How many people can live in Alaska?

[Noravea]

I was wondering for a TL I was planning where the US Balkanizes in the late 1800s, and I was wondering, how many people can Alaska theoretically hold if it utilized its environment and resources completely? I plan on Anchorage being the capital of this Independent Alaska.

[Volksgrenadier2006]

Can or will hold?
Alaska is the most subsidised state in the union isnt it?
So if authonimous its peopulation will probably shrink.

[d32123]

Originally Posted by Volksgrenadier2006

Can or will hold?
Alaska is the most subsidised state in the union isnt it?
So if authonimous its peopulation will probably shrink.

I could see it being like many of the oil-rich gulf states with a small population of citizens with tons of foreign guest workers. They'd probably be a massive food importer too.

[Iori]

Depends on the technology level.

Before the advent of modern technology only about 200,000 maximum, with a more likely population of around 70,000.

Now after the advent of modern technology it only depends on how much money you're willing to spend; theoretically you could house millions in Alaska if you were willing to spend the money, time and resources on building giant climate controlled cities (either underground or in geodesic domes).

[jacobus]

Do you mean, before or after it melts?

[invol]

Originally Posted by Iori

Now after the advent of modern technology it only depends on how much money you're willing to spend; theoretically you could house millions in Alaska if you were willing to spend the money, time and resources on building giant climate controlled cities (either underground or in geodesic domes).

also:

Originally Posted by d32123

I could see it being like many of the oil-rich gulf states with a small population of citizens with tons of foreign guest workers. They'd probably be a massive food importer too.

I'm going to guess that OP is talking about modern tech times for this thread. I see Alaska using its oil wealth to develop its considerable geothermal resources for heating its cities and building massive greenhouses for crops. I know that sounds counterproductive to not just use the oil for heating, but this way they can sell almost all of the oil and still have energy for their use that can't be transferred long-distance. Don't forget that Alaska still has a lot of gold that hasn't been mined as of today. Financially they will be fine, assuming nobody tries to take them over.
Utilizing greenhouses for crops would greatly reduce the need for importing food. They would still import some food, but every nation currently does that now, so they wouldn't be unusual in that respect. Speaking of oil wealth, perhaps Anchorage could become a colder version of Dubai? Probably not, but it is an interesting idea. I agree with Anchorage being the capital though. I will never understand why Juneau is still the capital nowadays.
Also, depending on how things played out, is there a possibility of Alaska losing the panhandle? It doesn't have much value to them in a world where they have no need for a port relatively near the USA. I guess the opposite could also happen, where rich Alaska buys the Yukon land and part of BC (or at least the parts south of the Yukon River) from the UK / Canada.
Population-wise, if everything went their way, I really couldn't see them having more than half of Scandinavia's population, so 12 million? I know that sounds like a lot, but remember that this is with a massive buildup of infrastructure and nothing ever going wrong (like trouble with Japan during WWII times).

[Nilats]

I would say maximum would be 5-6 million but that would be unlikely and unsustainable.

[Iori]

Originally Posted by Nilats

I would say maximum would be 5-6 million but that would be unlikely and unsustainable.

Using present methods, it would be, yes, especially when you consider how vulnerable the population is to their lines of transport being cut half of the year.

[Phyrx]

Originally Posted by Volksgrenadier2006

Alaska is the most subsidised state in the union isnt it?

Why is that? It seems like with all the oil and gold that it would be the opposite. But I know shit about economics.

[Iori]

Originally Posted by Phyrx

Why is that? It seems like with all the oil and gold that it would be the opposite. But I know shit about economics.

I'm not sure it's the most subsidized, but to answer the question because it's cold and mostly inhospitable, plus the whole fucked-up 6 months of day and 6 months of night thing.

[Volksgrenadier2006]

Originally Posted by Phyrx

Why is that? It seems like with all the oil and gold that it would be the opposite. But I know shit about economics.

Originally Posted by Iori

I'm not sure it's the most subsidized, but to answer the question because it's cold and mostly inhospitable, plus the whole fucked-up 6 months of day and 6 months of night thing.

I guess that in deed is why they are net benificiaries.
Yes they have oil and gold, but yeah many people live there, infrastructure does not reach the remote places and so all food, goods, fuel and shit needs to be shipped and flown in and therefore needs to be heavily subsidised.

Here are some links:
Federal spending/ taxation in 2005 (alaska is 3rd)
http://taxfoundation.org/article/fed...aid-state-2005

Here is a 20 year average map, not as extreme, but still low in the list.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...s-fiscal-union

[Reylance]

Originally Posted by invol

I agree with Anchorage being the capital though. I will never understand why Juneau is still the capital nowadays.

You'll need to found Anchorage before it can be a major city. That didn't happen until the 1910s, and the city grew because it became a transportation hub and military base. The city wasn't built around any particular natural resources (oil was discovered later).

As for why the state capital is still Juneau, moving the capital would really hurt the city. The state actually voted to move the capital to Willow, north of Anchorage, but then later voted against funding the move.

[Shurik]

Originally Posted by Iori

Depends on the technology level.

Before the advent of modern technology only about 200,000 maximum, with a more likely population of around 70,000.

Now after the advent of modern technology it only depends on how much money you're willing to spend; theoretically you could house millions in Alaska if you were willing to spend the money, time and resources on building giant climate controlled cities (either underground or in geodesic domes).

Originally Posted by Iori

Using present methods, it would be, yes, especially when you consider how vulnerable the population is to their lines of transport being cut half of the year.

As a (former) Alaskan, I'm always surprised by the large number of people with very erroneous ideas of what Alaska is actually like.
There would be no need for vast "climate controlled cities", or anything else like that. Anchorage survives just fine with over a quarter of a million people with no need for underground housing, or geodesic domes.
Likewise, oil and gold are hardly the only resources Alaska has to offer. Timber, fishing, and shipping are industries with massive potential. Oil and gold are merely gravy on top of that.

And perhaps Alaska is heavily subsidized, but they can still afford a healthy stipend to every resident...

As to how many people it would support, those commenting on the importation of food are absolutely correct. Physically, Alaska could hold as many people as could ever want to move up there.

Economically, that is entirely up to how industry evolves: Japan is able to support 130 million people with next to no natural resources, and (given scarcity of land) about as much agricultural capacity as Alaska. Granted, they can't feed all their own people but how many nations can?

In a totally self-sufficient, absolutely-no-imports type scenario... it's impossible to say given that sort of situation has never happened before. But again: it would depend entirely on how things evolved from your POD. With proper cultivation and production expansion of the right sorts of foods (potatoes, etc), introduction of cold-resistant livestock (sheep, etc), and adequate development of the necessary industries: I don't see reason several million would be any strain at all given modern technology levels.

[Nugax]

Originally Posted by Shurik

As a (former) Alaskan, I'm always surprised by the large number of people with very erroneous ideas of what Alaska is actually like.
There would be no need for vast "climate controlled cities", or anything else like that. Anchorage survives just fine with over a quarter of a million people with no need for underground housing, or geodesic domes.
Likewise, oil and gold are hardly the only resources Alaska has to offer. Timber, fishing, and shipping are industries with massive potential. Oil and gold are merely gravy on top of that.

Its AH.com, people know shit about actual conditions in places. Based on the similar climatic example of Norway and the current food exports, Alaska's coastal strips food production could easily support 2-3 million+ people with a monotonous diet.

If they pulled their finger out and actually invested in infrastructure Alaska could easily be self-sufficient on industrial and residential energy needs via hydropower.

And of course in terms of space there is all you could ever need (though the flattest areas are also the few suitable places for agriculture so you'd probably want to make your cities high density even if you could sprawl).

And perhaps Alaska is heavily subsidized, but they can still afford a healthy stipend to every resident...

Duh yes? If they weren't heavily subsidized they wouldn't be able to afford such a stipend.

[Shurik]

Originally Posted by Nugax

Duh yes? If they weren't heavily subsidized they wouldn't be able to afford such a stipend.

All right, fine.

Pop: 770K
Dividends paid (2011): $1,174 per capita (year)
Fed Stipends (2011): $3,145 (same)

Dividend budget: $847m
Stimulus money: $2,270m

Only a slight deficit there.

Still, with a GDP of $50b...

Meh, I'll shut up. The economy up there is so artificial and messed up, it's not worth trying to look at anyway.

[Sub Lord Hawk]

Here's a quick map I posted in the map thread of Alaska with Yukon and nw BC.
(I have got a version without the effects.)

[Iori]

Originally Posted by Shurik

Anchorage survives just fine with over a quarter of a million people with no need for underground housing, or geodesic domes.

Yes, and it should tell you something that it contains 40% of the State population and when combined with.

While some parts of Alaska are inhabitable, most of it is not on a large scale, I mean it's pretty telling that 90% of the population lives along the Southern coast.

Also, I would'nt say it survives just fine considering they had a resource crisis a few months ago when ice blocked the port preventing ships from ducking to off-load their cargo.

Likewise, oil and gold are hardly the only resources Alaska has to offer. Timber, fishing, and shipping are industries with massive potential. Oil and gold are merely gravy on top of that.

Fishing I'd agree with, otherwise I disagree, Timber is'nt exactly rare, and exists in places it's more easy/cheap to harvest.

And perhaps Alaska is heavily subsidized, but they can still afford a healthy stipend to every resident...

You mean the Oil companies annual bribe to continue raping the land?

As soon as the Oil becomes to expensive to be worth it that will stop since the State government could'nt afford to do it without the profits from the Oil.

Economically, that is entirely up to how industry evolves: Japan is able to support 130 million people with next to no natural resources,

Japan only has 127 million people (ye, yes, I know, close enough).

That aside historically Japan did have some natural resources, they just al got used-up during Industrialization.

and (given scarcity of land) about as much agricultural capacity as Alaska. Granted, they can't feed all their own people but how many nations can?

Japan has ALOT of Farmland; 11.6% of the countries land is Arable and overall 15,633.7 miles (25,160 Km) of land is irrigated, add to this the fact to that Japan has compact farms (as opposed to being spreadout) tha are usually built right next to cities.

Yes, Japan is a net food importer, but for a country in its position it produces a massive amount of its own food as well.

[Shurik]

Originally Posted by Iori

Yes, and it should tell you something that it contains 40% of the State population and when combined with.

And 64% of Arizona’s population lives in the Phoenix Metro area, 42% of New York's population lives in New York City (not the metro area, just New York), and an even 50% of Colorado's population lives in the Denver metro area.
What’s your point?

While some parts of Alaska are inhabitable, most of it is not on a large scale, I mean it's pretty telling that 90% of the population lives along the Southern coast.

Sounds about like the population distribution of California (don't know off the top of my head). So people like to live next to the ocean and in the warmer south. Doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out.
But it also doesn't mean that the rest of the state is uninhabitable. After all, there are 3x,000 people in Fairbanks (and 3 times that in the metro area), because... well... Fairbanks exists.

Also, I would'nt say it survives just fine considering they had a resource crisis a few months ago when ice blocked the port preventing ships from ducking to off-load their cargo.

You’re talking about the refueling tanker stuck off the coast of Nome? The town of 3,500? Hardly a state wide resource crisis…

Fishing I'd agree with, otherwise I disagree, Timber is'nt exactly rare, and exists in places it's more easy/cheap to harvest.

Again, depends on how industry is developed. The timber industry isn’t just cutting down trees: off the top of my head, you’ve got the paper industry, in which Finland and Sweden are doing just fine.
The OP has a POD of the late 1800’s. A whole lot can happen in that time, and the question was: “…how many people can Alaska theoretically hold if it utilized its environment and resources completely?”
In that time you could throw in a car industry, probably a good light aircraft industry, shipping (trans Pacific) maybe...
Why not? The OP was "theoretically" speaking.

You mean the Oil companies annual bribe to continue raping the land?
As soon as the Oil becomes to expensive to be worth it that will stop since the State government could'nt afford to do it without the profits from the Oil.

Um… Ok.

Japan only has 127 million people (ye, yes, I know, close enough).
That aside historically Japan did have some natural resources, they just al got used-up during Industrialization.
Japan has ALOT of Farmland; 11.6% of the countries land is Arable and overall 15,633.7 miles (25,160 Km) of land is irrigated, add to this the fact to that Japan has compact farms (as opposed to being spreadout) tha are usually built right next to cities. Yes, Japan is a net food importer, but for a country in its position it produces a massive amount of its own food as well.

(head scratching)…
Let’s do some maths…
Do you like maths? I do.
Japan: 127 m people (I’ll go with your more exact number)
Arable Land (as of 2009): 4.92m Hectors or 10.5m Acres


Meanwhile Alaska has theoretical arable land estimated at 15~18m acres. Let’s round down to an even 10m, assuming an overly optimistic govt website.
That’s roughly on par with Japan.
Next, let’s assume the land is only half as productive (fair, I think, given the much shorter growing season).
If Japan’s economy is able to support 127m people on 10.5m acres (granted, owing to their wonder-economy, but again, the OP is asking for theoretical), let’s half the number per the above assumption to 63m, and then half it again assuming their economy isn’t anywhere near as productive (per capita) as Japan's.
And we’re still left with over 30m people.

But this is all theoretical per the OP’s question. So just how many people could Alaska support given maximum efficiency? I stand by my original statement that it could support as many people as are willing to move there given sufficient industrial and economic development. Singapore has no notable resources other than location, yet manages to support over 5 million people on less than 300 sq miles and zero arable land.
So, theoretically, anything is possible, and the population could be whatever the TL makes it out to be.

[Corbell Mark IV]

If it was an independent nation, the oil and resources would be property of the Alaskan people.

And I agree, so what if the majority of the population is concentrated in the south?

Hell, that describes Canada too.