AHC: Have as many countries as possible be in the developed world.

Like they should be as developed as at least New Zealand and Canada. Well, that's all I can say much since the challenge is pretty straightforward.
 
Not necessarily, underpopulation causes problems too. When you don't have enough people you have problems paying for infrastructure as the costs aren't spread out, economy of scale is unavailable, you might be unable to use more modern farming methods because you don't have the people to build and maintain modern farming infrastructure etc. Africa, even with its recent high birth rate, might actually be underpopulated. A lot of African countries are on the bottom of the scale of population density. Of the ten highest population density countries none are African of the bottom of the scale four are African and Africa is the poorest continent. Of the ten highest population density countries only Bangladesh is poor. Of the ten lowest population density countries five are poor. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?year_high_desc=false Now correlation isn't causation but it is at least negative evidence that high population density is the cause of poverty.
 
City-states are over represented on the list of densest countries, so that end raises skepticism.
 
City-states are over represented on the list of densest countries, so that end raises skepticism.
They aren't represented on the low density countries though. In any case the point is population density is probably not the main cause. Lack of education and freedom tend to be more important. Of the ten highest PCI countries all but Singapore and oil rich countries are also free countries and all have a decent education system. Of the bottom ten none are free countries and none have modern education systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita Of the lowest 10 PCI the highest population density ranks 30th on the list of countries , Burundi, the rest are considerably lower. the next is Togo at 99.
 
Last edited:
ATL: the new Soviet Union negotiates a better withdrawal from WWI in 1918. There's not the resentment in Britain and elsewhere for them bailing. Britain might still send troops to help the "white Russians" fight the Bolsheviks but not near as many nor near as long.

It's not so much a cold war, as a lukewarm war. In addition, the Treaty of Versailles is better to begin with and better monitored. There is no World War II.

The two economic systems compete for allegiance in the Third World. They essentially compete on who can do a better job at genuine economic development, and this turns into a very good situation for the Third World!
 
How about the boundaries of the 'developed world' stay the same, and massive splitting happens. Catalunya, Scotland, Basque Country, Canada breaks apart, etc.
 
Top