How many people could Australia and New Zealand support?

Say in an alternate timeline Europe discovers the New World a few decades sooner, and in the early 1500s Europeans accidentally discover Australia and New Zealand. By the mid 1500s a Power decides to seriously settle them for whatever reason.

How many people could the land sustain? Could Australia feed 150 million people with say, 1900 technology? New Zealand is about the same size as Britain, can it sustain as many people?
 
Say in an alternate timeline Europe discovers the New World a few decades sooner, and in the early 1500s Europeans accidentally discover Australia and New Zealand. By the mid 1500s a Power decides to seriously settle them for whatever reason.

How many people could the land sustain? Could Australia feed 150 million people with say, 1900 technology? New Zealand is about the same size as Britain, can it sustain as many people?

New Zealand certainly couldn't. We have a fairly large mountain range taking up most of the space in the South Island, which puts a bit of a pin in things as far as settlement goes.
 
If we take use Population density based on Arable Land as a measure of the size of population that can be supported, then we should have a reasonable estimate.
Currently New Zealand has a Population of 272 people per Square Kilometre of Arable Land. (Its only about 15 per sq km in total landmass)
Australia has a density of 43 per sq km. (3 per sq km in total)
The United Kingdom its 1,077 per sq km. (250 in total)
And the US of A its 179 per sq km. (32 in total)
Which means that New Zealand is overpopulated compared to the US? And under-populated compared to the UK.

In 1900 the Population of Britain was about 2/3 of its current size.
So with the same population density of Arable land as the UK, in theory NZ could have supported 10-11 Million People in 1900.
(In the case of Australia its some 334 Million, and that can't be right? I would suggest that a figure of 55-56 Million using the US as a Model, again at about 2/3 of current density, is more reasonable?)
 
Depends on the standard of living/culture/technology level, but certainly modern Australia could support at least twice the current population and NZ at least three times theirs and still be recognisable as OTL "Australia and New Zealand". Probably quite a few more than twice/three times, as both countries feed more than those hypothetical numbers.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
did Britain in 1900 already import wheat ??? it might be more useful using pre-industrial revolution population.
 
If the settlers bring the Mediterranean agricultural tradition with them in 1550-1600, then Australia might be able to support a good sized population by 1900, but 150 million is too much. I think maybe 20 million would be a lot, given how little land is arable.

1-BOM-Climate-Classes.jpg
 
According to the Australian government they have enough water resources for 50-55 million people and agriculturely they have more in common with Chad than any Western nation. As for New Zealand even with Chinese style terreces 10-15 million seems reasonable
 
Is the comparison of New Zealand to Japan any valid? Because I think New Zealand could support far more (20-25 million), although it might be a food importer. Likewise, Australia could support 40-50 million (that's being conservative), but would also be cutting its food exports to nil, if not also becoming a food importer, thanks to the water issue.

Invent desalination earlier and you might be able to increase the number for Australia. It's certainly got the coal (and later, uranium) to run the energy-intensive desalination process.
 
The more I think about it the more I think the key to high population with early settlement is Mediterranean agriculture starting around the southeast of WA and southwest of SA and diversifying and spreading out from there. I think it would be a more natural fit than trying for force northern European agriculture into the southeast of Vic/NSW/Tas.
 
The more I think about it the more I think the key to high population with early settlement is Mediterranean agriculture starting around the southeast of WA and southwest of SA and diversifying and spreading out from there.

Well, that should be easy in this scenario. As the OP asks for an early 1500s colonization we're almost certainly looking at a Spanish or Portuguese Australia. The Portuguese were more active in southeast asia at the time, so they'd be more likely discoverers. Australia is about half in each side of the Tordesillas line, while New Zealand is fully in the Spanish side. However, this doesn't mean that one of the countries couldn't get the whole thing with just enough persuasion.

I hope I'm not digressing too much. I agree with the 50 something million maximum population for 1900 Australia estimate. With an earlier invention of de-salinisation that number would drastically rise and we might get closer to the estimation based on arable land (although 334 million is obviously far too much!). For New Zealand, I think about 10-15 million should be possible.
 
In 1900 the Population of Britain was about 2/3 of its current size.
So with the same population density of Arable land as the UK, in theory NZ could have supported 10-11 Million People in 1900.
(In the case of Australia its some 334 Million, and that can't be right? I would suggest that a figure of 55-56 Million using the US as a Model, again at about 2/3 of current density, is more reasonable?)

According to Wiki Australia has around 471,000 square km of Arable land, which with American population density would equate to 84 million, which doesn't seem to bad.

With British population density, it equates to 507 million, which seems rather high, and suggests either that Australia is currently way below its carrying capacity, or that Wiki is listing a lot of quite marginal land as "arable".
 
According to Wiki Australia has around 471,000 square km of Arable land, which with American population density would equate to 84 million, which doesn't seem to bad.

With British population density, it equates to 507 million, which seems rather high, and suggests either that Australia is currently way below its carrying capacity, or that Wiki is listing a lot of quite marginal land as "arable".
Australia exports quite a lot of food. More than half of the wheat production is exported, for instance. Of course, it also imports a fair amount of food, but that's mostly due to the vagaries of labour costs (and, in a few cases, trade dumping) meaning that imported food is often cheaper, not due to an inability to produce food here.
 
According to Wiki Australia has around 471,000 square km of Arable land, which with American population density would equate to 84 million, which doesn't seem to bad.

With British population density, it equates to 507 million, which seems rather high, and suggests either that Australia is currently way below its carrying capacity, or that Wiki is listing a lot of quite marginal land as "arable".

Britain has been importing 2/3 of its food since before WW1, so Britain is not comparable to Australia in terms of carrying capacity. I would also suggest 'arable' is an elastic term and much of Australia's arable land is what other countries would consider marginal at best.

Check out the difference in green space, an indication of how much water is available to support life, between North America and Australia.

24BA6EE800000578-0-image-a-15_1421343565156.jpg


Australia.jpg
 
Top