Like South east asia. Countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Phillipines, China, Malaysia, Japan or Tiawan have huge populations in small land areas. I think almost 2/5 the world’s population lives in these countries. I think (not sure) that India & pakistan would be another example of a high density geographic area.
So why are some areas higher populated? I know i’ll get a reply like they have more sex, but i’m sure there is more to it than that. Did these areas somehow avoid most of the medical problems that plagued the rest of the world like dysentery, cholera, etc., did their culture place higher value on having as many children as possible, was their food supply more secure?
If you include the populations of Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh & India with the south east asian countries, that is about 3/5 of the worlds population in about 15 countries that are all geographically in the same place.
Remember that Europe has half a billion people in quite a small area. I don’t have a gazeteer handy, but I would guess that England (as opposed to the UK) and the Netherlands are both more densely populated than some of the countries you mention. Together they’d have nearly 70m people in an area not much bigger than Indiana.
To correct my own post, England and The Netherlands would together be about twice the size of Indiana with 10 times the population. I’m right about most of the countries mentioned being less densely populated; check CIA Factbook.
One of the main things that leads to very densely populated areas is the relationship between death rates and birth rates.
Originally the rates were close enough that population growth was slow. But then when medical knowledge becomes more prevalent the death rate begins to drop while birth rates being driven by culture tend to stay high. This causes large and rapid growth in population. It’s only later that birth rates fall to match the death rates and lead to slow growth or even falling populations as we’ll see in some countries pretty soon.
Check out these stats for India. A mere difference of 6.6 in the years from 1901-1910 which tripled 50 years later. Looks like they peaked in the 80s and are slowly closing the gap.
I don’t think there is any nation that hasn’t gone though this.
This explains differences in the rate of population growth. It does not by itself explain differences in population density. It is true that most areas go through a fall in death-rate accompanied by a dramatic growth in population. These changes occur at different times in history and so relative densities will vary. However it does not explain differences that are there at the start or end of the process.
For example, within the USA there are huge differences in population density which cannot be explained by differences in birth and death rates. Or the difference between India and Mongolia, another huge country but with a miniscule number of people.
Not to point out the obvious, but the relative pleasantness of climate, terrain, and local resources would appear to be the other factor. Mongolia is a cold and unpleasant place; India is warm and fertile. Western Europe is rich in fertile land and natural resources; Newfoundland is barren. Within the USA, it’s rather obvious that, say, Indiana and Illinois are physically more pleasant places to be than is Arizona.
There is also the density effect of large cities. New York City, for various reasons, is an enormous city - it is one of the world’s best natural harbors, is at a crossroads for trade routes, is on several rivers, arable land, etc. That makes the population density of the State of New York relatively high. But actually, the State of New York has a lot of empty space in it. Drive around its freeways and what you mostly see is forest. The fact that New York is more densely populated than Maine is due to New York City, not an intrinsic advantage to the terrain or climate of all of New York State.
I think you left out one of the most important factors. If you follow the “fall line” down the east coast, you’ll see that a lot of the major population centers are on the fall line rather than the coast. The fall line is where there is a sharp drop in elevation, from the piedmont to the coastal plain. It was important as an energy source–for early water mills, and later hydroelectric power. The fall line intersects the east coast at New York City (the Palisades). NYC not only had the fall line, it had a harbor too. Two large natural advantages.
The first factor having been … what? (Unless you’re referring to Agback’s post.) I was using extreme examples to point out that birth and death rates and population growth do not really explain the questions raised in the OP. I could have used more subtle examples, such as the differences between England and France, or between Italy and Spain (the first of each pair is quite a bit more densely populated).
Please do not assume from the fact that I did not offer explanations of my own that I have no ideas of my own, such as the “obvious” ones you suggested.
I think alot of it also has to do with density of food production. AFAIK, a given land area of rice produces much more nutrition than the same area of wheat, barley, sorghum or nearly any other common grain. Hence, those areas which cultivated rice in paddies, primarily in East and South Asia (as opposed to the dry, upland rice found in Europe and elsewhere) could support a much larger native population than elsewhere.
Taking out my Population Geography notes, I see that the world has 4 main population centres: China & Southeast Asia plus Japan, the Indian subcontinent, Europe, and in North America, the eastern area between the ocean and the Great Lakes (the 13 colonies plus New France and Ontario). There are also smaller centres, such as on the Nile and on the West Coast of North America.
You’ll notice that the 4 main centres are full of water: coasts, rivers, and lakes. They are either rich in farmland or rich in trade (coastal regions), or both. The farmers produce surplus, which can go to support people who don’t produce food. More water equals more farmland, which means more food, and ultimately more people, and Asia is rich in coasts and rivers. Asia has always been the most populated region of the world in historic times.
Here is the breakdown of the world’s population in 2001:
World: 6.3 billion people
Asia: 3.7 billion
Africa: 818 million
Europe: 727 million
Latin America: 525 million
North America (US & Canada): 313 million
Oceania: 31 million
You’ll notice Africa has more people than Europe, but is not designated as a population centre. That is because isn’t as concentrated as in Europe.
I don’t think that compares though. Those are 2 countries in a specific land area, the other 20 + in that area are not as densely populated. Same goes for places like Nigeria. Nigeria has about 130 million, but the majority of countries near it are not nearly as populated. So they are the exception, not the rule in those geographic areas.
if you look at the nations in southeast asia and south central asia, the vast majority that are south east of Afghanistan & south of Mongolia are highly populated. I think Laos, Cambodia & Burma are the only nations that are not as highly populated. For some reason, Laos & Cambodia seem underpopulated, like they have 1/10 as many people per square km.
Indonesia
land: 1,826,440 sq km
Population: 231,328,092
Vietnam
land: 325,360 sq km
Population: 81,098,416
Japan
land: 374,744 sq km
Population: 126,974,628
Phillipines
land: 298,170 sq km
Population: 84,525,639
They’re not as much of an exception as you make out; Germany is roughly the same size and population as Vietnam, and both it and Italy are more densely populated than Indonesia. South/ south east / east Asia is not such a small area; even taking into account sea and mountain, the heavily populated area stretches thousands of miles.
Anyway, I wasn’t taking exception to your OP, I just wanted to point out (as I sure others would have done) that Westerners’ assumptions about the “3rd world population explosion” are not always founded in fact. You get maps of world population distribution, and large parts of Western Europe (even central Scotland!) are always coloured in the heaviest shade. Like you, I often wonder why there are such differences. However I don’t really think it’s helpful to describe Asia’s large population as being “all geographically in the same place.” India is as far from Japan as the UK is from Iraq, or the USA is from Brazil. Do you think you can make generalisations about life in the UK - Iraq area?
Japan’s a bit easier explain than the rest. It’s a relatively small country and people have been reproducing more rapidly since WWII, resulting in too many people for one little island to handle.
True, I guess that’s step 1. Bearing in mind that each and every country undergoes a different degree of the difference in those rates over a different length of time. And then step 2 is for each region to have some reason for the people to stay there.
Those reason are probably things such as the difficulty of moving to another country and the draw of jobs in the nearby industrial area. I’m sure cultural affinity for your homeland is also a very strong reason to stay. There are probably a variety of familial obligations which might prevent you from leaving for someplace too far away, say your parents expect you to take care of them in their old age.
Density maps from The Center for International Earth Science Information Network. The close ups are at the end of the Dataset Variables section.
In addition to this I would guess that the ability to stay, mainly in the form of the availability of sufficient food, is very important. Having said that, that variable obviously also has a major bearing (sp?) on one’s ability to be born in the first place and survive infancy. It will also have affected the area’s demography before population increase.
What I’m saying is that I would guess the areas in the old world that had relatively high population density before industrialisation are, on the whole, the ones which have it now. And these areas are probably the ones which could grow a lot of calories on the soil they had, or the ones which could trade with such areas.
I’m getting into wild guess territory, so I’ll leave the floor open to real demographers.
Laos is not as dense in population as other SE Asian countries because:
It is very mountainous. The terrain doesn’t make for rich farmland, and therefore not as many people can be supported, like I said in my previous post.
It is landlocked. Inland areas almost always have less people than coastal areas. Compare China’s coast to its interior, or the United State’s East and West Coasts to the Midwest. This is because of trade, which I also mentioned before.
Besides, of course, the political instability that Alcibiades mentioned. Did no one read what I wrote?