How big could the America's population be?

Almost all of the New World's population was wiped out by Eurasian disease in OTL. Europeans rapidly colonized most of both America's and gained majorities. None the less the industrial revolution dramatically reduced TFR and changed global culture, and both America's to this day maintain a very low population density even with some of the world's premier farmland.

So, had European colonization began a few hundred years sooner, or if the industrial revolution was delayed a couple hundred years, how many people might fit in the America's? If the industrial revolution was even stunted 100 years could we see the current US borders with a China type population? Could the Southern Cone hold a population the size of Europe?
 
Last edited:
Almost all of the New World's population was wiped out by Eurasian disease in OTL. Europeans rapidly colonized most of both America's and gained majorities. None the less the industrial revolution dramatically reduced TFR and changed global culture, and both America's to this day maintain a very low population density even with some of the world's premier farmland.

So, had European colonization began a few hundred years sooner, or if the industrial revolution was delayed a couple hundred years, how many people might fit in the America's? If the industrial revolution was even stunted 100 years could we see the current US borders with a China type population? Could the Southern Cone hold a population the size of Europe?
Is American population seriously low? I mean that thing about "low fertility rates" is first of all false, just look at the growth in the 20th century by ONLY high birth rates, second of all countries that don´t have those high birth rates have still a good amount compared to Europe plus high immigration, so I find hard to take this claim.
 
Is American population seriously low? I mean that thing about "low fertility rates" is first of all false, just look at the growth in the 20th century by ONLY high birth rates, second of all countries that don´t have those high birth rates have still a good amount compared to Europe plus high immigration, so I find hard to take this claim.

It is seriously low comparatively. It wasn't until this decade the entire Western Hemisphere finally surpassed 1 billion people. I have a theory that more intensive European colonisation in places which didn't get it OTL (Latin America, the Gulf Coast) early enough (1600s or so) would result in hundreds of millions more people in the New World. Combine it with more immigration.
 
It is seriously low comparatively. It wasn't until this decade the entire Western Hemisphere finally surpassed 1 billion people. I have a theory that more intensive European colonisation in places which didn't get it OTL (Latin America, the Gulf Coast) early enough (1600s or so) would result in hundreds of millions more people in the New World. Combine it with more immigration.
But that´s not true, the population of Latin American grew nearly 4 times from 1950, at the same time the USA grew only 2 times(Europe barely of 2/5). The birth rates of the 20th century removed any kind of imbalance and there is no point to rely on century old PODs to change anything.
 
Last edited:
Is American population seriously low? I mean that thing about "low fertility rates" is first of all false, just look at the growth in the 20th century by ONLY high birth rates, second of all countries that don´t have those high birth rates have still a good amount compared to Europe plus high immigration, so I find hard to take this claim.
The America's have less than one fifth the population density of the EU, less than a tenth of India, an eighth of China, and even less than half of Africa as well. Most of the America's major population centers have a negative TFR now.

Medium sized US states like Wisconsin or Alabama have as much land as England or the Low Countries. The carrying capacity of the America's was substantially higher than what colonized it OTL.
 
But that´s not true, the population of Latin American grew nearly 4 times from 1950, at the same time the USA grew only 2 times(Europe barely of 2/5). The birth rates of the 20th century removed any kind of imbalance and there is no point to rely on century old PODs to change anything.

How is what I said not true? Combine North and South America's populations, look how low they are compared to the Old World. Europe alone has 3/4 the amount, which is a historic low proportion to the Americas. Less than 1 out of 7 people globally live in the Western Hemisphere, despite the vast amount of land and food production potential.

So what if you had more people when the 20th century birth rates/decline in death rate take effect? That's very easily doable. For instance, if Argentina had the population density of the United States, then it would have over 94 million people. Take another instance, Canada--if it had the population density of Russia, it would have just over 84 million people. Obvious these are just raw math, and it would be highly improbable to get the population that high in those two countries, but these are illustrations showing how empty the Americas are, especially Latin America where in some parts the precolonial population levels were not reattained until the 20th century or later (1950s).

That's just countries, their subdivisions are further examples. Why couldn't the Falklands have even a fraction as many people as Iceland despite the similar climate? Why is Alaska so underpopulated compared to Scandinavia despite land favourable for agriculture? Speaking of the US, look at Montana and North Dakota, where in many counties, the population never returned to the levels of the first two decades of the 20th century despite the land being capable of supporting agriculture, just not profitably for market circumstance at the time. North Dakota's population was effectively static in the low-mid 600,000 range from 1920 until the oil boom there last decade. It's pretty clear that the Americas had and have far, far more potential for population size than they did, just historical circumstance effectively conspired to constrain it. In OTL, at least.

Then with the centuries old PODs, what if the Gulf Coast had settlement as intensive as that of, say, Virginia or the Carolinas? Yes, disease claimed many lives and stymied a lot of the growth there, but those are still people on the ground. Further, it opens the Upper Mississippi to settlement, where disease is no more of an issue than in Europe. All over a century earlier. That's gotta have some effect.

This is effectively a "free" boost to world population, allowing it to be much higher. I put "free" in quotes because these people need to eat (affecting land use for agriculture, which incidentally makes marginal land like much of the Dakotas/Montana much more economically sensible) as well as resource consumption, which is a much more difficult problem to solve. The immigration would have to be between 1500 - 1800 for the most part or so to avoid denting the population growth of Europe/Asia. Or, hell, put a huge dent in the population growth there, an Africa-sized one maybe even (probably infeasible, though), to really alter the balance between Western and Eastern Hemisphere proportionally.

From a POD of 1600 or so, I think 1.5 billion in the Americas is perfectly acheivable by 2016 without altering too many societal/historical trends (no hard natalist policies, still World Wars but no nuclear wars, etc.). Two billion is probably pushing it, though.
 
The America's have less than one fifth the population density of the EU, less than a tenth of India, an eighth of China, and even less than half of Africa as well. Most of the America's major population centers have a negative TFR now.

Medium sized US states like Wisconsin or Alabama have as much land as England or the Low Countries. The carrying capacity of the America's was substantially higher than what colonized it OTL.
India and China are their own thing incomparable to America, Europe doesn´t have the Amazon forest, the Rockies, the Patagonian desert, the Atacama desert and the Northern Canadian climate. I mean they do have their uninhabited places(northern Russia and Scandinavia in part) but it´s in smaller share. The nowadays TFR doesn´t mean anything because I was talking about past trends, in any case is still higher than European ones.

It´s not raw land, it´s how much you can use it. Now I would seriously doubt the soil is the same in the 2 continents. I don´t need to tell you how some US states are all a big farmland.
How is what I said not true? Combine North and South America's populations, look how low they are compared to the Old World. Europe alone has 3/4 the amount, which is a historic low proportion to the Americas. Less than 1 out of 7 people globally live in the Western Hemisphere, despite the vast amount of land and food production potential.

So what if you had more people when the 20th century birth rates/decline in death rate take effect? That's very easily doable. For instance, if Argentina had the population density of the United States, then it would have over 94 million people. Take another instance, Canada--if it had the population density of Russia, it would have just over 84 million people. Obvious these are just raw math, and it would be highly improbable to get the population that high in those two countries, but these are illustrations showing how empty the Americas are, especially Latin America where in some parts the precolonial population levels were not reattained until the 20th century or later (1950s).

That's just countries, their subdivisions are further examples. Why couldn't the Falklands have even a fraction as many people as Iceland despite the similar climate? Why is Alaska so underpopulated compared to Scandinavia despite land favourable for agriculture? Speaking of the US, look at Montana and North Dakota, where in many counties, the population never returned to the levels of the first two decades of the 20th century despite the land being capable of supporting agriculture, just not profitably for market circumstance at the time. North Dakota's population was effectively static in the low-mid 600,000 range from 1920 until the oil boom there last decade. It's pretty clear that the Americas had and have far, far more potential for population size than they did, just historical circumstance effectively conspired to constrain it. In OTL, at least.

Then with the centuries old PODs, what if the Gulf Coast had settlement as intensive as that of, say, Virginia or the Carolinas? Yes, disease claimed many lives and stymied a lot of the growth there, but those are still people on the ground. Further, it opens the Upper Mississippi to settlement, where disease is no more of an issue than in Europe. All over a century earlier. That's gotta have some effect.

From a POD of 1600 or so, I think 1.5 billion in the Americas is perfectly acheivable by 2016 without altering too many societal/historical trends (no hard natalist policies, still World Wars but no nuclear wars, etc.). Two billion is probably pushing it, though.
Argentina is something I can agree on in part, but still not fully give how much of their territory is either semidesertic or rainforest(Gran Chaco, Patagonia etc.)

The Falklands are also smaller and remote, making settlement there way less favourable. Alaska is a bit in a less favourable spot compared to Scandinavia because of the winds and because of the fact that the more temperate area is also mountainous.
But the same could be argued for many places in Europe, places in Poland, Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic states that have very little people in them.

It would have effect but that doesn´t mean OTL USA is underpopulated, every place on earth can have more or less people than we have IOTL.
 
Almost all of the New World's population was wiped out by Eurasian disease in OTL. Europeans rapidly colonized most of both America's and gained majorities. None the less the industrial revolution dramatically reduced TFR and changed global culture, and both America's to this day maintain a very low population density even with some of the world's premier farmland.

So, had European colonization began a few hundred years sooner, or if the industrial revolution was delayed a couple hundred years, how many people might fit in the America's? If the industrial revolution was even stunted 100 years could we see the current US borders with a China type population? Could the Southern Cone hold a population the size of Europe?
I'm going to restate this: What might the carry capacity of the America's be in preindustrial times with European farming equipment and animals.
 
India and China are their own thing incomparable to America, Europe doesn´t have the Amazon forest, the Rockies, the Patagonian desert, the Atacama desert and the Northern Canadian climate. I mean they do have their uninhabited places(northern Russia and Scandinavia in part) but it´s in smaller share. The nowadays TFR doesn´t mean anything because I was talking about past trends, in any case is still higher than European ones.

It´s not raw land, it´s how much you can use it. Now I would seriously doubt the soil is the same in the 2 continents. I don´t need to tell you how some US states are all a big farmland.

Argentina is something I can agree on in part, but still not fully give how much of their territory is either semidesertic or rainforest(Gran Chaco, Patagonia etc.)

The Falklands are also smaller and remote, making settlement there way less favourable. Alaska is a bit in a less favourable spot compared to Scandinavia because of the winds and because of the fact that the more temperate area is also mountainous.
But the same could be argued for many places in Europe, places in Poland, Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic states that have very little people in them.

It would have effect but that doesn´t mean OTL USA is underpopulated, every place on earth can have more or less people than we have IOTL.
1: There is far more useable soil in the America's than Europe.

2: Why can't China and India be compared to elsewhere?
 
Top