Patagonia population???

I am working on a few ideas for a brief TL and am trying to find out what size population Patagonia could support around 1870 onward.
I have an idea that involves significant increase in colonization on the part of the Argentinian government, that involves co-operation with the German Empire.
Any advice would be really helpful.
 
Millions, easily, given good water management. It's good land in parts for irrigation. Including the Chilean side, Patagonia now has over 2 million people. Argentine side has about a million. The potential is definitely there, it seems like a lesser version of the Great Plains in the US. But like other regions with potential, a lot depends on how much you hate the environment--see other regions with lots of potential for human development like most of Australia, Siberia, Alaska, etc.
 
Millions, easily, given good water management. It's good land in parts for irrigation. Including the Chilean side, Patagonia now has over 2 million people. Argentine side has about a million. The potential is definitely there, it seems like a lesser version of the Great Plains in the US. But like other regions with potential, a lot depends on how much you hate the environment--see other regions with lots of potential for human development like most of Australia, Siberia, Alaska, etc.
Are you saying that people can just easily make the land more fertile?
 
Are you saying that people can just easily make the land more fertile?

No, but land can be made more productive agriculturally if you're willing to use technological tricks such as fertilizer, irrigation canals, etc.

The environment of Patagonia isn't set in stone. IIRC the forests of Tierra de Fuego are turning into grassland as introduced beavers spread in the area, and in mainland Patagonia guanaco-friendly shrubland is being turned into sheep-friendly grassland by ranchers. I'm not sure how well cereal agriculture could do in the region, but if the Finlanders can pull it off perhaps an alt-Patagonian nation could as well.
 
Are you saying that people can just easily make the land more fertile?

Some of Patagonia is among the rainiest parts of South America. Granted, no one lives there and it isn't suitable for farming if I recall, but you just need good water management and you can get stuff out of the land.

Plus you can always import food from more fertile parts of Argentina/Brazil if you really need to. Patagonia has plenty of natural resources to make it worth settling (environmental concerns being secondary). The northern parts in particularly should be especially suitable for cereal-based agriculture, I just don't know how big of a population the land can support without importing food. It's all about irrigation, fertilisers, etc. And Patagonia happens to have rivers and areas of heavy rainfall.

The Chilean side is incidentally even better for large populations, but again, the Argentine side supports about a million people now, I'd assume it could support a decent amount more if needed.
 
Argentine Patagonia can support 10 million population with better decentralization of economic core from Pampas and Buenos Aires areas, equitable land ownership like in the US and Canada, and more massive immigration from Eastern Europe and Asia.

A well-developed Patagonia would be threatening to the political and economic hegemony of Buenos Aires as more balanced population distribution in Argentina would diffuse populist sentiments among suburb residents in Buenos Aires city.
 
Top