WI a very different distribution of world population

with a Pod after 10000 BC, could we have a very different world in terms of population distribution? Could we have, for example, 1,5 billion people leaving in North America, and only 300 in what's no East Asia?

Or is there a sort of geographical limitation that constrtains how much population the world can have (and we are close to this limists in mosts territories)?

And if there's such a law, could it be overcome by technology? I don't mean futuristic technology, but the technology we've invented through our own history: for example, if rice cultivation had been developped in the Missisippi in PRecolumbian Amerco or imported from Asia, would the South Eastern US have a much larger population? And so on...

EDIT: Yes, I know it's similar to this thread (https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=217522), only it's reach is wider and I'm more interested in how important are geographical limitations for population growth (if they do matter at all) and how can they be overcome than in how exactly can we get 1500 millions in North America today, with our current level of technology worldwide
 
Another thing that I concern: does unity/disunity mean something to the population count?
Say, if the entire Middle East has been united under Ottoman Empire, or if the entire North America has been united under United States, would they have bigger populations today?
Likewise, if China or India was disunited, would it affect their population growth?
 
From what I've seen larger empires lead to neglect in some areas which causes imbalances in population.
 
Population is mostly based on which climates are better for civilization. Thus, we tend to cluster around rivers and coastlines, and only go inland in more fertile areas (i.e. by rivers and lakes). Meanwhile, places like the Sahara have few people because they lack the needed resources.
 
Population is mostly based on which climates are better for civilization. Thus, we tend to cluster around rivers and coastlines, and only go inland in more fertile areas (i.e. by rivers and lakes). Meanwhile, places like the Sahara have few people because they lack the needed resources.

Agreed, but it doesn't really explain why, say, India and China have so many more people compared to equally fertile Europe.
 
I don't see how this is possible. The native North Americans would suffer the same fate as their OTL counterparts, leaving the world with perhaps a billion or so lesss people in the modern era.

Have a nice day.
-MRegent
 
Top