Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Asia is far too densely packed, what would be the ideal population sizes for the major countries to achieve a much less resource draining and environmentally better lifestyle? You'd probably never get to North American or Australian type lifestyles (big open space) but a somewhat European lifestyle would be achievable - that is medium density.
China - 500 million
Japan - 60 million
South Korea - 20 million
Indonesia - 50 million
Vietnam - 40 million
The best population for the world in my opinion is somewhere between 3 and 4 billion. Especially continents that cannot provide enough food for all their citizen should shrink instead of keep blowing up their population (Africa).
20 million is not enough for South Korea though, the country already has not enough people for a sustainable economic growth with its around 50 million. The Seoul capital district alone has 20 million.
What about for Taiwan which currently as a population of about 23 million people, but probably one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
I live in Southern California- and if we combine the populations of Los Angeles County (13 million), Orange County (3 million), San Bernardino County (2 million), Riverside County (2 million), San Diego County (3 million) then you get the equilvalent of Taiwan's population. But, if you combine all those counties you get a size of 37,633 square miles. Yet, people in Southern California how crowded it is getting here. While Taiwan is only 13,974 square miles. NOTE: San Bernardino County is 20,105 square miles alone and only has a population of 2 million people compared to Taiwan having 23 million people and being only about 3/5th the size of San Bernardino County. It gives you the scope of the density of Taiwan. I think Taiwan would be more comfortable if it has 1/2 or 1/3 of its current population- it would give more breathing room.
What about for Taiwan which currently as a population of about 23 million people, but probably one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
I live in Southern California- and if we combine the populations of Los Angeles County (13 million), Orange County (3 million), San Bernardino County (2 million), Riverside County (2 million), San Diego County (3 million) then you get the equilvalent of Taiwan's population. But, if you combine all those counties you get a size of 37,633 square miles. Yet, people in Southern California how crowded it is getting here. While Taiwan is only 13,974 square miles. NOTE: San Bernardino County is 20,105 square miles alone and only has a population of 2 million people compared to Taiwan having 23 million people and being only about 3/5th the size of San Bernardino County. It gives you the scope of the density of Taiwan. I think Taiwan would be more comfortable if it has 1/2 or 1/3 of its current population- it would give more breathing room.
I actually stand corrected, the population is Los Angeles County is about 10 million. Hence combining the populations of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego Counties would give you a total population of about 20 million, so even a smaller population than Taiwan with 23 million people, but with an area much larger (37,633 square miles vs. 13,974 square miles) which even makes the density of Taiwan more extreme. Even if I you were to add a few more neighboring counties in Southern California such as Ventura County (839,620 people), Kern County (864,124 people) and Imperial County (176,584 people) that would give a total population of roughly 22 million people still less than Taiwan's population of 23 million people; add another 14,853 square miles to the 37,633 square miles for a total of 52,486 square miles (22 million people) vs. Taiwan's 13,974 square miles with 23 million people-you see the contrast in the population density.
The best population for the world in my opinion is somewhere between 3 and 4 billion. Especially continents that cannot provide enough food for all their citizen should shrink instead of keep blowing up their population (Africa).
20 million is not enough for South Korea though, the country already has not enough people for a sustainable economic growth with its around 50 million. The Seoul capital district alone has 20 million.
I don't understand why people keep thinking bigger = better for the economy. Look at Sweden at 10 or so million with a very strong economy and structure. It is better to have a smaller but more skilled and educated population than vice versa.
A smaller but more efficient population would make lives better overall....20mil would be suffice for South Korea given how hilly it is and as such, not much arable or liveable land. A sparely populated population would allow Asian countries to live a lifestyle akin to that of the West.
Given the size of Taiwan, 10mil would probably be ideal for Taiwan.
I think Taiwan would be more comfortable if it has 1/2 or 1/3 of its current population- it would give more breathing room.
I said that but it got deleted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
