1 billion Americans Challenge

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.

Global Warming in 1800 a la ASB

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.

No epidemics

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.

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.

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.

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

The Dark Lord of Necromancers

Just have the US conquer all of the Americas

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

DominusNovus said:

1) Congress doesn't abolish the slave trade, so more slaves are imported, which, of course, lead to more citizens by our time.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Ferreolus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/sta...iages_divorces/family_planning_abortions.html

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.

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.

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.

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

danwild6 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

danwild6 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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)?

Elfwine said:

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)?

Click to expand...

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.

Johnrankins said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Elfwine said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.