More New World immigration = More world population?

Is this too simplistic a view of demography? Assuming a similar amount of wars and scientific progress since the 1500s, if more people migrated to the New World, would the world have more population by the 21st century?

I wonder this because of a few things. The Western Hemisphere is extremely underpopulated compared to the Old World. It was only in the past few years that it even passed a billion people! Meanwhile, Europe by itself has just under 3/4ths of the population of the entire Western Hemisphere, and that ratio was historically far higher. The food resources will not necessarily suffer, since the world is easily capable of feeding billions more people (hunger being mainly political is especially obvious in today's world). Other resources are more questionable by the rate of consumption, but food is always there.

Possible PODs could have more dedicated efforts from Spain/Portugal for settlement, better management of Latin America (have Argentina opened up for settlement earlier), and above all, more European immigration as early as the colonial era, into lands opened to farmland through decisive defeats of the indigenous peoples at an earlier date. Probably this means a Europe more focused on colonisation than using colonial empires to fund their European adventures--more investment, basically.

So is the New World having more people a "free" way to having a world of 7 billion by 2000, and maybe even 8 billion by today or in the near future?
 
"Meanwhile, Europe by itself has just under 3/4ths of the population of the entire Western Hemisphere, and that ratio was historically far higher."

Not necessarily. Before 1492, the population of the Americas was at least comparable to that of Europe, and may actually have been higher. What happened to change the ratio was the post-Columbian collapse in populations, something that continued well into the 17th or even 18th centuries. You could say it continued into the 20th century, even, masked by the rapid growth in non-indigenous populations.

In a scenario with an earlier population collapse, one that occurs well before the Americas reach their pre-Columbian peak, you might well see a smoother curve and an earlier and more sustainable peak. I would suggest this would occur long before 1492. In the era of Rome, maybe?
 
"Meanwhile, Europe by itself has just under 3/4ths of the population of the entire Western Hemisphere, and that ratio was historically far higher."

Not necessarily. Before 1492, the population of the Americas was at least comparable to that of Europe, and may actually have been higher. What happened to change the ratio was the post-Columbian collapse in populations, something that continued well into the 17th or even 18th centuries. You could say it continued into the 20th century, even, masked by the rapid growth in non-indigenous populations.

In a scenario with an earlier population collapse, one that occurs well before the Americas reach their pre-Columbian peak, you might well see a smoother curve and an earlier and more sustainable peak. I would suggest this would occur long before 1492. In the era of Rome, maybe?

That doesn't change the fact that since the post-Columbian era and the decimation of the epidemics (plus massacres, slave labour, etc.) that Europe's population was far higher in relation to the entirety of the Western Hemisphere, until by the looks of it, Latin America's population boom in the second half of the 20th century. The Western Hemisphere didn't surpass Europe until the late 1980s. That should say quite a bit, and thus if my scenario would work out, the Western Hemisphere would surpass Europe earlier.

The key of this thread is ultimately the "free world population" (as I'm terming it, relative to OTL of course) if the Americas can have a larger population, and since in theory, they'd be expanding into "virgin land" fit for agriculture and farming, the population would be larger with more immigrants. Perhaps handwaving hostile American Indians (Mapuche, Comanche) by their defeat somehow, Europe more focused on colonisation. Now, I'm not limiting this to European actions--have your Asians colonising the West Coast, Malinese in Brazil, or whatever but the basic question is the same--more immigration to the Western Hemisphere by people of the Eastern Hemisphere, does that equal more world population? Basically millions more people pre-19th century, increasing to hundreds of millions by the 20th century, where Europe can be surpassed by the mid-century instead of the late 80s.
 
To some extent, but the population can only increase by a moderate amount. Most of the western half of the US is arid or semiarid, making it hard to inhabit in large densities, and 50% of South and Central America is tropical and unsuitable for temperate crops. In South America all that rainforest would have to be cut down for mediocre farmland.

Europe on the other hand is one of the greenest temperate places on Earth, like China and Japan.

Also if you increase the population, you increase the scarcity and the amount of wars, which then limits the population.
 
To some extent, but the population can only increase by a moderate amount. Most of the western half of the US is arid or semiarid, making it hard to inhabit in large densities, and 50% of South and Central America is tropical and unsuitable for temperate crops. In South America all that rainforest would have to be cut down for mediocre farmland.

Europe on the other hand is one of the greenest temperate places on Earth, like China and Japan.

Also if you increase the population, you increase the scarcity and the amount of wars, which then limits the population.

Arizona has a huge population density. And much of Wyoming and Montana are underpopulated. Look at the population decreases in rural Eastern Montana. That was because many people left following a difficult winter or two since they realised farming would be difficult to make profitable. So in theory, there could be more people there (same with the Dakotas). Colorado and Utah likewise have much more potential, and Oregon and Washington are definitely underpopulated compared to what they could be.

You're right about Latin America, but even there, a place like Argentina could support way more people than it does.
 

Deleted member 67076

I figure this depends more on what can change the fertility rate back in the old world than just the New World by itself. If you start off the demographic transition earlier, then it doesn't matter how many people are in the New World because they're all going to have less children. But that in and of itself depends on the economic situation of the countries they inhabit, and their levels of urbanization, personal wealth, and a number of other factors.

You can, however get the ratio of population distribution of Old World:New World to be much higher in the latter's favor.
 
Arizona has an unsustainable population, same with most of California. They use up water the state doesn't have. Oregon and Washington State on the other hand are underpopulated.
 
Arizona has an unsustainable population, same with most of California. They use up water the state doesn't have. Oregon and Washington State on the other hand are underpopulated.
Enough energy and you can solve the problem. There is enough uranium and thorium to last hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Build some , desalinate ocean water and pump inland.
 
Arizona has a huge population density. And much of Wyoming and Montana are underpopulated. Look at the population decreases in rural Eastern Montana. That was because many people left following a difficult winter or two since they realised farming would be difficult to make profitable. So in theory, there could be more people there (same with the Dakotas). Colorado and Utah likewise have much more potential, and Oregon and Washington are definitely underpopulated compared to what they could be.

You're right about Latin America, but even there, a place like Argentina could support way more people than it does.
Arizona is in the lower half of population densities in the US (33rd), and only has such a high population due to water imports and modern technology.
 

Oceano

Banned
How about taking tropical crops from elsewhere? What's the equivalent of corn that can or could be made to grown in the Amazon, say?
 
Enough energy and you can solve the problem. There is enough uranium and thorium to last hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Build some , desalinate ocean water and pump inland.

I was gonna post that, but then I realised that that wouldn't really cause population growth/immigration in the timespan required (no later than the early 20th century). That leaves you with someone inventing seawater greenhouses much earlier than OTL, but that's hardly enough to build an economy around.

How about taking tropical crops from elsewhere? What's the equivalent of corn that can or could be made to grown in the Amazon, say?

Rice? I don't know, the Amazon isn't really where you can easily get the increased population thanks to tropical disease, the terrain, and lack of appeal to immigration. Unless they all integrate with that one pre-Columbian civilisation that lived there, of course, but that's borderline ASB.
 
I was gonna post that, but then I realised that that wouldn't really cause population growth/immigration in the timespan required (no later than the early 20th century). That leaves you with someone inventing seawater greenhouses much earlier than OTL, but that's hardly enough to build an economy around.

Point taken, you are right it would be too early for that although you could use carbon fuels to do it. Run out of them faster but probably not that much faster.
 
Top