What countries are the most "overpopulated" based on how many people they would have to lose before their population density was the same as the global average?
I was confused too at first. The quiz not only considers population density but also the absolute number of people needed to lose. So, it counts countries with a large population and a relatively high population density.
Not really that surprising when you look at the numbers of people each country would have to lose to hit the global average. The lowest answer is 24.8 million which is already more than the population of the Netherlands, so clearly it's not going to be on the list.
I thought it was a pretty interesting quiz that forces people to think about population density in a new way. The way population density is often quizzed makes us think about the smaller countries perhaps a bit more often than we should, while this one makes us take proper note of the "mass" that goes together with that density, which tends to be a pretty important factor when you're actually experiencing it first hand.
Seems a lot of people in the comments didn't quite grasp it.
Of course, there is no such thing as "overpopulation" in my personal opinion. The more people there are, the better our lives all become!
To a certain extent of course... it's a lot harder to support more people without destroying the Earth further, which makes it even harder to support future people
Or everyone has to adjust by sacrificing nicer things, like bigger houses & cars, and accepting worse materials etc. And people do NOT like that
Speaking of alternative measures of population density, check out my quizzes on population-weighted density, which is a measure of the average number of people living within 1km of the average person in a given country. This is a way to take out the effects of large swathes of unpopulated land in a country's density.
Carrying capacity is what it is. Looking at a map of HDI next to this list isn't promising. China pollutes more than the entirety of the developed world. Who's going to be the next to jump on that dogpile. Not to mention the map of population growth. Facts can't hurt. It is what it is.
I'm so confused, someone further up said to them there isn't such a thing as overpopulation and now we should be worried about underpopulation? Since when? Why? Please help
The person above said they don't think "overpopulation" is a thing because they think our lives become better the more people they are. That's just a personal opinion of theirs (one I personally disagree with).
"Underpopulation" is what happens when people don't have enough children to maintain a stable population. For a theoretical example, if everyone in a society has only one kid, the society's population would half every lifespan. Many countries have fertility rates below replacement rate.
From Wikipedia: "Underpopulation is usually defined as a state in which a country's population has declined too much to support its current economic system."
This Wikipedia page covers many of the concerns various people have about population decline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#Possible_consequences
Did you include territories when making these calculations or are you just looking at the independent country's population? (e.g.-when looking at France, do you just count France or do you include overseas territories like French Guiana, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, etc.?)
"What countries are the most 'overpopulated' based on how many people they would have to lose before their population density was the same as the global average?"
The quiz is asking for the *sheer number of people* that would need to be lost for the country to have average population density. Countries like Singapore and Monaco would need to lose a much higher percentage of their population than the countries on this list, but not a higher number of individual people, because there's not many people living in those tiny countries on the global scale.
I'm surprised nobody is talking about how insane Egypt is. Keep in mind that pretty much the entire population is concentrated around the Nile, but the empty Sahara surrounding it is actually diluting the figures by a HUGE margin. For the whole country, the density is about 117 per km². The global average is about 60 per km². If you only include the population density around the Nile, it's closer to 2000 per km². Insane.
I thought I was the only one, like I hate to be a doomer, but there's no way this can be sustainable
Granted the Nile has some of the most fertile soil on the planet & is one of the oldest inhabited civilizations, but 115,000,000 people in a country that's 96% desert? I just can't see it ending well (and I say this as an Indian!)
Population density at Egypt's level makes quality of life very bad for everyone.
That said, I wouldn't worry about food shortages in the near term. Global food production has grown much faster than population.
If you look at the yields of every major crop, they are WAY up in the last 20 years. And countries like Egypt will continue to see large gains in the future just by catching up to U.S. standards.
Today, the world has more calories available per person than ever before in its history. Each year, the percentage of people who are starving gets lower and lower.
The thing that will cause global hunger is not absolute shortages, but warfare or mismanagement that prevents the distribution of food. That's why Venezuela has a problem with hunger, despite a very low population density.
So not enough to make the list.
All the while making it a point about density.. which should be the actual measurement for such a quiz
Seems a lot of people in the comments didn't quite grasp it.
Of course, there is no such thing as "overpopulation" in my personal opinion. The more people there are, the better our lives all become!
Or everyone has to adjust by sacrificing nicer things, like bigger houses & cars, and accepting worse materials etc. And people do NOT like that
Most densely populated countries by population-weighted density
Least densely populated countries by population-weighted density
And I guess only @ 6-7 million people died from covid.
Even countries like Iran and Brazil are no having far too few children to sustain their population.
So join the cool kids. Stop worrying about overpopulation, and start worrying about underpopulation.
"Underpopulation" is what happens when people don't have enough children to maintain a stable population. For a theoretical example, if everyone in a society has only one kid, the society's population would half every lifespan. Many countries have fertility rates below replacement rate.
From Wikipedia: "Underpopulation is usually defined as a state in which a country's population has declined too much to support its current economic system."
This Wikipedia page covers many of the concerns various people have about population decline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#Possible_consequences
nice quiz by the way.
Population density is my favourite geographic subject and this approaches it in the most interesting way... Thanks for that!
"What countries are the most 'overpopulated' based on how many people they would have to lose before their population density was the same as the global average?"
The quiz is asking for the *sheer number of people* that would need to be lost for the country to have average population density. Countries like Singapore and Monaco would need to lose a much higher percentage of their population than the countries on this list, but not a higher number of individual people, because there's not many people living in those tiny countries on the global scale.
Granted the Nile has some of the most fertile soil on the planet & is one of the oldest inhabited civilizations, but 115,000,000 people in a country that's 96% desert? I just can't see it ending well (and I say this as an Indian!)
That said, I wouldn't worry about food shortages in the near term. Global food production has grown much faster than population.
If you look at the yields of every major crop, they are WAY up in the last 20 years. And countries like Egypt will continue to see large gains in the future just by catching up to U.S. standards.
Today, the world has more calories available per person than ever before in its history. Each year, the percentage of people who are starving gets lower and lower.
The thing that will cause global hunger is not absolute shortages, but warfare or mismanagement that prevents the distribution of food. That's why Venezuela has a problem with hunger, despite a very low population density.
Is this average (that the countries excede) just people per country, regardless of density? If so, still some of these answers suprise me.