1 billion Americans Challenge

[DominusNovus]

With a POD after 1800, get the population of the United States of America to 1 billion citizens by 2004. If you think you have to, you can conquer Canada and/or Mexico, but nothing else. Other than the population change, the US should be fairly similar (no communist or facist regimes, or coups, America should still be a superpower, etc.).

A few ideas:
1) Congress doesn't abolish the slave trade, so more slaves are imported, which, of course, lead to more citizens by our time.
2) Much more immigration. Maybe the 19th century isn't so peaceful for Europe, so people have even more reason to move to the US.
3) Outlaw abortion. This should give us a few more million people.

[wkwillis]

A passing planetoid causes earthquakes all over the world. The earthquakes destabilize the sediment load over the methane hydrates, the methane hydrates depressurize and decompose, liberating methane.
Short term effects are that the weather gets very warm, very fast. Canada opens to settlement. Long term effects (that haven't really kicked in yet) is that low lands are flooded and the rain belts shift. Greenland is now an archipelago, but Antarctica is still covered with ice so the sea level has only risen thirty feet or so.
Lots of immigrants are flooded out from all over the world, and lots of land in America is waiting for them to settle. Not so many from Europe, though, since large areas of northern Europe are ready for farming now and have three crops a year. Lack of rainfall in the south of Europe is more of a problem.

[zoomar]

How about this, also a little ASB-ish.

During prehistory there had been just enough contact between old and new worlds to give Native Americans resistance to old world diseases. So, when serious European settlement of north america (north of Mexico) began in the late 1600s, native population over the whole continent was significantly larger that in OTL (say 50-60 million), and instead of contracting when exposed to european populations, Indian populations remained stable or grew. Although there was conflict between europeans and Indians, Indians were better positioned demographically to withstand outright decimation and assimilated more readily to european culture farming/settled culture (plus, there was less euro-american perception that the continent was an empty vacuum in which to push Indians into). As medical practices, etc improve in the 19th century and more natives adopt intensive agricultural practices than in OTL, population of both groups expand. In 1848 the conquest of Mexico and its vast Aztec/Hispanic population doubles the US population. In the 20th century, with further improvements in health, santitation, and and life-expectancy, the US population triples, with no substantial loss in individual living standards. The USA passes 1 billion people on July 4, 1998.

[DominusNovus]

Zoomar, good, but the POD has to be after 1800...
Willis, thats mildly overkill (there's an oxymoron for ya).
New restriction: No climatological changes.

[tom]

You would need Canada, Mexico, a push for better medical technology throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, and all three of your suggestions...and even that might not be enough.

[Xen]

I know you said only Canada, and Mexico, nothing else, but that goes against early US Policy.

The US annexes Mexico in 1848
The US accepts the Domincan Republic in 1865, purchases Alaska 1867
-Civil War avoided, slavery ended in 1880 after slave revolt
The US pushes its Manifest Destiny into Central America in the 1880s
Spanish-American War the US expands to include Cuba, Puerto Rico and Philippines
US annexes Hawaii and Haiti
US spat with Britain over Hawaii and Venezuela in late 1890s
US joins Germans in WWI, takes Canada, Jamaica, and Bahamas
Post war population boom especially in Mexico
Pacific war with Japan
Another Population boom
US reaches 1 billion people in 2002

[danwild6]

Just have the US conquer all of the Americas

[Johnrankins]

1) Even more wars in Europe in the 19th century to get more immigration then
2) Virginia bans slavery in 1832 so there is more immigration down south and there is no ACW
3) Higher European population due to 1 reduces the "Yellow Peril" scare in the early 20th century allowing for somewhat more Chinese immigration
4) Immigration laws stay loose so there is pretty much unrestricted immigration until now

[Ferreolus]

1) Congress doesn't abolish the slave trade, so more slaves are imported, which, of course, lead to more citizens by our time.
If Congress doesn't abolish it, the British will do it a short time later. Not a large time window for increased African immigration.

3) Outlaw abortion. This should give us a few more million people.
I think getting rid of AIDS and the birth control pill and will be much more effective.

[Johnrankins]

If Congress doesn't abolish it, the British will do it a short time later. Not a large time window for increased African immigration.


I think getting rid of AIDS and the birth control pill and will be much more effective.

cumulative number of deaths of persons with AIDS in the U.S. through 2007 to be 583,298
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_United_States#Current_status

Total Abortions until 2006 over 62 MILLION! http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/family_planning_abortions.html

[Roberto]

I'd say a lighter higher import rate of slaves, for a little longer than OTL, and no Civil War would do it. Remember, the Civil War stunted population rates for quite a while, and the damage done in the war was enough to distribute increases for a generation or more. Really, a strong, but not too strong federal government as a lasting trend would be the best.

[Roberto]

For example, in Thande's LTTW, the Empire of North America shows a distinct trend in prosperity, a federal government that can support itself, high rates of immigration (from Popular War-torn Europe and South America), and an abundance of available, fertile land. It would do amazingly well population wise, barring disruption in any of the above negative forces.

[Elfwine]

http://www.1930census.com/1860_census.php

Compare to 1850 and 1870. (and 1870 to 1880).

The population is growing very rapidly. I would not describe it as "stunted" by the ACW, even if it is a lower percentage between 1860-1870 than 1850-1860.

I'm not sure the US is capable of supporting a population of a billion people by the present - accelerating growth rates to that level would be challenging to support.

[danwild6]

In order for America to be a billion strong and be wealthy I believe it would require domination of the entire hemisphere.

[Finn]

In order for America to be a billion strong and be wealthy I believe it would require domination of the entire hemisphere.

That's pretty much already true OTL. Unless by dominate you mean "puppets and direct incorporation."

[Johnrankins]

In order for America to be a billion strong and be wealthy I believe it would require domination of the entire hemisphere.


The US ALREADY dominates the hemisphere. If you mean take it all over, no. It is only triple the current population and the country is still largely empty between the Missippi River and the West Coast.

[Elfwine]

North America in 2004 seems to be about a third of a billion.

The Western Hemisphere all totaled might reach a billion.

Having trouble finding a good source for either though.

John: But how much of that area is realistically capable of supporting more people (with present technology/agriculture)?

[Johnrankins]

North America in 2004 seems to be about a third of a billion.

The Western Hemisphere all totaled might reach a billion.

Having trouble finding a good source for either though.

John: But how much of that area is realistically capable of supporting more people (with present technology/agriculture)?


With TODAY'S technology? Pretty much all of it. Outside of the coldest areas of the world you can grow food almost anywhere these days.

[Elfwine]

With TODAY'S technology? Pretty much all of it. Outside of the coldest areas of the world you can grow food almost anywhere these days.

Doing so (to the extent they're as densely populated as say California or New York) in say, Nevada-Utah sounds like an...extensive...project.

Expensive and I don't even want to think about where the water is being drained away from.

[Johnrankins]

Doing so (to the extent they're as densely populated as say California or New York) in say, Nevada-Utah sounds like an...extensive...project.

Expensive and I don't even want to think about where the water is being drained away from.


It doesn't need to be nearly that densely populated. Very little of the country is actually that densely populated and you need to merely triple the population not go up by a factor of ten or more.

[Elfwine]

It doesn't need to be nearly that densely populated. Very little of the country is actually that densely populated and need to merely triple the population not go up by a factor of ten or more.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

The US on the whole has a population of 79.556 people per square mile as of 2000 - total population 281,424,602.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

California has 217.182 per square mile as of 2000 - total population 33,871,648

So according to my calculator:

A US as densely populated as California would have a population of about 768,270,413 in 2000.

I've been known to make stupid math errors, so if this is one of them, please let me know.

But assuming I haven't errored (and all of this is assuming the site is accurate), let's compare this to "as densely populated as New York", which is more densely populated than California:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html

New York: 401.933 per square mile. A US as densely populated as New York would have 1,421,815,548 in 2000.

China: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/DissectingChinas2000Census.aspx

In other words, more people than in China. My head hurts just imagining supporting that many people.

[Jasen777]

With TODAY'S technology? Pretty much all of it. Outside of the coldest areas of the world you can grow food almost anywhere these days.

Anywhere you can get fresh water to, and there's already water issues, or inevitable coming issues in the next couple of decades, in many parts of the west. Doubling the population is likely impossible.

[Elfwine]

Anywhere you can get fresh water to, and there's already water issues, or inevitable coming issues in the next couple of decades, in many parts of the west. Doubling the population is likely impossible.

Are we ruling out "conditions in which the living would envy the dead"?

I mean, no one said this challenge had to be a US anyone would want to live in. :D

If we tried really hard, I'm sure we could find a way to increase the fresh water supply.

Or maybe if we didn't try very hard. But that's going beyond macabrely amusing into depressing.

[Johnrankins]

Anywhere you can get fresh water to, and there's already water issues, or inevitable coming issues in the next couple of decades, in many parts of the west. Doubling the population is likely impossible.

If nothing else you can build a few nuclear power plants, desalinate the water of the Pacific Ocean and send water inland. Fairly expensive but it certainly could be done. Not that we would need to. The US exports a lot of food AND it its agriculture is far from the most efficient on a per acre basis. We are very efficient in using less labor. With the low population density of the US we trade land for labor. Europe tends to get better yield per acre than we do but it uses considerably more labor to do it. This makes perfect sense from an economic point of view.

[Catmo]

I think the ASBish Global Warming idea from the first follow up would reduce population. Many of the most populated areas of the US would be rendered uninhabitable by the warming. Florida and the fairly densly populated Gulf Coast would be unavailable. Mobile, New Orleans, and Houston would disappear. Trade along the Mississippi would be problematic and disruption of the Gulf Coast and most of the Chesapeake would devastate world trade.

Making the Native Americans more disease resistant and more willing to adapt to European style farming is the best idea so far. I don't think reducing birth control and abortion would make that much a difference. People have ways of limiting family size without these options, and they only made a difference from the 1940's on. Too little too late.

I think we need to start with disease resistant Native Americans. Don't know how we're coing to get that in a post 1800 POD, so let's just say the indians were lucky and were just somewhat more resistant to small pox and were cool with giving up the plains life to become farmers. This might add a hundred million to the 2011 population.

We need to reduce the effects of disease. Direct inoculation for smallpox was practiced in the colonial era. Let's get the cowpox vaccina virus domesticated a little earlier and have Andrew Jackson promote the vaccine and fund further vaccine research. Let's have the Millerites be historical a-mellinealists instead of the dooms day movements they were. They believe that the millenium is the here and now, that it is our duty to promote human growth through the prevention of disease and switching to a more vegetarian diet. They heavily promote the study of disease propagation. Sewers and water supplies are improved. Mosquitoes are discovered to be a vector of disease. Scientists discover that the mosquitoes that are most likely to spread disease breed in manmade containers. Strict laws are passed against flowerpot holders and people are careful to dump out small containers of water. Malaria, yellow fever, and SLE become rare. Vaccines for mumps and measles are discovered by the 1910's.

But even this is not enough. I f we want east Asian densities, we have to import some east Asian practices. A one billion America needs food. Lots of food, and it needs to start getting it before we have fertilizers and pesticides. We need RICE! Rice was popular in the southern US throughout the 1800s. The Gullah people of the Carolinas were pretty good rice growers using their West African techniques, but I think they directly sowed the rice into the fields. We need to get the Asian technique of planting hotbox seedlings by hand into the fields imported into the US. It's labor intensive, but could add one more crop a year and maybe two more a year in Florida.

We also need to make farming sacrosanct and support that with tax breaks and subsidies, Cities need to grow up rather than out. Farmland near cities needs to be preserved. Street rail and subways need to come to the rice bowl of the Gulf Coast. The western suburbs of Houston were all rice farms when I was a kid. Harris County could still hold three million people as it does today with denser development preserving the rice farms. We could hit five million and still have a few rice farms.

Now add up denser development, farm preservation, better farming techniques, no smallpox by 1840, no cholera by 1870, no mumps or measles by 1915. Add the Haber Process and few pesticides in the 1920s and you've easily got a half billion by 1950. Add Cuba, most of Canada, and most of Mexico, and moderate population growth coupled with these additions would tip us over a billion by 2010.

[Johnrankins]

I think the ASBish Global Warming idea from the first follow up would reduce population. Many of the most populated areas of the US would be rendered uninhabitable by the warming. Florida and the fairly densly populated Gulf Coast would be unavailable. Mobile, New Orleans, and Houston would disappear. Trade along the Mississippi would be problematic and disruption of the Gulf Coast and most of the Chesapeake would devastate world trade.

Making the Native Americans more disease resistant and more willing to adapt to European style farming is the best idea so far. I don't think reducing birth control and abortion would make that much a difference. People have ways of limiting family size without these options, and they only made a difference from the 1940's on. Too little too late.

I think we need to start with disease resistant Native Americans. Don't know how we're coing to get that in a post 1800 POD, so let's just say the indians were lucky and were just somewhat more resistant to small pox and were cool with giving up the plains life to become farmers. This might add a hundred million to the 2011 population.

We need to reduce the effects of disease. Direct inoculation for smallpox was practiced in the colonial era. Let's get the cowpox vaccina virus domesticated a little earlier and have Andrew Jackson promote the vaccine and fund further vaccine research. Let's have the Millerites be historical a-mellinealists instead of the dooms day movements they were. They believe that the millenium is the here and now, that it is our duty to promote human growth through the prevention of disease and switching to a more vegetarian diet. They heavily promote the study of disease propagation. Sewers and water supplies are improved. Mosquitoes are discovered to be a vector of disease. Scientists discover that the mosquitoes that are most likely to spread disease breed in manmade containers. Strict laws are passed against flowerpot holders and people are careful to dump out small containers of water. Malaria, yellow fever, and SLE become rare. Vaccines for mumps and measles are discovered by the 1910's.

But even this is not enough. I f we want east Asian densities, we have to import some east Asian practices. A one billion America needs food. Lots of food, and it needs to start getting it before we have fertilizers and pesticides. We need RICE! Rice was popular in the southern US throughout the 1800s. The Gullah people of the Carolinas were pretty good rice growers using their West African techniques, but I think they directly sowed the rice into the fields. We need to get the Asian technique of planting hotbox seedlings by hand into the fields imported into the US. It's labor intensive, but could add one more crop a year and maybe two more a year in Florida.

We also need to make farming sacrosanct and support that with tax breaks and subsidies, Cities need to grow up rather than out. Farmland near cities needs to be preserved. Street rail and subways need to come to the rice bowl of the Gulf Coast. The western suburbs of Houston were all rice farms when I was a kid. Harris County could still hold three million people as it does today with denser development preserving the rice farms. We could hit five million and still have a few rice farms.

Now add up denser development, farm preservation, better farming techniques, no smallpox by 1840, no cholera by 1870, no mumps or measles by 1915. Add the Haber Process and few pesticides in the 1920s and you've easily got a half billion by 1950. Add Cuba, most of Canada, and most of Mexico, and moderate population growth coupled with these additions would tip us over a billion by 2010.


VERY ASBish. Despite what Al Gore says it would take thousands of years of elevated temperatures to melt all the ice in Greenland.

[Elfwine]

Waiting for someone to notice the population density figures of OTL vs. TTL.

So far as being able to grow food "anywhere" and all.

[Emperor Norton I]

McDonald's doesn't give all the people they've served massive coronaries.

[Johnrankins]

Waiting for someone to notice the population density figures of OTL vs. TTL.

So far as being able to grow food "anywhere" and all.


At least three reasons in the real world as far as being able to grow food almost anywhere not meaning we actually do.
1) Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you will. Like any other economic activity you exploit the easiest areas first. Why grow food in Death Valley, CA when there are cheaper places to do so? It could be done by pumping in water from elsewhere and using a lot of fertilizer but WHY do it if there are much easier places to grow food?
2) The ability to do so is relatively recent, maybe a half century or so. Places where it has been possible to grow food for a long time are going to have higher populations then areas where it hasn't.
3) Just having the theoretical ability to grow more food doesn't mean you have the money to actually do so. If it had the money to use the latest Western technology Sudan could grow a lot more food. It doesn't so it can't.

[Elfwine]

At least three reasons in the real world as far as being able to grow food almost anywhere not meaning we actually do.
1) Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you will. Like any other economic activity you exploit the easiest areas first. Why grow food in Death Valley, CA when there are cheaper places to do so? It could be done by pumping in water from elsewhere and using a lot of fertilizer but WHY do it if there are much easier places to grow food?
2) The ability to do so is relatively recent, maybe a half century or so. Places where it has been possible to grow food for a long time are going to have higher populations then areas where it hasn't.
3) Just having the theoretical ability to grow more food doesn't mean you have the money to actually do so. If it had the money to use the latest Western technology Sudan could grow a lot more food. It doesn't so it can't.

All of those point to the nonviability of supporting a billion Americans.

I take your absence of comment on the density calculations as a I sign didn't screw up the math.

[Johnrankins]

All of those point to the nonviability of supporting a billion Americans.

I take your absence of comment on the density calculations as a I sign didn't screw up the math.




1) Somewhat higher food prices will make uneconomically viable areas for growing food viable. Why go through the expense of growing food where it is at present non-economically viable? If the wholesale price of corn is at $340 a bushel instead of the $315 as it is now, it is economically viable in more place. http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=corn (http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=corn)
2) With a higher population a lot of modern technology will be used earlier.
Farmers are economically rational. They won't always use the most modern technology out there. They use the most economically viable technology out there. If food prices are too low for them to use the newer and more expensive technology and make money they won't do so.
3). The US has the largest economy in the World. Money is not the problem. The US is not Sudan by a very long shot!

I didn't crunch your numbers before but as dense as CA would result in a population of 845 million and NY 1 billion 451 million.
The US is now 179th out of 241 countries as far as population density is concerned. Tripling it population would make it only 109th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories _by_population_density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories _by_population_density)
This means even with triple the population almost half the countries in the world would still have higher population density than the US.

[Elfwine]

1) Will only work up to a point. Otherwise overpopulation and famine would not exist.

2) And that will only go so far given the sheer number of mouths we're talking about.

3) The amount of money to go from something able to reasonably comfortably support less than a third of a billion to a billion people is fairly large. I wouldn't be quite so sure money is no objective.

There being even more densely populated places doesn't really address whether places like Nevada and Utah can support such dense population with the arable (and land able to be made arable) land in this country.

[Johnrankins]

1) Will only work up to a point. Otherwise overpopulation and famine would not exist.

2) And that will only go so far given the sheer number of mouths we're talking about.

3) The amount of money to go from something able to reasonably comfortably support less than a third of a billion to a billion people is fairly large. I wouldn't be quite so sure money is no objective.

There being even more densely populated places doesn't really address whether places like Nevada and Utah can support such dense population with the arable (and land able to be made arable) land in this country.


1) Most countries are MUCH poorer than the US.
2) Farther than you think. If nothing there is a LOT of national and state parkland that can be sold to farmers if necessary
3) Probably little more than more irrigation and more labor intensive farming. We trade land for labor. With more labor we don't do so as much and get higher yield per acre.

Don't need to be. Many of these countries have mountains and deserts. Do you think that is exclusive to the US? We are talking nearly half of the world's countries.

[Elfwine]

1) Most countries are MUCH poorer than the US.

So...? I have the impression this is supposed to mean that the US by definition has sufficient wealth.


2) Farther than you think. If nothing there is a LOT of national and state parkland that can be sold to farmers if necessary
Which would only go so far, again. We're looking at more than tripling food production, and I'm not sure how much land not available for farming will grow in a situation with a billion people that have to fit within the US's borders (or US+Canada+Mexico's borders).

Cities are likely to get at least somewhat bigger outward as well as upward, particularly since it is unlikely in the extreme that things will develop with maximum efficiency to begin with (that would require redesigning anything that exists as of 1800 if nothing else).

3) Don't need to be. Many of these countries have mountains and deserts. Do you think that is exclusive to the US? We are talking nearly half of the world's countries.Do need to be to support a billion Americans, or alternately, some other places need to be more densely populated.

How many of the ultradense countries other than us import food from the US and other less populated countries? Less densely or otherwise.

[Johnrankins]

So...? I have the impression this is supposed to mean that the US by definition has sufficient wealth.

Which would only go so far, again. We're looking at more than tripling food production, and I'm not sure how much land not available for farming will grow in a situation with a billion people that have to fit within the US's borders (or US+Canada+Mexico's borders).

Cities are likely to get at least somewhat bigger outward as well as upward, particularly since it is unlikely in the extreme that things will develop with maximum efficiency to begin with (that would require redesigning anything that exists as of 1800 if nothing else).

Do need to be to support a billion Americans, or alternately, some other places need to be more densely populated.

How many of the ultradense countries other than us import food from the US and other less populated countries? Less densely or otherwise.


1) Starvation has a LOT to do with wealth. The US can afford the tech.
2) I don't think you realize how much National Parkland there is. It is over 50% in some Western states.
3) Nearly half the world's countries is not ultra-dense by definition. We aren't talking 5% or 2% we are talking a little less than half.

[Elfwine]

1) Starvation has a LOT to do with wealth. The US can afford the tech.

On this scale?

2) I don't think you realize how much National Parkland there is. It is over 50% in some Western states.

Which has what to do with whether or not it is enough? Supporting a billion people takes a lot of land.


3) Nearly half the world's countries is not ultra-dense by definition. We aren't talking 5% or 2% we are talking a little less than half.

How many of the world's countries don't populations in the tens of millions?

[Johnrankins]

On this scale?


Which has what to do with whether or not it is enough? Supporting a billion people takes a lot of land.



How many of the world's countries don't populations in the tens of millions?

1) Yes
2) We have a lot of land
3) Who cares? It is population density not population that counts.

[Elfwine]

1) Yes
2) We have a lot of land
3) Who cares? It is population density not population that counts.

1) Really? And I'd like something more than a "Yes, really." How much money are we talking about for the desalination in exchange for how much water?

2) We also use a lot of it already. Relatively inefficiently or not.

3) We've gotten off the point, I think. Dense population and large total population...not such a good combination.

[Johnrankins]

1) Really? And I'd like something more than a "Yes, really." How much money are we talking about for the desalination in exchange for how much water?

2) We also use a lot of it already. Relatively inefficiently or not.

3) We've gotten off the point, I think. Dense population and large total population...not such a good combination.

1) Many countries already do so. The first one to come to mind is Israel.
2) And a LOT we don't use.
3) The population wouldn't be THAT dense. In fact it would be fairly average.

[Elfwine]

1) Many countries already do so. The first one to come to mind is Israel.


Again: On this scale? We're talking a huge amount of water here to make the difference for a tripling of the US's population.

2) And a LOT we don't use.

Which is not really the same as "enough" more.


3) The population wouldn't be THAT dense. In fact it would be fairly average.

Speaking as a Californian, it means the country on average is about twice as dense as my state is at present - more so if areas like Nevada and Utah and Alaska (especially Alaska) are left more thinly populated.

That's pretty dense. Malta might disagree, but Malta has a much smaller total population.

[Johnrankins]

Again: On this scale? We're talking a huge amount of water here to make the difference for a tripling of the US's population.



Which is not really the same as "enough" more.



Speaking as a Californian, it means the country on average is about twice as dense as my state is at present - more so if areas like Nevada and Utah and Alaska (especially Alaska) are left more thinly populated. And it wouldn't be TWICE as popultated merely 18% more populated.

That's pretty dense. Malta might disagree, but Malta has a much smaller total population.


Where in CA? There are thinly settled areas off the coast of CA. The COAST is very heavily populated but the interior isn't.

[Elfwine]

Where in CA? There are thinly settled areas off the coast of CA. The COAST is very heavily populated but the interior isn't.

Central Coast, near Santa Cruz (nonincorporated town near said city). And I'm using the California average density here for that statement.

[Johnrankins]

Central Coast, near Santa Cruz (nonincorporated town near said city). And I'm using the California average density here for that statement.

You would need an average density of only 18% higher than CA to have support a billion people. CA is able to feed itself. An 18% increase in its food production wouldn't be that difficult.

[Elfwine]

You would need an average density of only 18% higher than CA to have support a billion people. CA is able to feed itself. An 18% increase in its food production wouldn't be that difficult.

And an increase of the average density of the US on the whole by a lot more than 18%. California is (compared to the US average) quite dense. Not the highest, but not exactly low.

Feeding 40-45 million people is a lot easier than over twenty times as many.

[Johnrankins]

And an increase of the average density of the US on the whole by a lot more than 18%. California is (compared to the US average) quite dense. Not the highest, but not exactly low.

Feeding 40-45 million people is a lot easier than over twenty times as many.

I cruched your numbers. It was 18% more dense. CA has a lot of open area in the interior.

[Elfwine]

I cruched your numbers. It was 18% more dense. CA has a lot of open area in the interior.

18% than California =/= 18% dense than the US average.

Are we arguing past each other?

[Johnrankins]

18% than California =/= 18% dense than the US average.

Are we arguing past each other?

If the country as a whole had the same population density as CA it would have a population of about 845 million. A billion is a thousand million 1,000/845 = A little over 1.18.

[Elfwine]

If the country as a whole had the same population density as CA it would have a population of about 845 million. A billion is a thousand million 1,000/845 = A little over 1.18.

Ah, gotcha.

But that would be significantly more dense (as well as a much larger total population) than it is now, on average. So US food production would need to go up by a lot more than 18%.

[Johnrankins]

Ah, gotcha.

But that would be significantly more dense (as well as a much larger total population) than it is now, on average. So US food production would need to go up by a lot more than 18%.


Of course it would. It would have to go up nearly 3 times. But the average would still be only 18% better than CA. We are talking about changing a high tech, low density country to a high tech, medium density one. The US should have no problems raising enough good.

[Elfwine]

Of course it would. It would have to go up nearly 3 times. But the average would still be only 18% better than CA. We are talking about changing a high tech, low density country to a high tech, medium density one. The US should have no problems raising enough good.

High tech, medium density, enormous population.

[Johnrankins]

High tech, medium density, enormous population.
Population doesn't matter nearly as much as density. If you have more land you can feed more people from it.

[Elfwine]

Population doesn't matter nearly as much as density. If you have more land you can feed more people from it.

If that land can support that many people.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2010/01_12_2010.asp

Things like this would need to be three times as high, or three times as much land would have to be put under equally effective cultivation.

[Johnrankins]

If that land can support that many people.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2010/01_12_2010.asp

Things like this would need to be three times as high, or three times as much land would have to be put under equally effective cultivation.


Probably a combination of both. So what? That isn't that difficult to imagine. Also we export a LOT of our food.

[Elfwine]

Probably a combination of both. So what? That isn't that difficult to imagine. Also we export a LOT of our food.

Did you read the link?

And exporting "a lot" doesn't really mean very much. I mean, let's say we produce enough food for four hundred million people.

We have a bit under a third of a billion. That leaves "a lot" being exported...but not as a percentage of total production.

[sudfamsci]

half of our food is wasted and we're the leading food producer feeding 1 billion isn't the problem it is getting them here after modernization. we produce $200 billion worth of food

[Elfwine]

half of our food is wasted and we're the leading food producer feeding 1 billion isn't the problem it is getting them here after modernization. we produce $200 billion worth of food

Half our food being wasted means...what?

$200 billion worth of food is enough to feed how many people?

[Johnrankins]

Did you read the link?

And exporting "a lot" doesn't really mean very much. I mean, let's say we produce enough food for four hundred million people.

We have a bit under a third of a billion. That leaves "a lot" being exported...but not as a percentage of total production.

US corn exports total about 81 million tons. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Corn/2010baseline.htm Remember also that a lot of corn is used to make ethenol and meat. Eliminate ethenol and cut back somewhat on meat and it is even higher. The US would have no problems growing enough food. That is among the last things I would worry about.

[Elfwine]

US corn exports total about 81 million tons. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Corn/2010baseline.htm Remember also that a lot of corn is used to make ethenol and meat. Eliminate ethenol and cut back somewhat on meat and it is even higher. The US would have no problems growing enough food. That is among the last things I would worry about.

Why so certain?

We're talking about huge quantities of food production...but also huge needs. That aspect seems to be downplayed here by use of "lots of food" as if quantities to the point of excess (and export) at a third of a billion could be greatly increased despite having only so much arable land.

So really, I'd like to see something about how many people the amount of food we currently produce feeds (here and abroad) before switching off my natural pessimism.

[danwild6]

Currently the Americas right now maintains a population just over 900,000,000.

The Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas)

I don't think the Continental United States can maintain a population of 1 billion people and still be wealthy.

[Catmo]

VERY ASBish. Despite what Al Gore says it would take thousands of years of elevated temperatures to melt all the ice in Greenland.

Yes, it's ASBish to have global warming to have so rapid an effect. However, global warming could be a serious issue even if it happens slowly.

But I was more trying to address the idea that global warming could increase population even as it destroys our cities and farmland.

[Johnrankins]

Currently the Americas right now maintains a population just over 900,000,000.

The Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas)

I don't think the Continental United States can maintain a population of 1 billion people and still be wealthy.


How far behind is Latin America again?

[Tsochar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_population_density_(base d_on_food_growing_capacity)

This is probably a useful link.
If we look at the countries at the top of the list, many of these are net importers of food and the like, and many of them are island nations that derive a great deal of sustenance from fishing (which is not counted on the list). It is interesting to note that three of the Asian Tigers (Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea) all cluster together around the 3000 people/km^2 mark.

The USA has the largest amount of arable land in the world. If we take China as a theoretical near-maximum (they had to institute the one-child policy to keep feeding their people, remember), that works out to the US being able to support at most 1.5 billion people. The real population density for 1 billion would be around 600/km^2. This corresponds to central american countries such as Panama and Honduras.

It's definitely possible for the US to have so many people, but where would all the extra people come from? The 1800 census put the US as having 5.3 million people. That's a 2% growth per annum over 210 years, which is a phenomenal rate of growth for that length of time. However, we need something more in the neighborhood of 2.5%. Mexico, Indonesia, and India all managed rates in the 2% neighborhood over the last century, but not 2.5. For this, we might need to narrow our focus to the last half-century.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o259/tsochar/growth2.png

Here is a list of all countries that are expected to have sustained a growth rate of 2.5% or more from 1950-2015, sorted by 2015 population because small countries can sustain much higher levels of growth from immigration and so on. If this can be extrapolated back to 1800 *snicker*, we can use these cases to find out how exactly we can get the USA to a billion people.
You've probably noticed that all these countries are either small or were very poor in 1950, or quite possibly both.


In order for population growth to be high enough, there needs to be an impetus to have many children, and the best way to have that would be to sink the American economy. Here's my super-unlikely scenario:

Thanks to some minor PoDs between 1800 and 1812 (perhaps a famine or a major political scandal, or both), the war of 1812 turns into a disaster for the US forces, leading Britain to claim the United States as a protectorate and puppet state. Aiming to cripple their ability to revolt ever again, the British enforce the laws against the slave trade in the South. As a result, southern plantation owners decide that forcibly breeding their slaves for quantity and quality would be the best way to maintain their stock in the long-term. The black population flourishes.
Meanwhile, in the North, tariffs and restrictions aimed at making sure the British Isles reap the lion's share of the profits in the USA causes a very deliberate gap between the rich and poor; a pro-british de facto aristocracy is established and the poor northern workers live in squalor. British entrepreneurs are attracted to the United States due to relaxed child labor laws. As a result of this, an economic dynamic is built up that encourages the births of many children.
In the Missouri Territory, disenfranchised whites (in the north) and escaped blacks (in the south) establish their own settlements; thanks to the southern breeding practices, the latter populations explode. White settlers looking to escape British rule settle into Texas, whose English-speaking population grows more than in OTL.
When Texas wants to be incorporated into the US, the British help the Mexicans to crush the rebellion, fearing that allowing the US more land would increase its chances of revolting. As a result, Texas is established properly as non-slavery territory, and many more blacks run there to escape oppression (there are many more successful escapes in this TL thanks to the higher black population and anti-slavery sentiment in Mexico; a second "underground railroad" to Texas is quite possible.)
When gold is discovered in California in the 1850s, Britain turns around and declares war on Mexico, eventually winning and establishing the Dominion of California. Britain encourages immigration to the new dominion. Texas takes this opportunity to declare independence from Mexico, although Britain continues to block its annexation into the US.
By the 1870s, enough Americans had been educated in Britain and become successful businessmen in the Empire that they were able to foster enough nationalist sentiment to wage a successful revolution, overthrowing the British puppet government. They annex Texas, which by this time managed nearly 5 million people, with slightly more blacks than whites; by this time nearly 80 million people are Americans, 30% of which are of African descent. On the other hand, the American economy had been exploited to the point where it was still a distant second to Britain.
The political situation in the new nation is less stable than when the US was founded. Big businesses are given an inordinate amount of power, and the gap between rich and poor increases; the middle class that came to dominate American economy IOTL doesn't grow to the same extent. This would eventually cause an economic crash in the early 20th century; combined with lower standards of living than IOTL, the population starts reproducing more once again. This era might include a working-class revolution, as Marx predicted, which may be successful or unsuccessful.
The world wars are going to be unpredictably different in this TL; perhaps the US could end up on opposite sides of Canada and Mexico and take some territory and population from both countries. In the postwar era the global population would grow more rapidly than usual; immigration to the US would be more common. It is in this era that the greatest amount of population growth would be seen; the USA passes the 1 billion mark in 2004. While great strides will have been made in this time, and its economy would probably be the largest in the world, its standards of living and quality of life would lag significantly behind the developed world.

[Tsochar]

Oh wow, did my wall of text murder the thread?

[Elfwine]

I hope not. I'm not sure what to make of your proposed scenario though.

[Yossarian]

Okay, I'm not ready to put a timeline yet, but here's a list of things that could pump up the population:

Slave trade lasts longer
Annexing Canada and Mexico
No halt on immigration from China and Japan
No effective halt to all immigration in the early 1900's
Ban on abortion and anti-contraceptive policies (maybe as a result of a larger Catholic population because of Mexico)
More wars and general crappiness elsewhere drives people to the US.

I think a big help would be some kind of movement for open borders relatively early in American history, advocating accepting all peaceful immigrants, perhaps as a part of some manifest destiny plan to make more Americans, either by conquering outsiders, or just letting them come here.

[Badshah]

The population will probably become a billion within hundred years, but I don't see a way of making it happen in the present.

[thekingsguard]

Bring in Canada and Mexico earlier on and you could easily have a USA that had a population around 500-600 million. Loosen immigration restrictions, keep birth control and abortion use WAY below OTL levels, and then count in the previously discused population density/tech improvents and a billion is easily achievable

[Elfwine]

Question: How long did it take China to reach a billion, and with what amount of effort?

Or India, if we can find totals for the region that is now one state far back enough (1800 or earlier).

Picking the two places on Earth that have hit that mark, because its all too easy to say that some changes would make it "easy" without looking at what we have illustrating what a billion people in one country looks like.

[Tsochar]

Question: How long did it take China to reach a billion, and with what amount of effort?

It all depends on the starting point. China had something like 120 million people in 1800, and India had something like 250 million (though that included Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma; the total for modern-day India would probably be a bit less than 200 million), whereas the US had just 5.3 million.

I was going to just type out this next point, but I opened Excel and next thing I knew, it was two hours later and I had this pretty chart and graph. Note that growth figures are for the *prior* ten years, not the following.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o259/tsochar/USgrowth.png
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o259/tsochar/USPopulationGrowth_small.png

As you can see, immigration to the new world fueled a rapid expansion; 3% annual growth over a sustained period is nothing to scoff at; it's the equivalent of having a fertility rate of 5-6 children per woman. Further, there was a serious speed bump at the time of the civil war; the growth rate sprung back up immediately afterwards, but continued a slow decline and reached its nadir during the Great Depression. Of course, then you have the baby boomer era immediately after World War 2.

First off, you would need to butterfly away most major wars; the French and Indian wars, the Civil War, and maybe even the Revolutionary War and World War 1 (though oddly enough not the Mexican-American War; the figure might have been inflated a little by the accession of Texas, but I don't think it would have had so much impact. It is a mystery.)
After you've achieved peace and stability, the birth rate is probably going to drop anyways due to said peace and stability and the corresponding rise in living standards. It's something of a catch-22. In my scenario, I put an oppressive imperial system in the style of a banana republic keeping the majority of people poor while avoiding major conflicts. I also didn't specifically say so, but I imagined that with the US as a protectorate or puppet state, people from other places in the British Empire would be brought in to do menial labor, like India or Egypt, to bolster immigration; I imagine that if Britain had a hand in American policy, they might encourage higher immigration quotas for the sake of their own profits. Perhaps in addition to this a sentiment could have evolved among Americans to "out-breed the foreigners" or something.

In any case, it's quite a stretch to get a billion people in the US with an 1800 PoD.

[Socrates]

Not convinced that land capabilities are holding back the current US population. That may have been true of Europe several centuries ago, but the huge incomes of post-industrial socities could easily afford the extra necessities. I mean, look at a poor country like India, which has a billion people - are you really telling me that India has greater productive capacity than the USA?

The US is connected to global markets in food and energy (i.e. oil) after all. Water would be the biggest issue and desalinisation, while expensive, could still be afforded while keeping incomes above marginal product of labour levels. It would just mean lower living standards relative to OTL, and even then, I can't see them falling below at worse, say, Portuguese levels. And Portugal isn't suffering population declines due to lack of food, water, fuel is it?

Best way to do it would be to keep religion a much bigger issue, as religious people have a lot more kids. This could be true for both the US for internal growth, and for Europe, to have a bigger pool of population there wanting to leave. Then have another couple rounds of Napoleonic war style conflicts over the course of the 19th Century for a lot more people wanting to leave Europe.

There would also be second order effects: higher populations mean poorer living standards, greater poverty means more religious belief, more religious belief means more kids. Look at India.

Add in Mexico's population and you could probably get there.

[Elfwine]

It all depends on the starting point. China had something like 120 million people in 1800, and India had something like 250 million (though that included Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma; the total for modern-day India would probably be a bit less than 200 million), whereas the US had just 5.3 million.


Much appreciated (on this and the figures/calculations).


Socrates: I wouldn't say its meaningfully holding it back from growing a bit at normal-ish rates, I would say that it is holding back the US from tripling its current population. That's an enormous amount of extra mouths to feed, and from where?

On Portugal/Portugese living standards: Portugal isn't trying to maintain a billion people. It not suffering from a lack of food, water, fuel is a lot easier with a lot fewer in absolute terms.

And if the US has really low living standards, kiss the floods of people who want to come here goodbye, and say hello to floods who want to leave.

I don't know how India and China maintain it, but starting with a much higher population makes it easier to reach there.

[Catmo]

Best way to do it would be to keep religion a much bigger issue, as religious people have a lot more kids. This could be true for both the US for internal growth, and for Europe, to have a bigger pool of population there wanting to leave. Then have another couple rounds of Napoleonic war style conflicts over the course of the 19th Century for a lot more people wanting to leave Europe.


I think Amillennialism could be key here. Instead of the doomsday movements of the late 19th century, we could have pro-science amillnnealist movements. The kingdom of God is ours to create.

[Socrates]

Socrates: I wouldn't say its meaningfully holding it back from growing a bit at normal-ish rates, I would say that it is holding back the US from tripling its current population. That's an enormous amount of extra mouths to feed, and from where?

In terms of the capacity to feed people, the EU does pretty fine with a population density four times that of the USA, and it's not even beginning to have issues with food. In fact, it needs to subsidise agriculture to keep farmers in business, because there is an excess of land dedicated to farming output.

India is about ten times denser - and their population is still surging. Yes, their average incomes are miserable, but this is due to lower technology levels, not food shortages. This later point is demonstrated by the fact that now they have exposure to world markets their growth is surging to catch up with the West, as it is way below equilibrium.

And that's before we even consider the ability to import. Even with much reduced living standards, Americans are many times richer than Asian counterparts. Even if you got to the point of a lack of global capacity to feed the world (which you wouldn't), it would simply mean Chinese peasants would starve, not Americans. Similar things would work out for fuel (which can also be grown, or produced from atoms in the case of nuclear).

Your biggest issue is water - but we have desalinisation for that. Imagine if you tripled your water bill, what real effect would it have on your income?

And if the US has really low living standards, kiss the floods of people who want to come here goodbye, and say hello to floods who want to leave.

This is a valid point, but you are exagerrating it's effects. American incomes could drop a lot over the last two hundred years but they'd still be well above European levels - particularly Eastern Europe. Until pretty recently, much of the continent survived on just a few thousand dollars a year - and that's still the case in places like Moldova.

I do agree that the rate coming across would fall, all other things being equal. But they're not all equal in my scenario - a higher birth rate and more wars in Europe would become problems there, making up for any lost effect.

I don't know how India and China maintain it, but starting with a much higher population makes it easier to reach there.

You're underestimating the effect of compounding growth rates. Over a hundred year period, if you start with the same beginning population, and increase the average growth rate from 5% to 7%, you increase the final population more than sixfold. The starting place is a very, very small part of it - that's why there's so many people in the world descended from England, Scotland and Ireland - three very small medieval populations.

[Elfwine]

In terms of the capacity to feed people, the EU does pretty fine with a population density four times that of the USA, and it's not even beginning to have issues with food. In fact, it needs to subsidise agriculture to keep farmers in business, because there is an excess of land dedicated to farming output.

And how much food does it import from the US?

] India is about ten times denser - and their population is still surging. Yes, their average incomes are miserable, but this is due to lower technology levels, not food shortages. This later point is demonstrated by the fact that now they have exposure to world markets their growth is surging to catch up with the West, as it is way below equilibrium.


And food shortages are not exactly a nonissue, if memory serves.


And that's before we even consider the ability to import. Even with much reduced living standards, Americans are many times richer than Asian counterparts. Even if you got to the point of a lack of global capacity to feed the world (which you wouldn't), it would simply mean Chinese peasants would starve, not Americans. Similar things would work out for fuel (which can also be grown, or produced from atoms in the case of nuclear).


Assuming Americans reach anywhere near the living standards we enjoy in a situation where the population is outpacing Russia (see below figures).


Your biggest issue is water - but we have desalinisation for that. Imagine if you tripled your water bill, what real effect would it have on your income?


Since I'm a live-at-home student, you'd have to ask my mom, but I think the amount it would cost to more than triple the water supply would more than triple the water bill.


This is a valid point, but you are exagerrating it's effects. American incomes could drop a lot over the last two hundred years but they'd still be well above European levels - particularly Eastern Europe. Until pretty recently, much of the continent survived on just a few thousand dollars a year - and that's still the case in places like Moldova.

I do agree that the rate coming across would fall, all other things being equal. But they're not all equal in my scenario - a higher birth rate and more wars in Europe would become problems there, making up for any lost effect.

American incomes in a situation where the US is becoming increasingly large would compare increasingly unfavorably to Europe - particularly as the best reason for high wages here has been a shortage of labor.

A higher birth rate and more wars in Europe vs. the Land Where Those Who Got There First Took All the Opportunies.

Incidentally, for the sake of comparison (from the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers), the following for 1914:

Nation/National income in billions/population in millions/per capita income.
US: 37/98/$377
Britain: 11/45/$244
Germany: 12/65/$184
France 6/39/$153
Italy: 4/37/$108
Austria-Hungary: 3/52/$57
Russia: 7/171/$41
Japan: 2/55/$36

So that puts the US above (Japan not counting): Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, if we simply triple the population. Obviously its not that simple, but the point of this is to illustrate how the US compares.


You're underestimating the effect of compounding growth rates. Over a hundred year period, if you start with the same beginning population, and increase the average growth rate from 5% to 7%, you increase the final population more than sixfold. The starting place is a very, very small part of it - that's why there's so many people in the world descended from England, Scotland and Ireland - three very small medieval populations.

Compounding growth rates only go so far, though. The US is starting at a 1/40th of India in 1800.

The starting place is enough of it to mean that such a wide gap is going to take a long time to close.

[DominusNovus]

Sorry to necro this a bit (but only by a year and a few months!), but I had to weigh in on the population density matter.

Simply put: There's no economic reason why the US could not support a population density similar to the European Union, roughly 300 people/square mile. In fact, of the 3 major countries in the EU, France's population density is 300, Germany's is 600, and Britain's is 700. If Europe can handle it, so can America.

Here's a website I've always found useful in such matters.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

[Kaptin Kurk]

In 1800, it's discovered that drinking water from the Mississippi on a regular basis slows the aging process. Thus, the American death-rate plumets, while immigration and birth-rates remain the same.

[CalBear]

What is it will all the grave-digging today?

Día de los Muertos isn't for five weeks.