Country populations: Past, Present & Future

[MolsonExport]

Current World population (November 10 2020, 12:00pm EST): 7,824,515,635 yearly change: 1.05 %

Projected World Population 2050 : 9,735,033,990 yearly change: 0.50 %

World Population 1951: 2,584,034,261 yearly change: 1.88 %

World Population 1000AD: 1000 275,000,000

https://www.worldometers.info/popula...ountries/#past

1950
Past: Most Populous Countries in 1950
# Country Population (1950) World Share 2020
Rank
1 China 554,419,273 21.9 % (1)
2 India 376,325,200 14.8 % (2)
3 United States 158,804,395 6.3 % (3)
4 Russia 102,798,657 4.1 % (9)
5 Japan 82,802,084 3.3 % (11)
6 Germany 69,966,243 2.8 % (19)
7 Indonesia 69,543,316 2.7 % (4)
8 Brazil 53,974,729 2.1 % (6)
9 United Kingdom 50,616,014 2 % (21)
10 Italy 46,598,601 1.8 % (23)
11 France 41,833,882 1.6 % (22)
12 Bangladesh 37,894,681 1.5 % (8)
13 Nigeria 37,859,748 1.5 % (7)
14 Pakistan 37,542,376 1.5 % (5)
15 Ukraine 37,297,648 1.5 % (35)
16 Spain 28,069,735 1.1 % (30)
17 Mexico 27,944,669 1.1 % (10)
18 Poland 24,824,018 1 % (38)
19 Vietnam 24,809,902 1 % (15)
20 Turkey 21,408,399 0.8 % (17)

2020

# Country Population (2020) Yearly Change World Share
1 China 1,439,323,776 0.82 % 18.5 %
2 India 1,380,004,385 2.02 % 17.7 %
3 United States 331,002,651 1.19 % 4.2 %
4 Indonesia 273,523,615 2.19 % 3.5 %
5 Pakistan 220,892,340 4.08 % 2.8 %
6 Brazil 212,559,417 1.48 % 2.7 %
7 Nigeria 206,139,589 5.24 % 2.6 %
8 Bangladesh 164,689,383 2.05 % 2.1 %
9 Russia 145,934,462 0.14 % 1.9 %
10 Mexico 128,932,753 2.17 % 1.7 %
11 Japan 126,476,461 -0.57 % 1.6 %
12 Ethiopia 114,963,588 5.25 % 1.5 %
13 Philippines 109,581,078 2.75 % 1.4 %
14 Egypt 102,334,404 3.97 % 1.3 %
15 Vietnam 97,338,579 1.88 % 1.2 %
16 DR Congo 89,561,403 6.53 % 1.1 %
17 Turkey 84,339,067 2.43 % 1.1 %
18 Iran 83,992,949 2.68 % 1.1 %
19 Germany 83,783,942 0.79 % 1.1 %
20 Thailand 69,799,978 0.54 % 0.9 %

2050
# Country Population (2050) World Share (2020)
1 India 1,639,176,033 16.8 % (2)
2 China 1,402,405,170 14.4 % (1)
3 Nigeria 401,315,000 4.1 % (7)
4 United States 379,419,102 3.9 % (3)
5 Pakistan 338,013,196 3.5 % (5)
6 Indonesia 330,904,664 3.4 % (4)
7 Brazil 228,980,400 2.4 % (6)
8 Ethiopia 205,410,675 2.1 % (12)
9 DR Congo 194,488,658 2 % (16)
10 Bangladesh 192,567,778 2 % (8)
11 Egypt 159,956,808 1.6 % (14)
12 Mexico 155,150,818 1.6 % (10)
13 Philippines 144,488,158 1.5 % (13)
14 Russia 135,824,481 1.4 % (9)
15 Tanzania 129,386,839 1.3 % (24)
16 Vietnam 109,605,011 1.1 % (15)
17 Japan 105,804,027 1.1 % (11)
18 Iran 103,098,075 1.1 % (18)
19 Turkey 97,139,570 1 % (17)
20 Kenya 91,575,089 0.9 % (27)


In 1950 22% of Humanity was Chinese. I doubt we will ever see another country with that high of a proportion.

watch as we increase: https://www.worldometers.info/watch/world-population/

If you need to be depressed: https://www.worldometers.info/

[PoshSteve]

Very interesting to see the drop off in European countries in the ranking/projections. From 7 in 1950, to only Russia in 2050. A correction though - Russia and Ukraine were not countries in 1950, they were constituent republics of the Soviet Union. I'm not sure the exact 1950 population of the USSR, but as of the 1951 census, it was 182M.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...e_Soviet_Union

[muppet]

1000 AD

1. Song Dynasty China - 75 million (24.19% of global population)
2. Chola Dynasty of SE India - 18 million
3. Byzantine Empire - 12 million
4. Chalukya Empire of SW India - 10-13 million
5. Holy Roman Empire - 11.3 million
6. Fatimid Empire of North Africa and the Levant - 12.5 million
7. Kingdom of France - 7.2 million
8. Japan - 7 million
9. Caliphate of Cordoba (Spain) - 6.9 million
10. Buyid Dynasty (Iran-Iraq) -6.5 million

[dc_denizen]

Too many people in Africa and India . This will not end well .

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by muppet

1000 AD

1. Song Dynasty China - 75 million (24.19% of global population)
2. Chola Dynasty of SE India - 18 million
3. Byzantine Empire - 12 million
4. Chalukya Empire of SW India - 10-13 million
5. Holy Roman Empire - 11.3 million
6. Fatimid Empire of North Africa and the Levant - 12.5 million
7. Kingdom of France - 7.2 million
8. Japan - 7 million
9. Caliphate of Cordoba (Spain) - 6.9 million
10. Buyid Dynasty (Iran-Iraq) -6.5 million

How accurate are these population estimates from AD 1000? Are they based on actual census records from that period, or are they just reconstructed estimates done in recent times?

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Too many people in Africa and India . This will not end well .

It will be difficult to support so many people as water and food resources get used up. Migration from these places to Europe and North America will increase dramatically unless birth rates fall. I do believe they are starting to fall in India as prosperity increases. Still high in most of Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America. Global sea level rise will also reduce living space. A 12 foot rise in sea level, which is possible in the next century or two, would put most of countries like Bangladesh under water. Where do these people go?

[MolsonExport]

While the projections for Africa look scary, it should be kept in mind that Africa is a huge continent (never done justice by the Mercator projection, which makes North America and Russia gigantic), and it currently has a relatively low population density at 45 per Km2 (117 people per mi2), vs. Asia at 150 per Km2 (and India at 464 per Km2).



Also:
Which continent has the most arable land? Africa
IF POTENTIAL were edible, Africa would have the best-fed people on earth. The vast continent has 60% of the world's uncultivated arable land, most of it unfarmed.

https://www.economist.com/baobab/201...-comfort-farms

every effort should be put into increasing the education levels of Africans.


Fertility rates are plummeting in India

Yale

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

It will be difficult to support so many people as water and food resources get used up. Migration from these places to Europe and North America will increase dramatically unless birth rates fall. I do believe they are starting to fall in India as prosperity increases. Still high in most of Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America. Global sea level rise will also reduce living space. A 12 foot rise in sea level, which is possible in the next century or two, would put most of countries like Bangladesh under water. Where do these people go?

India is getting close to replacement level, so their population won't grow that much in the future. Latin America is already below replacement level as we speak. The largest country, Brazil (1/3 of population), is set to decline already in the 2030's.

Most of Africa and Middle East are the last places with still very high fertility rates and might face serious problems in the future. Elsewhere the challenge will be mamanging the population decline without economic contraction and pension systems bankrupts.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

While the projections for Africa look scary, it should be kept in mind that Africa is a huge continent (never done justice by the Mercator projection, which makes North America and Russia gigantic), and it currently has a relatively low population density at 45 per Km2 (117 people per mi2), vs. Asia at 150 per Km2 (and India at 464 per Km2).



Also:
Which continent has the most arable land? Africa
IF POTENTIAL were edible, Africa would have the best-fed people on earth. The vast continent has 60% of the world's uncultivated arable land, most of it unfarmed.

https://www.economist.com/baobab/201...-comfort-farms

every effort should be put into increasing the education levels of Africans.


Fertility rates are plummeting in India

Yale

Yes, but geographically Africa is horrible.

[ssiguy]

Those estimates are scary and will become much worse by 2100. China is expected to fall to nearly 800 million and India down to 1.2 billion. All of Asia and Latin America will see huge declines. The ONLY reason why Western Europe has managed to basically stabilise it's population as opposed to Eastern Europe where it is in free fall is due to immigration. This is the same for other immigration magnet countries like Canada/US/Aus/NZ.

Of course that will leave impoverished Africa which is estimated by latest UN predictions to have a staggering 40% of the world's population by 2100. Yes, their birth rates will slowly decline but Africa has at LEAST half a century to go before it's birth rate declines to even replacement level.

God knows there is already enough of us on the planet and so a shrinking population in of itself is not the problem. The problem will be that, with an ever increasing life expectancy and plunging birth rates, the proportion of younger people to older ones is going to increase exponentially. How are these far fewer younger workers going to financially support all these retirees and their far higher health care costs?

[MolsonExport]

The problem will be that, with an every increasing life expectancy and plunging birth rates, the proportion of younger people to older ones is going to increase exponentially. How are these far fewer younger workers going to financially support all these retirees and their far higher health care costs?

This is one of the main (if not the main) reasons why we have high immigration in Canada.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

This is one of the main (if not the main) reasons why we have high immigration in Canada.

A temporary and short-sighted "fix"

[bossabreezes]

Yeah immigration isn't the answer. Each country that is seeing birth rates dip below replacement need to make grass-roots efforts to increase the brith rate again. How? Not exactly sure, but there could be financial rewards, ect.

Immigration won't change the birth rate, as most people who immigrate to other countries end up facing the same issues as the natives (ie, ridiculous costs of living, etc) and end up having just as few children.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Yeah immigration isn't the answer. Each country that is seeing birth rates dip below replacement need to make grass-roots efforts to increase the brith rate again. How? Not exactly sure, but there could be financial rewards, ect.

Immigration won't change the birth rate, as most people who immigrate to other countries end up facing the same issues as the natives (ie, ridiculous costs of living, etc) and end up having just as few children.

Poland apparently is doing a lot to increase births.

Making having kids cheaper is the only way. Give huge financial incentives to people who have just had a kid in the last fiscal year.

[ssiguy]

Our exploding population in Africa and the Middle East will also result in a lot of potential social and international conflict.

The highest birth rate countries are uniformly not only poor but also Muslim. Muslim countries not only suffer from internal unrest but also external conflicts with both Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Their human rights records and goals are usually at odds with the non-Muslim world as well and in particular women's rights which is much of the reason they have such high birth rates in the first place.

[muppet]

Lowering birthrates correlate with increasing healthcare provisions. Basically in a world where half of the kids die before they're 15 (and more before retirement as adults) people can't enact lifeplans. Thus people have as many kids as they can in a hope at least enough will survive to look after them when they're old. Put healthcare in and there's a sea change -people get to plan their lives for once, settling at 2 or 3 kids as a norm via condoms.

In countries where religion dictates against contraception (eg Islamic republics, Ireland, Philippines etc) just do it anyway. Through education and giving out free condoms along with the healthcare has the same results, even in poor, religious societies. Iran went from 6 kids per woman in the 1980s to below replacement by the noughties (1.9). Bangladesh the same, and below-replacement today: 2.1. For India birthrate has fallen to 2.2, Indonesia 2.3. The same for most Islamic countries eg Turkey, Tunisia, Algeria, Syria, Morocco etc

-but bear in mind a drop in population will still take decades to manifest (for example those 2.2 kids will have an average one kid each, and maybe another great grandchild by the time grandma dies). India will still peak at 1.6 billion by 2060 - in other words 200 million more people despite hitting below replacement 40 years earlier.

All this of course is assumed without immigration. -Both India and China, as their economies climb are now having to draft immigration policies as migrant workers flood in from the neighbouring states, SE Asia, Africa and the West. China also accepts more refugees than the US.


Basically birthrates around the world are falling very fast, Africa included -but it will still take till beyond the next century before we see the results.

[muppet]

Immigration is a win-win for many richer countries with caving birthrates -you suddenly get a flush new workforce you didn't pay a penny to upbring or educate who will also boost your birthrates for another of their generation, not to mention being the brain drain benefactor. The most winning example of course being the US, built on generation after generation of immigrants -and today Western Europe and most radically seen in the richer end of the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the Gulf States, some of whose cities are nearing 95% foreign born. Lebanon has transformed into one third refugee population in this last decade alone (while Jordan is 70% made up of former refugee ancestry). Turkey vies as the world's largest recipient, despite destabilising its Western provinces of Kurdistan -the risk is worth it. It's no accident in the year Germany overtook Italy and Japan with the world's lowest birthrates (2017) it opened itself up for 1 million mostly Syrian refugees (though most just passed through).


Before the Syrian War



After (note Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States would feature but due them not being part of the UNHCR Protocol they don't count their refugees as such, merely 'brothers and sisters in distress'. Saudi Arabia has accepted for example 1.5 million Syrians).





However it's a short term plan as immigrants tend to revert to local birthrates within a generation. And the price for every demographic boom is the crash after, with even more OAPs to look after.

Some countries are looking at robots and AI to help with that, such as Japan, while others operate the most efficient socialised healthcare, such as Singapore. China, although poorer and with its demographic time bomb waiting, will still have some of the lowest OAP healthcare costs in its future, thanks to its traditional social structure (pretty much why pay for childcare when gran and gramps can do it). Hopefully with the march of technology and health OAP costs can only go down, provided you steer away from obesity a bit (read: early, lingering incapacity via more health problems).

[muppet]

Another thing people mention about the exploding population -we will have started investing in green tech, desalination and vertical farming by then to support all this extra 'us'. The issue isn't food so much as how many resources are spent in growing meat, water, private transportation, detached homes and carbon /power in the interrim (read: right now) before global warming cataclysm. Bear in mind the lifestyles we enjoy now are at beyond worst case scenario -we're at 150% capacity for what the world can produce, with the rich eating up most of it - 10% of the global population use up more than half its resources. In short there's no economic future (let alone a natural one) continuing as we do, without changing how we do things.

And it's not like we all have to go Survivor for the future, we can still enjoy our lifestyles with a change in energy provider, fuel, PT, a replacement for plastic, a change in meat, or without artificial foam in our hairwash.

In other words we can't complain about how many more people are getting born in the poorest of the Developing World when we use up about 4x the global average and about 10x what those newborns will in their lifetimes -it's us we should be getting rid of to make space for more. It's like the morbidly obese castigating the crowds of the starving for taking the cookies.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Poland apparently is doing a lot to increase births.

Making having kids cheaper is the only way. Give huge financial incentives to people who have just had a kid in the last fiscal year.

Poland remains with very low fertility rates, ranging from 1.2 to 1.4 over the past 25 years. They also expel thousands and thousands young people every year, so I don't think they are doing a good job there.

All those ultra-nationalist, extreme-right governments on Eastern Europe claim on their propaganda they are making white people having children out of fear of immigration, but in the end of the day, their policies are completely ineffective. For one thing people keep having very few children, keep moving to Western Europe and there is virtually no immigration into their countries.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Yeah immigration isn't the answer. Each country that is seeing birth rates dip below replacement need to make grass-roots efforts to increase the brith rate again. How? Not exactly sure, but there could be financial rewards, ect.

Immigration won't change the birth rate, as most people who immigrate to other countries end up facing the same issues as the natives (ie, ridiculous costs of living, etc) and end up having just as few children.

I agree immigration is only a temporary fix, but more and more I believe it's impossible to fight population decline. There aren't many things governments and societies can do about it, so I believe it's about time to focus on a big socioeconomic rearrangement to allow societies keep working smoothly in a population declining environment.

Our economic system, since the Industrial Revolution and the rise of Capitalism, is working under the logic of perpetual population, economic and profit growth. It will require a massive effort to replace the current system.