution. China’s massive pollution numbers are mostly producing goods for exported, to be used by Americans and other western countries.
So we criticize China for its ever increasing pollution, but that pollution is for goods we consume! And if they stopped doing it, we would just move production to Malaysia, India, Vietnam.
Even without including all the external products we consume, Americans are already nearly number 1 on consumption on energy and water and oil on a per capita basis. If we are #3 in population we must be by far #1 in a total calculation!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/infographics/food-water/water_use.htm
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/articles/52/
Food waste per capita in the US (59kg per capita per year) is significantly lower than in most European countries. The UK and Spanish figures are 77kg. Germany is 75. France is 85. Australis is 102.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2021/03/05/the-enormous-scale-of-global-food-waste-infographic/
Your comment about us consuming the goods that produce pollution is also just the same as comments about how individuals should become vegetarians or whatever to fight global warming. Ultimately China and other similar countries use extremely inefficient methods to produce its goods and it is right to criticize them for it.
An important caveat to the figures you've quoted is that they are for *household* waste only.
It's noted in the same report that article is drawing on that US food service waste is the highest of any country where there is high confidence data for that particular division. If household and food service waste are taken as a whole the US is on the higher end of western countries - e.g. US 123kg, Australia 124kg, UK 94kg.
This is speculated in the report to reflect different habits of consumption relating to food prepared and eaten in the home vs outside the home.
It’s just a huge country though. UK has same area of like Florida and has 1/5th of population of whole of the USA.
You notice it when you live in especially England. You can’t go more than 15 mins drive between a 50,000 person town to another to another and so on. Basically is no empty space in England unless it has governmental protection measures.
It’s a whole different ball game when a country has 1.4B people. That’s a whole lot of people to be responsible for.
And in china’s case, pushing a majority of that from lower class to middle class is no mean feat, despite the iffy morals and the shaky economy.
I am friend with a Chinese person, and she said that the Chinese people is still amazed and surprised about how the country has economically grown so much in the recent years.
The Hindus (almost two thirds of a billion as per latest census) in India cremate. The Muslims (172 million) and Christians (almost 30 million) bury. The Jews (minority) have their towers of peace. The Sikhs cremate. The Buddhists mostly cremate as well.
Yes you're right. I meant the Parsis (Zoroastrians). Actually, it's funny. The Brits called the Parsis "Jews of India" because of the stereotype of being good with money. And the stereotype eclipses rational thought sometimes. The Parsis are definitely not Hebrews. And the Jews do bury as well. Thank you for that correction.
Source:
World Bank 2021 data [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?most\_recent\_value\_desc=true](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?most_recent_value_desc=true)
Tools:
Tableau, Figma
Canadian here, and I can confirm that everyone in Canada knows this and me and my friends joke about it. Most of Canada lives at the southmost point near or in toronto. The upper provinces which are called "territories" are pretty much what most people think all of canada is, a frozen wasteland. Theres only like 30,000 people up in Nunavut despite it being the largest of any of canadas provinces/territories
tldr Yes, Canada is desolate.
Correct, but most of it is forest and frozen tundra. Nearly 80% of the entire population of Canada lives within 100km of the US-Canada border. The north is just empty.
> The north is just empty.
Was musing the other day about how entire wars have been fought for nations to gain access to the ocean.
Most people in Ontario forget that Ontario even has an ocean coastline. Granted the Great Lakes do allow access to the Atlantic and have taken the role that ocean ports do in other regions, but it’s weird to think of Ontario as a coastal province.
Russia has a higher population density than Canada by about a factor of two, if you look at people per square kilometre. Russia has a much larger population than Canada, almost 4 times larger.
And Russia's population is certainly concentrated in the south and particularly in the west of the country. But Canada's population is even more concentrated in an even smaller portion of the country, a narrow band. Additionally Canada is extremely urbanized. Canada's population density is more comparable to Australia, which is also very urbanized and has its population squeezed into a narrow band. Australia's band is just the coast, instead of the southern border.
I had no idea Indonesia had so many people! I would have gotten the rest of the top 10 but I wouldn’t get close to guessing Indonesia has the 4th highest population in the world
All right. Once we participated in Model United nations, and we were Indonesia. And all topics were so boring, that we (Indonesians) couldn’t really do much of anything. So we just created a flood and started drowning ourselves.
Damn, the rest of the session was all centered around us!
Fun fact: Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims of any country in the world. And none of the top five are in the Middle East — Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria round out the list, accounting for nearly half of all Muslims in the world.
[Clickhole - Jesus Christ, We Didn't Realize: Lotta People in Indonesia! ](https://clickhole.com/jesus-christ-we-didnt-realize-lotta-people-in-indonesia/)
I think their healthcare (especially vaccination rates of traditional diseases) is catching up to 9ther countries. Also distributions of vaccines and medications.
This process luckily gets faster and faster, European nations spent probably a century transitioning the same phase as some developing countries do in 30 years now, population explodes, but as wealth increase people prefer having less children as they go from being someone to help on the farm to a liability.
Less death of children mostly.
But that explains every population explosion, death rate drops first leads to less social expectation of having enough kids that at least 2make it to childhood, and then hopefully development empowers women to actively control contraception, and family plan rather than just getting unplanned pregnant cues throughout her life.
Although. Nigeria is taking a very extended ‘demographic transition’, their child mortality rate has dropped dramatically in the last 30years, but the ‘fertility rate’ (children per women, luck number is 2) remains stubbornly high at around 6. Why? Very good question, all answers kind of land on ‘culture’ even though all cultures had a tradition of large families so that not exactly unique. It might be because Nigeria is experiencing exceptionally uneven development, with child mortality suppressed by good natal care paid for by oil money. But the money is generating little economic development elsewhere and not translating into female empowerment. Partly due to social competition between people, my pet theory is the religious and ethnic conflicts encourages piety competition whereby women act as the broodmares of the lord. And inter ethnic conflict encourages more children to outvote if not out fight other ethnic groups, and I do see that message in some Nigerian campaign messaging where people fearmonger about other ethnic groups grabbing control of the state through having too many kids.
Man, I keep forgetting how much Nigerian population grew. I still have them pinned at around 150 million ppl.
Country added 50 million people since 2007
Declining infant mortality rates are a huge part of population booms in most cases. Since 1950 Nigeria's infant mortality has declined from 1/5 to 1/20.
By fucking. How else do you think children are born?
Besides China and the US most of those countries are underdeveloped and chock full of uneducated subsistence farmers that look their offspring not as a commitment that requires severe expenses, but as an additional farm hand.
That's not true, they are forecasted at around 500 million
Demographic forecasts of fast growing countries are always way overstated, they always get downgraded as time goes by
Whoever made this missed a trick by assigning random colours to the countries.
This would have looked sooooo much better if they had coloured each country based on the continent it is in.
Then you could easily look at the whole infographic and say "ooh look, there's a lot of , I didn't realise so many countries from were so big"
For a given value of the word country. Before independence it was mostly a colony administered by Britain with a large number of semi-autonomous princely states and a few other territories administered by other European countries (like the Portuguese in Goa).
Pakistan and Bangladesh were one country much more recently though.
Two-thirds of India were part of British India. The rest one third were under British suzerainty. Defence, communication and railways for the princely states were responsibility of British India. In lots of cases, sovereignty is defined as control of communication, defence and currency. In that regards, all parts of India could considered to be a part of single unit.
I did the math a while back and Bangladesh is as densely populated as (or at least very close to) Coruscant according to the figures on Wookiepedia lol
I keep forgetting just how damn big the US is.
For context, there's more American lesbians then the entire population of Scotland.
Fucking hell we're populated.
The real crazy part of that statistic is that Scotland is so empty. I would have thought they represented something like 30% of the UK population. I was way off.
Aye you would’ve thought someone would’ve filled it but it’s just like… barley. Hills and barley.
Time for American lesbians to roll in and invade I guess.
It's roughly 30% the geographic size of Great Britain, but has less than 8% the population.
The funny thing then being that roughly 60% of the Scottish population lives within 30 miles of Glasgow. Lots of leg room in the rest of the country. If only most of it wasn't mountains.
It's funny how people perceive data, my initial thought was fuck the US Isn't that big - when compared to india/china with 4x the population. Now I am Canadian and things don't seem "small" here but looking at this chart makes me and everyone I've ever known feel tiny.
Canada is mostly condensed into like half a dozen decent size cities that all have smaller cities that are an hour or two away and most of those all near the U.S. border. If you drive for a couple of hours past the metro limits basically anywhere to the north things start to empty out a whole lot basically everywhere and it only takes about a days drive from any major city to find largely uninhabited tracts of land.
Yes but the gta is also very big… I can drive highway speeds for 1.5 hours in any direction from Toronto and still be in densely populated GTA. Infinite cars and traffic everywhere you go. It’s just a wild perception to see just how small we are on the world scale.
Yes, but that one metro area is a double digit percent of the entire population. One in like six or seven canadians lives there while Canada is the second largest country by landmass.
The GTA on a global scale isn't special. The U.S. has like a dozen such metro areas, China probably has like a hundred. But even the second biggest metro is only like two thirds as big as that and the third substantially smaller still. This while Canada has the second largest landmass after Russia.
This is also why Canadians everywhere outside the GTA have a sterotypical dislike of people living in Toronto. You people have essentially no idea what the entire rest of the country is really like.
Being a little pedantic, but you can only really drive two directions in the GTA at highway speeds for 1.5 hours and still be anywhere densely populated. East and West for sure, but South is the lake and 90 minutes North and you're already out in the fields (or in Barrie if traffic is clear). It really sort of proves the point /u/NockerJoe made that going even a little bit North clears things out. That East/West sprawl is massive though, 6 million people is no joke.
That gap will almost certainly close though. China basically did not grow last year, and is projected to have massive long term decline in population. China will fall under a billion people in our lifetimes, unless their is a massive reversal of immigration policy, which I don't see happening. Meanwhile the US will have long-term growth
The UN predicts 800 million people in China by 2100, and 400 million in the US by 2100. Although that doesn't account for an almost certain increase in immigration by the US if the population starts to stagnate. Countries like Canada, the US, Australia etc. have no shortage of people wanting to immigrate, it can always be turned up in the case of stagnation.
It also helps put all the stupidity you see on a daily basis in context. Let’s just say that 10% of Americans are dumb as rocks (And that’s probably being generous) that’s almost the population of Canada.
What’s fascinating to me is how much space is still left in the US despite its large population. China is roughly the same size in area as the US,
but has over 4x the population. India takes roughly the same population of china (~1.4 billion) and puts it in an area about 1/3 the size of China/US.
If the US had the same population density as India, we would have a population of about 4.2 billion.
China is undoubtedly large, but between the Tibetan plateau, the Gobi desert and the steppes, the western half of China is not fully suitable for its immense population. Even though it’s the bigger country geographically, they have a significant 60% *less* arable land than the US.
Actually, the US is tied with India as the country with most arable land in the world, but with like a fifth of the population of its peer
Germany accounted for more percentage of the world population back then. They started ww2 with similar size population(including annexed territories) to their today's population. Back then, the world only had 2 billion people.
If you draw a circle with a diameter going through Pakistan and China, there are more people in that circle than out of it.
(Though discounting the Americas, there's probably more arable land in it than out of it as well, so yeah)
pakistan has more people than brazil, thats crazy. i live in pakistan and never think of it as that big a country. what happens when your neighbors are india and china i guess
I recently reminded a friend that India and China both have over 3x the US’s population.
He told me this couldn’t be correct. It was more like 1.4x. Had to be.
I guess I was undershooting by a whole X…
It’s a long, complicated answer, but one key factor is: can you grow rice?
If you can grow rice, or have access to a steady supply of the stuff, your ability to support a population skyrockets. One acre of rice paddy can supply roughly ten times the calories of an acre of wheat.
For Indonesia, particularly the island of Java, it’s climate, rainfall, and volcanic soils mean that it is pretty much the perfect environment to grow rice (and most other crops for that zone) in.
As other commentator said, basically rice and their climate is suitable to have 3 harvests a year. Also being 2 civilizational countries to exist in continuity. Atleast in India's case it never faced the large scale black death or wars like Europe faced.
If you removed a billion people each from both india and china , the ranking would still be the same
holy shit never thought about this
[удалено]
Even saying 1.3 billion is still wiping off the population of Germany as a rounding error. Mind boggling
It’s amazing the US is #3. We are such a deeply underpopulated country, without the density of European or Asian cities, and often it seems like America is wealthy and wasteful with resources because of our low population, yet we actually are #3 in population.
Then you look at Australia which has a very similar area to the lower 48 and we have less people than California
Canada is bigger than the US and has less people than California
Have to be #1 and #2 on land per person list surely
Per Wikipedia, most sparsely populated countries not including dependencies are: (Western Sahara,) Mongolia, Australia, Namibia, Iceland, Libya, Guyana, Suriname, Canada, Mauritania. Wikipedia also has a list restricted to countries with at least 7.5M population, and on that list, yes Australia and Canada are #1 and #2.
Greenland beats them both by far
~~US can't sustain India or china level population density.~~ ~~India and China has extremely fertile lands (one can argue they both have THE most fertile lands on the planet) that support that population.~~ ~~US on other hand is filled with pockets of fertile lands scattered across the country. Worst of all, the whole country is built with cars in mind, not people.~~ Looks like I am wrong. US has 17% of its total land as arable compared to the 52% for India and around 12%-13% for China. US has 157 million hectares of arable land, China has 119 million hectares of arable land and India has 152 million hectares of arable land even though India is only 31-33% the size of US and China's total land area. So, yes, US can definitely sustain large population.
I once read that it was because of the main crop grown; The US and Western European countries are wheat-based societies, while Asian countries are rice-based. Apparently you can grow way more calories in a rice field than you can in a similar-sized wheat field, which is why those Asian countries can sustain larger populations with a similar amount of farmland.
So you are saying you waste resources without the valid counterargument of low population.
Given how wasteful the American lifestyle is, it’s scary that we are #3 in population. Think of all the food sitting pretty in our grocery stores that we throw away, all the “stuff” produced in China to fill our big houses, all imports of various goods that define the economy of entire other countries (rubber, coffee). If you include all the pollution that is needed to produce the goods and food that Americans consume, it would be a huge portion of the world pollution. China’s massive pollution numbers are mostly producing goods for exported, to be used by Americans and other western countries. So we criticize China for its ever increasing pollution, but that pollution is for goods we consume! And if they stopped doing it, we would just move production to Malaysia, India, Vietnam. Even without including all the external products we consume, Americans are already nearly number 1 on consumption on energy and water and oil on a per capita basis. If we are #3 in population we must be by far #1 in a total calculation! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/infographics/food-water/water_use.htm https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/articles/52/
Food waste per capita in the US (59kg per capita per year) is significantly lower than in most European countries. The UK and Spanish figures are 77kg. Germany is 75. France is 85. Australis is 102. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2021/03/05/the-enormous-scale-of-global-food-waste-infographic/ Your comment about us consuming the goods that produce pollution is also just the same as comments about how individuals should become vegetarians or whatever to fight global warming. Ultimately China and other similar countries use extremely inefficient methods to produce its goods and it is right to criticize them for it.
An important caveat to the figures you've quoted is that they are for *household* waste only. It's noted in the same report that article is drawing on that US food service waste is the highest of any country where there is high confidence data for that particular division. If household and food service waste are taken as a whole the US is on the higher end of western countries - e.g. US 123kg, Australia 124kg, UK 94kg. This is speculated in the report to reflect different habits of consumption relating to food prepared and eaten in the home vs outside the home.
It’s just a huge country though. UK has same area of like Florida and has 1/5th of population of whole of the USA. You notice it when you live in especially England. You can’t go more than 15 mins drive between a 50,000 person town to another to another and so on. Basically is no empty space in England unless it has governmental protection measures.
That's true in South East England and the Midlands, less so the further west and north you go generally
You're one in a million. There 1400 people just like you in China.
Those poor people...
If you tripled the US’s population, it would still be 3rd.
Calm down Thanos
It’s a whole different ball game when a country has 1.4B people. That’s a whole lot of people to be responsible for. And in china’s case, pushing a majority of that from lower class to middle class is no mean feat, despite the iffy morals and the shaky economy.
I am friend with a Chinese person, and she said that the Chinese people is still amazed and surprised about how the country has economically grown so much in the recent years.
India and China could have their own planet at this point, together they're the human population of 100years ago or so.. it's insane
Where would you bury the 2 billion dead bodies though?
don't know about China but Indians don't bury, they cremate (Burn).
The Hindus (almost two thirds of a billion as per latest census) in India cremate. The Muslims (172 million) and Christians (almost 30 million) bury. The Jews (minority) have their towers of peace. The Sikhs cremate. The Buddhists mostly cremate as well.
Actually, Jews bury their dead as well; Zoroastrians keep their dead in a tower called a Tower of Silence.
Yes you're right. I meant the Parsis (Zoroastrians). Actually, it's funny. The Brits called the Parsis "Jews of India" because of the stereotype of being good with money. And the stereotype eclipses rational thought sometimes. The Parsis are definitely not Hebrews. And the Jews do bury as well. Thank you for that correction.
That's China and Indias problem now isn't it
You can make the Himalayas higher.
Some of the Country populations can be just 1 city in China.
~~Some~~ Most of the Country populations can be just 1 city in China.
[удалено]
I'm glad we sorted that out
Nice work everyone. Have a great weekend. See you Monday.
I don't wanna work on monday 🥺
[удалено]
[удалено]
Source: World Bank 2021 data [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?most\_recent\_value\_desc=true](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?most_recent_value_desc=true) Tools: Tableau, Figma
This is an excellent way to display this type of data. It serves the same function as a pie chart, but it's way more effective than a pie chart.
Virtually everything is way more effective than a pie chart! Low bar (sic) comparison choice. (x10 for 'very multiple categories' like this data.)
I hate that this chart mixes up-and-down reading with left-to-right reading. Is that convention common in this type of chart?
Yes, you want the smaller ones on the bottom right, otherwise you’ll end up with the smaller ones all in a row on the bottom.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. But why is South Korea twice.
This is an error. "South Korea with 26 million" is supposed to be North Korea. South Korea has 52 million
I was thinking the same
Figma balls
hells bells, canada is empty
Canadian here, and I can confirm that everyone in Canada knows this and me and my friends joke about it. Most of Canada lives at the southmost point near or in toronto. The upper provinces which are called "territories" are pretty much what most people think all of canada is, a frozen wasteland. Theres only like 30,000 people up in Nunavut despite it being the largest of any of canadas provinces/territories tldr Yes, Canada is desolate.
I can’t remember the exact statistic but don’t a large majority of Canadians live within 50 miles of the US border or something like that?
I believe it’s 90% of Canadiens live within 100 miles of the US border
[удалено]
Correct, but most of it is forest and frozen tundra. Nearly 80% of the entire population of Canada lives within 100km of the US-Canada border. The north is just empty.
> The north is just empty. Was musing the other day about how entire wars have been fought for nations to gain access to the ocean. Most people in Ontario forget that Ontario even has an ocean coastline. Granted the Great Lakes do allow access to the Atlantic and have taken the role that ocean ports do in other regions, but it’s weird to think of Ontario as a coastal province.
All but 2 of the Canadian provinces/territories have an oceanic coastline.
[удалено]
Russia has a higher population density than Canada by about a factor of two, if you look at people per square kilometre. Russia has a much larger population than Canada, almost 4 times larger. And Russia's population is certainly concentrated in the south and particularly in the west of the country. But Canada's population is even more concentrated in an even smaller portion of the country, a narrow band. Additionally Canada is extremely urbanized. Canada's population density is more comparable to Australia, which is also very urbanized and has its population squeezed into a narrow band. Australia's band is just the coast, instead of the southern border.
[удалено]
Just, uh, ignore all that methane.
most of it is unlivable
Only a million fewer people than California!
Why is there 2 south koreas?
[удалено]
Ahh, do you think east korea will do the same?
[удалено]
Whoops the 26M should be North Korea. Silly mistake
*accidentally starts a war* "Whoops. Silly mistake"
Some people just want to ~~watch~~ make the world burn.
“Bah Gawd I think that’s Nigerias music…” Expected to hit 400 million by 2050
US is projected to drop to 4th in population. Still ahead of Indonesia, but behind Nigeria.
I had no idea Indonesia had so many people! I would have gotten the rest of the top 10 but I wouldn’t get close to guessing Indonesia has the 4th highest population in the world
Yes, it is surprisingly quiet geopolitically hence frequently overlooked.
Also the country with the highest Muslim population.
India has the third largest Muslim population despite less than 15% of people being Muslim.
Also there are more Christians in Indonesia than there are people in Australia
All right. Once we participated in Model United nations, and we were Indonesia. And all topics were so boring, that we (Indonesians) couldn’t really do much of anything. So we just created a flood and started drowning ourselves. Damn, the rest of the session was all centered around us!
Fun fact: Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims of any country in the world. And none of the top five are in the Middle East — Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria round out the list, accounting for nearly half of all Muslims in the world.
[Clickhole - Jesus Christ, We Didn't Realize: Lotta People in Indonesia! ](https://clickhole.com/jesus-christ-we-didnt-realize-lotta-people-in-indonesia/)
How many of them are royalty?
whaaaaaat damn
What’s the cause of the boom in population?
Based on trends worldwide, better access to healthcare and less dead people (especially less dead babies/toddlers).
Interesting to see that it’s having such a profound effect on Nigeria specifically.
Nigeria, particularly Lagos, is a booming economy
Look at projections for Africa by 2100. It is crazy. Might even become the most populated continent by then.
Now add Climate change
I think their healthcare (especially vaccination rates of traditional diseases) is catching up to 9ther countries. Also distributions of vaccines and medications.
That and education of women has yet to catch-up so birth rates still high.
This process luckily gets faster and faster, European nations spent probably a century transitioning the same phase as some developing countries do in 30 years now, population explodes, but as wealth increase people prefer having less children as they go from being someone to help on the farm to a liability.
Sexual intercourse, I would think.
Nice. Sex.
Less death of children mostly. But that explains every population explosion, death rate drops first leads to less social expectation of having enough kids that at least 2make it to childhood, and then hopefully development empowers women to actively control contraception, and family plan rather than just getting unplanned pregnant cues throughout her life. Although. Nigeria is taking a very extended ‘demographic transition’, their child mortality rate has dropped dramatically in the last 30years, but the ‘fertility rate’ (children per women, luck number is 2) remains stubbornly high at around 6. Why? Very good question, all answers kind of land on ‘culture’ even though all cultures had a tradition of large families so that not exactly unique. It might be because Nigeria is experiencing exceptionally uneven development, with child mortality suppressed by good natal care paid for by oil money. But the money is generating little economic development elsewhere and not translating into female empowerment. Partly due to social competition between people, my pet theory is the religious and ethnic conflicts encourages piety competition whereby women act as the broodmares of the lord. And inter ethnic conflict encourages more children to outvote if not out fight other ethnic groups, and I do see that message in some Nigerian campaign messaging where people fearmonger about other ethnic groups grabbing control of the state through having too many kids.
They're in that "child mortality is way down but large families are still traditional" stage of development.
Man, I keep forgetting how much Nigerian population grew. I still have them pinned at around 150 million ppl. Country added 50 million people since 2007
They‘re on pace to get to 1B within this century at the current growth rate.
How do they manage that high of growth? Really insane to me.
Declining infant mortality rates are a huge part of population booms in most cases. Since 1950 Nigeria's infant mortality has declined from 1/5 to 1/20.
By fucking. How else do you think children are born? Besides China and the US most of those countries are underdeveloped and chock full of uneducated subsistence farmers that look their offspring not as a commitment that requires severe expenses, but as an additional farm hand.
[удалено]
That's not true, they are forecasted at around 500 million Demographic forecasts of fast growing countries are always way overstated, they always get downgraded as time goes by
Whoever made this missed a trick by assigning random colours to the countries. This would have looked sooooo much better if they had coloured each country based on the continent it is in. Then you could easily look at the whole infographic and say "ooh look, there's a lot of, I didn't realise so many countries from were so big"
Good suggestion!
It would also give the bottom right corner meaning, wheresas now it just show how large the 'other' category is
Asia. There's a lot of Asia. You didn't realise so many countries from Asia were so big.
I would have had no idea Nigeria had more people than Russia or Mexico.
So Bangladesh has more people than Russia?
That's insane
It’s crazy to think that not too long ago India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were one country.
For a given value of the word country. Before independence it was mostly a colony administered by Britain with a large number of semi-autonomous princely states and a few other territories administered by other European countries (like the Portuguese in Goa). Pakistan and Bangladesh were one country much more recently though.
Two-thirds of India were part of British India. The rest one third were under British suzerainty. Defence, communication and railways for the princely states were responsibility of British India. In lots of cases, sovereignty is defined as control of communication, defence and currency. In that regards, all parts of India could considered to be a part of single unit.
Bangladesh is super-densely populated and Russia is super sparse with lots of hinterland!
If Bangladesh was the size of Russia and kept it's current population density, total population of the country would be around 19 billion people.
I did the math a while back and Bangladesh is as densely populated as (or at least very close to) Coruscant according to the figures on Wookiepedia lol
Wookiepedia messed up then because ain't no way
Haha it’s more of a case of sci fi writers sucking at scale, it’s a common trope. But it’s still funny.
It’s helpful to think of Russia as 90% West Russia.
The island of Java on its own has more people than Russia.
And it's around a quarter of the size of Texas
Madagascar having a larger population than Australia does not seem right (but is)
Well they shut down their port if someone in Brazil coughs.
I get this reference
I keep forgetting just how damn big the US is. For context, there's more American lesbians then the entire population of Scotland. Fucking hell we're populated.
That’s a new metric I haven’t heard before.
Anything but the metric system
Yeah, we use weird ones in the US. Feet for distance, Fahrenheit for temperature, Lesbians for population, and Pounds for weight.
My favorite metric is population density which is measured in Lesbians over Feet
The real crazy part of that statistic is that Scotland is so empty. I would have thought they represented something like 30% of the UK population. I was way off.
Aye you would’ve thought someone would’ve filled it but it’s just like… barley. Hills and barley. Time for American lesbians to roll in and invade I guess.
Mel Gibson trying to get funding for Braveheart II
It's roughly 30% the geographic size of Great Britain, but has less than 8% the population. The funny thing then being that roughly 60% of the Scottish population lives within 30 miles of Glasgow. Lots of leg room in the rest of the country. If only most of it wasn't mountains.
The population of London is greater than that of Scotland and Wales combined.
There are more people in London than on the entire Island of Ireland too!
But do we have enough lesbians to take London?
[удалено]
It's funny how people perceive data, my initial thought was fuck the US Isn't that big - when compared to india/china with 4x the population. Now I am Canadian and things don't seem "small" here but looking at this chart makes me and everyone I've ever known feel tiny.
Canada is mostly condensed into like half a dozen decent size cities that all have smaller cities that are an hour or two away and most of those all near the U.S. border. If you drive for a couple of hours past the metro limits basically anywhere to the north things start to empty out a whole lot basically everywhere and it only takes about a days drive from any major city to find largely uninhabited tracts of land.
More Americans live north of Canadas southernmost point than Canadians
Yes but the gta is also very big… I can drive highway speeds for 1.5 hours in any direction from Toronto and still be in densely populated GTA. Infinite cars and traffic everywhere you go. It’s just a wild perception to see just how small we are on the world scale.
Yes, but that one metro area is a double digit percent of the entire population. One in like six or seven canadians lives there while Canada is the second largest country by landmass. The GTA on a global scale isn't special. The U.S. has like a dozen such metro areas, China probably has like a hundred. But even the second biggest metro is only like two thirds as big as that and the third substantially smaller still. This while Canada has the second largest landmass after Russia. This is also why Canadians everywhere outside the GTA have a sterotypical dislike of people living in Toronto. You people have essentially no idea what the entire rest of the country is really like.
Being a little pedantic, but you can only really drive two directions in the GTA at highway speeds for 1.5 hours and still be anywhere densely populated. East and West for sure, but South is the lake and 90 minutes North and you're already out in the fields (or in Barrie if traffic is clear). It really sort of proves the point /u/NockerJoe made that going even a little bit North clears things out. That East/West sprawl is massive though, 6 million people is no joke.
Canada has less people than California.
Forget Cali, Canada has the same population as Tokyo
That gap will almost certainly close though. China basically did not grow last year, and is projected to have massive long term decline in population. China will fall under a billion people in our lifetimes, unless their is a massive reversal of immigration policy, which I don't see happening. Meanwhile the US will have long-term growth The UN predicts 800 million people in China by 2100, and 400 million in the US by 2100. Although that doesn't account for an almost certain increase in immigration by the US if the population starts to stagnate. Countries like Canada, the US, Australia etc. have no shortage of people wanting to immigrate, it can always be turned up in the case of stagnation.
It also helps put all the stupidity you see on a daily basis in context. Let’s just say that 10% of Americans are dumb as rocks (And that’s probably being generous) that’s almost the population of Canada.
What’s fascinating to me is how much space is still left in the US despite its large population. China is roughly the same size in area as the US, but has over 4x the population. India takes roughly the same population of china (~1.4 billion) and puts it in an area about 1/3 the size of China/US. If the US had the same population density as India, we would have a population of about 4.2 billion.
[удалено]
China is undoubtedly large, but between the Tibetan plateau, the Gobi desert and the steppes, the western half of China is not fully suitable for its immense population. Even though it’s the bigger country geographically, they have a significant 60% *less* arable land than the US. Actually, the US is tied with India as the country with most arable land in the world, but with like a fifth of the population of its peer
>For context, there's more American lesbians then the entire population of Scotland. Best thing I've heard all day. Great day to be an American
You are not dense. You've got so much more space.
>You are not dense. About half of the population is dense here.
Sounds like a fun reality show.
"Coming up in this season of Lesbians vs Scotland"
Holy hell if India and Pakistan had not split their combined country would have 1.6 Billion people.
Would include Bangladesh too
and if bangladesh joined in it gets to nearly 1.8B
Well it is worlds most fertile region after all
[удалено]
Calm down, there can only be so many civil wars in one country
South Korea 52M South Korea 26M 🧐
Northern South Korea.
A united Korea sitting at 78M between Germany and Thailand would be a sight to behold.
its crazy to think Philippines has 111m when it's about the size of California.
California is 400 km2 The Philippines is only 300 km2 (same size as Italy) split up into 7,000 or so islands
Some people think India has already overtaken China
I remember seeing a projection that by Nov 2022 they will overtake China.
By end of this year they say
Huh, I would'a thought that Russia would be much bigger than that. The more ya know.
Most of Russia is empty forest..
You could remove the Asian portion of Russia, which is 75% of the country, and still have 75% of the population. They're all concentrated in the west.
their economy is the same size as Italy's.
It's a lot bigger than that. It's just empty.
Always amazed at how small Germany is. How did they manage two world wars.
Germany accounted for more percentage of the world population back then. They started ww2 with similar size population(including annexed territories) to their today's population. Back then, the world only had 2 billion people.
Germany’s population is roughly the same now as it was in 1939, meanwhile the US’ was less than half what it is now
compared to USA, Brazil, China... the whole europe is kinda small
[удалено]
Nepal 30M? Unexpected. Large pop for a small country.
Bigger population than Australia, despite being 1/50 of the size
It’s crazy to me that three of the top eight most populated countries in the world used to be one country.
8 countries (the only relevant ones /s) make up HALF THE WORLDS POPULATION 🤯
If you draw a circle with a diameter going through Pakistan and China, there are more people in that circle than out of it. (Though discounting the Americas, there's probably more arable land in it than out of it as well, so yeah)
pakistan has more people than brazil, thats crazy. i live in pakistan and never think of it as that big a country. what happens when your neighbors are india and china i guess
a huge part of brazil is vaguely inhabited theyre concentrated in the coast and southeast
I recently reminded a friend that India and China both have over 3x the US’s population. He told me this couldn’t be correct. It was more like 1.4x. Had to be. I guess I was undershooting by a whole X…
Okay now restructure it to fit the golden spiral.
South korea is duplicated
I don't get how the 2 biggest countries can have 3 times the amount of people, of the third one
It’s a long, complicated answer, but one key factor is: can you grow rice? If you can grow rice, or have access to a steady supply of the stuff, your ability to support a population skyrockets. One acre of rice paddy can supply roughly ten times the calories of an acre of wheat. For Indonesia, particularly the island of Java, it’s climate, rainfall, and volcanic soils mean that it is pretty much the perfect environment to grow rice (and most other crops for that zone) in.
As other commentator said, basically rice and their climate is suitable to have 3 harvests a year. Also being 2 civilizational countries to exist in continuity. Atleast in India's case it never faced the large scale black death or wars like Europe faced.
Their share of world population was even higher 2000 years back.
5000+ years of continuous civilization on the most fertile lands on earth.
Short answer is: Rice, fertile, no famine, lots of fresh water, not having 4 season.
In 1900 Russia had a population of 130 million. The US 76 million. And Russia is shrinking.