AHC: make New Guinea the most populous island in the world
- Thread starter Zachariah
- Start date
Zachariah
Banned
Same goes for Java, Honshu, Luzon, Sumatra, Madagascar, Taiwan, Borneo, Sumatra etc; hell, most of the world's most populous islands. Yes, there are lots of valleys. But they're only isolated in a human sense- most of them merge into river basins, which include the four largest rivers by discharge in Oceania (the Fly, Mamberamo, Sepik and Kikori Rivers- the 50th, 62nd, 71st and 82nd largest rivers in the world). And there are vast lowland expanses on New Guinea as well- for comparison, here's a topographical map of Honshu:
Of Java:
And lastly, but not least, of New Guinea:
And here's a map to illustrate their respective sizes:
Which of the three would you say were the least mountainous and most mountainous, respectively? And which has the most flat terrain by far? Yes, New Guinea contains something like a quarter of the languages on earth- because there are so many separate scattered tribal communities, practically all of which are hostile to one another, with near-constant endemic warfare between tribes. Couldn't greater unity and cohesion, with some statelets and states forming, lead to a larger population?
You need a stronger connection between the interior and the coast (to get domestic animals etc) or you need to develop a stronger agricultural package indigenously.
With either, the desired result is that the tribes start consolidating (read: Greek-epic style wars of conquest), causing the highlands to exit their neolithic stasis (which OTL lasted 11,000 years- seriously, they were an independent center of agriculture starting 9,000 BC).
They then very slowly creep down the mountain, adapting a good enough ag. system to keep their social system viable in the lowlands.
Then they can wait for the Euros to help them overcome lowland tropical diseases. In the meantime they could develop some half-measures indigenously. It's disease that will really limit them in the lowlands.
With either, the desired result is that the tribes start consolidating (read: Greek-epic style wars of conquest), causing the highlands to exit their neolithic stasis (which OTL lasted 11,000 years- seriously, they were an independent center of agriculture starting 9,000 BC).
They then very slowly creep down the mountain, adapting a good enough ag. system to keep their social system viable in the lowlands.
Then they can wait for the Euros to help them overcome lowland tropical diseases. In the meantime they could develop some half-measures indigenously. It's disease that will really limit them in the lowlands.
Zachariah
Banned
1. So, introduce the Carabao then; they got introduced to the Philippines by the Austronesians, who arrived on New Guinea 3,500 ya. Why couldn't they get introduced to New Guinea by the Austronesians as well in an ATL, just like they introduced domestic pigs? And the 'linguistic mess' there was more symptomatic of endemic inter-tribal conflict than of geography. Sure, there are mountains, vast rainforests and rolling mangroves, but that's no different to the historical situation on Java, where the chain of volcanic mountains and associated highlands running the length of Java kept its interior regions and peoples separate and relatively isolated. Before the advent of Islamic states and European colonialism, the rivers provided the main means of communication, even though Java's many rivers are mostly short, with only the Brantas and Sala rivers capable of providing long-distance communication; and this way, their valleys supported the centers of major kingdoms. On New Guinea though, there are far more long, navigable rivers capable of providing long-distance communication, several of which are longer than the Loire, and have a greater discharge than that of the Rhine. Why couldn't their valleys support the centers of major kingdoms in the same manner?
2. There's plenty of fertile soil, and native agricultural practices which enrich the soil further using green mulch. Java got so populated due to the vicinity of trade routes; and due to the fact that it became the primary intermediary for the spice trade in the Moluccas, by growing agricultural food surpluses and thus becoming the spice islands' main food supplier, trading grain for the spices which they then sold on to the rest of the Old World at a handy profit. But New Guinea's closer to the Spice Islands than Java, has a comparable level of fertility, and even higher rainfall. If a coastal kingdom develops on New Guinea, and develops seafaring capabilities, then why couldn't it have competed with Java for that role, at least to some extent?
Introduce Sweet Potato earlier
But also you gotta recognize the introduction of sweet potato is believed to be the reason behind the breakdown of highland Papuan society so yeah you'll have a lot of people but they'll be fighting in Hamlets eating one another at even higher rates because the protein scarcity that'll become even more acute.
But also you gotta recognize the introduction of sweet potato is believed to be the reason behind the breakdown of highland Papuan society so yeah you'll have a lot of people but they'll be fighting in Hamlets eating one another at even higher rates because the protein scarcity that'll become even more acute.
Or whoever starts the industrial and scientific revolution. They aren't going to be doing it.
Really, poor form on your part.
This is literally what happened in most high-productivity tropical disease zones. Foreign disease control and/or agriculture techniques were required for the population to boom.
Last edited:
Food production the main reason is why New Guinea never got off the ground.
Papuans initially colonized the island and remain in the Highland areas (40,000BC or so). Austronesians came later on and did not expand into the higher altitude areas, remaining in lower altitudes and along the coasts (1600 BC or so). Dogs introduced by the Austronesians helped with hunting of native animals but also caused several species to go extinct.
Lack of food crops until the introduction of them in the last five hundred years plus lack of domesticated animals limited the growth of population. The peoples of New Guinea mainly raised non-cereal foods such as taro, yams, bananas, and sweet potatoes. Some of these plants would not grow in certain regions of the island. For example, yams were mainly a Highland crop, they also grew faster than taro which did well in other areas. Without across the board fertile soil, the soil would not support larger populations like other geographical areas like the Nile Valley, Fertile Crescent, China or Japan. Plus with the mountainous terrain, the high rainfall (annual 79 to 197 inches in the Highlands) and clearing forest for crops, resulted in erosion and loss of fertile soils. Look how quickly cleared regions of the Amazon lose fertility, thus having farmers there move on and clear more forest land. The same thing happens in New Guinea.
Note that malaria was found more so in the lower altitude regions of New Guinea, not the higher altitude regions. Thus there was more of a stable population at higher altitudes where it was malaria free.
There was not a unified political state either, most natives there had the family or multi-family unit. No one was actually in charge, people raised their own crops, what they could. Lack of a stable food source meant the lack of the progression from a multi-tribal populated island into a more centralized form of government.
Until the introduction of better food crops and food production methods, New Guinea could not support a population of 150 million inhabitants. It just reached 8 million inhabitants in 2016. Cannibalism (protein source and ritual feasting of family members) still happened, last recorded case was in 2012.
Last thing, there are over 1,100 dialects spoken on the island by the different indigenous peoples. Maybe a unified state would have one main language and several lesser ones, New Guinea never unified and remained a very diverse and divided island.
Papuans initially colonized the island and remain in the Highland areas (40,000BC or so). Austronesians came later on and did not expand into the higher altitude areas, remaining in lower altitudes and along the coasts (1600 BC or so). Dogs introduced by the Austronesians helped with hunting of native animals but also caused several species to go extinct.
Lack of food crops until the introduction of them in the last five hundred years plus lack of domesticated animals limited the growth of population. The peoples of New Guinea mainly raised non-cereal foods such as taro, yams, bananas, and sweet potatoes. Some of these plants would not grow in certain regions of the island. For example, yams were mainly a Highland crop, they also grew faster than taro which did well in other areas. Without across the board fertile soil, the soil would not support larger populations like other geographical areas like the Nile Valley, Fertile Crescent, China or Japan. Plus with the mountainous terrain, the high rainfall (annual 79 to 197 inches in the Highlands) and clearing forest for crops, resulted in erosion and loss of fertile soils. Look how quickly cleared regions of the Amazon lose fertility, thus having farmers there move on and clear more forest land. The same thing happens in New Guinea.
Note that malaria was found more so in the lower altitude regions of New Guinea, not the higher altitude regions. Thus there was more of a stable population at higher altitudes where it was malaria free.
There was not a unified political state either, most natives there had the family or multi-family unit. No one was actually in charge, people raised their own crops, what they could. Lack of a stable food source meant the lack of the progression from a multi-tribal populated island into a more centralized form of government.
Until the introduction of better food crops and food production methods, New Guinea could not support a population of 150 million inhabitants. It just reached 8 million inhabitants in 2016. Cannibalism (protein source and ritual feasting of family members) still happened, last recorded case was in 2012.
Last thing, there are over 1,100 dialects spoken on the island by the different indigenous peoples. Maybe a unified state would have one main language and several lesser ones, New Guinea never unified and remained a very diverse and divided island.
The whole of insular South East Asia grew tremendously in populaiton in the last 500 years, areas that didn't have a lot of people don't for good reasons.
Arguments from "they look the same to me" shouldn't be taken seriously either, if you think any of the islands can simply have 10 to 100 times their current densities, then feel free to explain whythe lands and agricultural potentials aren't being exploited right now.
Not comparable, if you want some sort of modern poor nation high fertility, you can have high populaitons just about everywhere which massively rely on foreign food imports, but this is not exactly a challenge, more like humanitarian disaster building.
Not if the geography is responsible for different population densities, or do you think Greenland can have 100 million+ people as well?
They established their capitals there because that's where the bulk of the population and power was, you have it backwards.
The difference is that New Guinea is in more or less the same climate zone as Japan or Philippines, whereas Greenland is in the very icy region and north of the world. And you don't explain why suddenly insular Southeast Asia, of which New Guinea is part of, increased so much in population. So yes, similarity in this case is a very good argument, especially when you don't even try to refute it.
Also, what is "not comparable" in the comparison I made with the United States and Japan? And what the hell are you on about "modern poor nation high fertility" and "humanitarian disaster building"? I guess you talk about that because I mentioned India, but I only mentioned India because of geographical proximity, just like Australia, and being the source of crops and other commercial goods.
Poor from my part? Says the guy who said the comment I reacted to. And why not? The Greeks and Romans would be surprised today to find that the Celtic and Germanic nations they denigrated and primitivised so much like Britain and France are today's ruling nations. They would be in utter disbelief that Macedon, Greece and most of Italy are something of a "backwater" today, and that Celts and Germanics would end up doing an industrial revolution.
I think you need to read up on the history of disease before commenting in this thread any more.
That's why I said more or less, and it indeed is. It's certainly far closer than the climate zone of Greenland. Japan is after all quite close to the Southeast Asian region even if still more northern than it.
The tropics are not more full of disease than any other region. This is a stereotype that needs to die. Heck, South Asia has basically the same tropical climate with pretty much the same diseases, and it still managed to grow significantly in population in the era before antibiotics, not to mention how most South Asians continued to remain without access to modern medicine until recent decades anyway.
Zachariah
Banned
Across the board fertile soil, you say? Here's a map of the world by soil types:
And here's a map of South-East Asia by the soil concentration of organic carbon (the most important measure of how fertile soils are):
Now, look at New Guinea on that map. What sort of soils does it have? Which regions' soil composition does it bear the closest resemblance to? And how carbon rich are its soils, relative to all of the other islands? New Guinea arguably has the most fertile soil of any of the islands in the Indonesian archipelago- or, indeed, the world. And yes, the clearing of forests will result in erosion, which can and will result in the loss of fertile soils. But this can be solved by utilizing nitrogen-fixing crops, crop rotation and/or silviculture, such as that practiced in some isolated highland regions of New Guinea with Casuarina oligodon, which has been planted by highland gardeners who've practiced an intensive traditional permaculture for over 3,000 years; using the wood of this tree for building-timber, furniture, tools and firewood, as well as tapping its edible resin as a supplementary food source. The tree's root nodules are known to fix nitrogen, and it is traditionally prized for its ability to increase the soil's fertility, with its abundant leaf-fall high in nitrogen and traditionally prized for mulch. If you're managing and maintaining the forest, as opposed to simply clearing it all away, you're not going to get that erosion, and you won't lose that soil fertility- which is why the region of New Guinea where this silviculture utilizing Casuarina oligodon has historically been practiced (that maroon patch in the mountains of Irian Jaya, on the Indonesian side of the island) has more fertile soils than anywhere in Asia.
As for the state of New Guinean native civilization; it's essentially no different to that of the Japanese during the same stage in its development, in the few hundred years following the transition from the paleolithic era to the Iron Age. Headhunting and cannibalism were rife there too. Yes, there wasn't a unified political state. But was this due to the lack of a stable food source? Given that New Guinea was one of the agricultural cradles of civilization, and that many of the food staples which were first cultivated in New Guinea and disseminated to much of the rest of the world from there- such as taro, sweet potatoes, bananas, breadfruit, yams and sugar-cane- went on to become the dominant agricultural package of many cultures across the world, I'd very much doubt that. There really weren't any intrinsic barriers which prevented the progression from a patchwork of scattered, isolated tribal communities into a larger state, with a more centralized form of government, on New Guinea. Sure, it never happened IOTL. But this is AH.com, and this is an AHC; just because somewhere didn't develop in a certain way IOTL doesn't mean that a POD couldn't have changed that.
That's at odds with reality. Not just a little, but completely. All else equal, there will be more human pathogens in the tropical climates. Why exactly do you think the New Guinea highlands had high population density while the lowlands didn't?
One of the two is along the equator in the tropics, the other is way up in the temperate zone.
Not at all a "more or less the same" thing.
Highlands everywhere in the world tend to be less populated. This is not something unique to tropical highlands. And no, tropical climates don't have more diseases. Read the chapter "The New Tropical Pathology" of Nancy Leys's "Picturing Tropical Nature". As she points out, there are very few grounds to separate the tropics from "temperate" climate zones in terms of pathology.