Well no but that´s what I read, maybe I´m not using the correct word. Correct me if I´m wrong.The delta is... have you ever been anywhere around the region?
But how much of its food supply does the export? You are arguing for quite the extremes there.Arguably the Mississippi basin is even better than China for agriculture, as even excluding the Tibetan Plateau and deserts, much of China is rugged. This means the USA would have a population larger than China's. There's no reason why Kansas can't have the densities of Henan - with the same climate and same type of soil. This would give Kansas alone 120 million people. As for food, China is (mostly) self-sufficient already. The US is already the export powerhouse of corn and wheat, so I see no reason why it can't be self-sufficient ITTL.
It wouldn´t really change much given they would die of smallpox+other diseases. Given the immigration the US experienced it kinda pale in comparison.Many of those places with the right PODs could be at that already. An industrial South that moved away from slavery earlier could have given you the Nashville metropolitan area at 4 million by the 21st century. But all of those places, I think, we'd have to resort to an agricultural POD. Come to think of it, agricultural PODs are necessarily the best way to increase global population, although to me they almost feel like cheating. Like say the Mississippians develop better agriculture so that they don't decline as in OTL, and the entire region is basically like Mesoamerica in terms of cultural sophistication and most importantly, population density. We'll probably also want that for the West Coast. And why not throw in Lands of Red and Gold-style stuff for Australia/New Zealand?
Yeah maybe but it would end up the same if you export more people north from California, no?Different water use policies would help California out immensely. Earlier desalination, too. But the current drought is no worse than historic major droughts in California, going by the climatology record in the region. And if California is at its limit, it seems to me plainly obvious that the rest of the West Coast up to Alaska is underpopulated.
There´s seem to be no limit govem to any projections made so far, so I don´t undersand why limit the scope, every European country would have the same density as India, Ukraine as Bangladesh.I say Bangladesh because the population is still expected to expand by large numbers. Yes, Bangladesh does export large parts of its population elsewhere (mainly to India), but that's beside the point. The land is so rich it can support many more people, and keep in mind by Bengal, I'm also including (Indian) West Bengal. India as a whole too, since many regions were severely affected by numerous famines under British rule. Ireland's an interesting case, since it wasn't just the famine that made Ireland so underpopulated, it was that constant outmigration.
Emigration was linked to the famine and carrying capacity of the land.
It seems that if a country that has 10 million people and gets it population reduced by something to 1 million and then grows back to 1bliilion you would argue that the population could be 10billion. That just doesn´t work.
Maghreb is a population exporter on its own in a way, having 14 million people in Europe that were either Pied Noirs or just local Maghrebi. I guess it could increase.I'm mainly speaking in a historic context--at the turn of the 20th century, things were far different than now in terms of underpopulated regions, and it's thanks to the agricultural revolutions of the 20th century that returned many regions to what historically "should" have been the expected result. Like take the Maghreb, which could've reach it's current population densities decades ago. I think a more densely populated Maghreb, for that matter, would've been a population exporter as Italy and Spain were (probably to Latin America, going by where the Spanish emigrants largely went, as did the Lebanese).
Maghreb population is already quite high as it is, given the growth the experienced outweights the stagnation period they had, if you argue that they could support more than basically the rest of the world can support much more at the same time.
[/QUOTE]Those brutal Bangladesh tornadoes are because of terrible disaster preparation, especially in the era they happened in. It's like comparing Haiti to Japan in terms of earthquake preparation. Case in point, 2011 had two major tornadoes strike mid-sized metropolitan areas (Tuscaloosa and Joplin) and that entire year, the US recorded only 553 fatalities and not much more over 5,000 injuries. It isn't like it hurt China's potential that much of it's very vulnerable to earthquakes and is densely populated.
But it´s more to tornados than casualties, as far as I know most of the plains can get hit by those, and I was wrong in just citing tornados. I should have talked more about the general climate.