What do you mean exactly?
Industrialization causes rapid population increase, which in Europe happened from the mid-1800's forward. In Asia industrialization happened later and so the population boom started later.
What do you mean exactly?
But if you actually look at overall increase, India and Indonesia increased more than most European states did overall, so the difference in time is irrelevant.Industrialization causes rapid population increase, which in Europe happened from the mid-1800's forward. In Asia industrialization happened later and so the population boom started later.
But if you actually look at overall increase, India and Indonesia increased more than most European states did overall, so the difference in time is irrelevant.
Why not? Looking at modern demographics it's pretty clear there is no magical rule that says that growth through demographic transition can continue only for X amount of years.But the point is that you can't make Europe's population continue booming through the 20th and 21st centuries just because Asia's did/does.
Why not? Looking at modern demographics it's pretty clear there is no magical rule that says that growth through demographic transition can continue only for X amount of years.
It's a pattern that often is disproven, compare Pakistan to India, Pakistani population almost quadrupled in the last 50 years while Indian population grew only 2.6 times its 1965 size and yet Pakistan has a fertility rate around 50% higher than India to this day, meaning the gap would grow larger.It's not magic, it's just the pattern that population evolution follows. I.e slow growth dependant on local resources until industrialization, followed by an explosive population boom before population stabilizes again or eventually starts to decline.
The main issue with Europe gaining this is immigration and the population hits of the world wars. The world wars directly or indirectly killed off large numbers of the European population in some way. Add in events caused or related to the wars and this number greatly increases. Multiple Genocides, Spanish Flu, Civil Wars, Revolutions, forced population transfers, dropped birth rates, and economic downturns. This hurt Europe population greatly but can be avoided or greatly reduced without WW1. Europe by itself had 25 or 20 percent of the world population right before 1914. It has 10 now. The other point is immigration which Europe will experience in some way in most pods. When Europe gets too crowded Europeans often have the option to move somewhere over seas. This usually being the Americas or a colony. Few nation in the Western Hemisphere are going to be open to European immigration to their country even if the US isn’t. Asians and Africans did not have that option as open to them due to distance, lacking oversea colonies, and racial restricted immigration policies regarding them coming to those places. Chinese people could have been the majority in many areas of the west coast without restrictions on them coming here. The reason Japan is more crowded then Britain is because Britain had places with open land to send people, willing and unwilling, when the isles got too overpopulated. Japan does not. Even without the world wars and its impacts this will still hold true. Without those wars Europe will get crowded again and see mass emigration even when their home country is strong and stable. Europeans will either move to the Americas, Africa colonies, or British dominions. This is why I asked earlier if this has to be only within Europe or can it be the global European/white population? Europe population will be a good bit bigger without the world wars but a good bit of that population will emigrate overseas or east if Russian causing large demographic changes globally.That's mainly because of industrialization, which Europe's already gone through.
If that figure was accurate I think Malthusian ideas might actually hold water.Europe has around 800 Billion people OTL. So you need to double for this ATL. Let's see. More developed Russia and Eastern Europe could help? No World Wars in OTL intensity could also help.
Oops. It should have been million!If that figure was accurate I think Malthusian ideas might actually hold water.
If it had the same density as Bangladesh it would be even higher.Just did calculations, if the po plain had the same population density as uttar Pradesh (1000 per square km), it would have around 53 mil. people. Less than I thought, but easily doable with an Italy that maintains a high fertility rate.
If it had the same density as Bangladesh it would be even higher.
Bit of a weird one, but my suggestion would be an islamic Europe.
That isn't to say the old "they breed more!" idea, but that an Islamic Europe which is still the center of the colonial global order is a Europe that is very attractive for migration from the east and could serve as a base for future population increases.
A lot of the modern ideas of immigration arent so much truisms earlier in history.I think there is a limit to how much growth you can get from immigration. People in general don't like a lot of immigration in their countries, regardless of where it comes from. There is a lot of attention on Muslim immigration to Europe, but immigration from countries like Poland and Romania to Western Europe is also controversial for a lot of people.
I think the easier one is to discourage emigration from Europe.