Re-imagine the population size of these countries

[Warszawa]

I'd say the problem is how the population is distributed. If the population will be distributed like Long Island, where the public transportation is practically useless and everyone has to drive to Wal-Mart to get food, then the world will not be sustainable. But if the city is planned like Dublin or NYC, then I don't see why it can't be sustainable. Effective public transportation can eliminate the need for driving everywhere.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by lepillow

There are countries that make us wonder why the land is so big yet so sparsely populated. So what are some countries that you feel could do with a bigger population, vis-a-vis their physical size and potential global contribution?

I'd say:

Australia: 60 million instead of 23 million
Canada: 80 million instead of 35 million
New Zealand: 10 million instead of 4.5 million
Sweden: 25 million instead of 9.5 million
Finland: 18 million instead of 5.4 million
Norway: 18 million instead of 5 million
Iceland: 11 million instead of 320,000

Bangladesh has roughly 1000 people per square kilometer. Continental USA (Lower 48) is 8 million square kilometers. So if it had the same density as Bangladesh it would hold 8 billion people. But the world's population is slightly over 7 billion.

An exercise about redistributing world population to match land area is pointless. Wild variation in density has been part of humanity. There will never be that much immigration.

[dunno what to put here]

Originally Posted by irish_bob

new Zealand with ten million seems unlikely
as does a huge increase in those Nordic countries , their cold climates
Canada is also cold but it is in a fantastic location geographically , I can see it getting to that number,
ditto Australia which is redicolously underpopulated , so what if its mostly desert , so is much of the south west of the usa , large chunks of mexico and huge areas in the mid east ( arab world etc )

I don't think the cold climates of the Nordic countries matters at all - they are already growing a lot and are very desirable to immigrants. Won't be long until Sweden breaks the 10 million mark.

[kronan123]

i think the US has the greatest potential for population growth. its still has a very low population density for being in such a favorable geographical location. it would at least be able to hold 1 billion people.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by kronan123

i think the US has the greatest potential for population growth. its still has a very low population density for being in such a favorable geographical location. it would at least be able to hold 1 billion people.

The population of the USA has increased x2.5 since I was born, and it doesn't seem at all crowded to me. If it increases by x2.5 in your baby's lifetime, it will be 0.8-billion, and probably won't seem crowded to him, either.

I've been in Bangladesh, it doesn't seem crowded at all. The city is, of course, but you don't have to go far outside Dhaka to find open countryside that is no more crowded-looking than Connecticut. In fact, Bangladesh is divided into seven administrative districts (= states) of approximately equal area. Five of them (70% of the country) are less densely populated than Connecticut. I had no trouble finding places for excellent bird-watching, with nice walks along country roads.

I spent a week with my friend in Hong Kong, who lives in the King Tao Estates. That is a complex of seven high-rise buildings, with a population of 12,000, all within a five minute walk of each other, with a pleasant park in the center. Another five minutes walk, and you are in a very nice, extensive forest with steep hills and hiking trails.

[Warszawa]

Peru: 80 million
Argentina: 175 million
Chile: 60 million
Brazil: 750 million
Colombia: 105 million
Bolivia: 75 million
Ecuador: 35 million
Uruguay: 30 million
Paraguay: 15 million
Guyana: 30 million
Panama: 20 million
Cuba: 20 million

[Joe90]

Originally Posted by Bernie20

Ireland is underpopulated because of her history. Before the famine and immigration Ireland used to have a population of 8,000,000 people. In the early 1960s there was only 2,000,000 people. There are very few countries that have suffered such a drastic population drop as Ireland. Even now Ireland is suffereing a population drain due to the debt crisis and the slowing down of the economy. It doesn't seem to be able to sustain a very high population. The same with countries like New Zealand. A high proportion of New Zealanders eventually make their way to Australia. Countries like India and China are seriously over populated and some of the pollution in those places is unbearable and it is only going to get worse with everyone wanting to have all the mod cons and drive cars.

New Zealanders aren't making their way to Australia because NZ can't support them though. They are simply going there because they can (legally), and go for climate, lifestyle and a bigger economy. I can get a plane ticket to Australia for a days wage, and probably get a job within a day or two, so it's not surprising that so many people (about 13% of NZ's population) would take an advantage of Australia simply being an extension of NZ

I remember being at school when the announcement was the the population had reached three million. Now only 45 years later, the population has grown by 50%. I can see it reaching ten million, within a hundred years.

[Seattle4321]

I know I'm going to get so much "hate" for saying this but I think good countries should be able to continue their growth while other shouldn't. Africa has high birth rates! Most of Africa doesn't need anymore people, in a sense they don't contribute back the resources they use... In a world with growing population this will defenetly be a problem in the future.

Also, I am typing this from Fairbanks, Alaska. It is the middle of Alaska. In the summer it is completely fine to live in, it's pretty cool, long days and pretty good temperatures. The only unlike able thing in the summer is that there are TONS of mosquitoes. In the winter it snows an okay amount but less than Philadelphia, Detroit, or Pitsburg. Roughly 65 inches. One problem here is the cold tho, it get really cold. But it's weird the cold doesn't feel cold it's refreshing, like walking into the Costco cold department. Except it burns your skin if your out too long, and you plug you car into outlets at the grocery stores/home so your car will start. Alaska really is pretty inhabitable if you can deal with/are use to winters. Anchorage is also a pretty big city that is more milder than where I am at currently. Alaska is also the biggest state, it's 2 largest cities could easily double their population.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I've been in Bangladesh, it doesn't seem crowded at all. The city is, of course, but you don't have to go far outside Dhaka to find open countryside that is no more crowded-looking than Connecticut. In fact, Bangladesh is divided into seven administrative districts (= states) of approximately equal area. Five of them (70% of the country) are less densely populated than Connecticut. I had no trouble finding places for excellent bird-watching, with nice walks along country roads.

Empirical observations are almost always going to be deceptive. There is no reasonable size place on earth where people are stepping on each other. There are only very small urban or ghetto areas where you see an ocean of people.

Subsaharan Africa is not too crowded. It just cannot support it's growth rate.

[Ethereal]

Russia: 700 million
India: 80 million
Egypt: 20 million
Australia: 70 million
Indonesia: 40 million
China: 200 million
Pakistan: 30 million
Bangladesh: 20 million
Germany: 15 million (surprised that they're so populated at 82 mil)
Ethiopia: 15 million