Monaco to Mongolia: population density and prosperity
Stop the World -- I Want to Get Off” was the title of a hit Broadway play some years ago. Today, getting people off the planet is what the United Nations population control crowd would like to do in order to “save” it. After the failed Copenhagen climate control confabulation last December, they will be refocusing their strategy and may target the presumed horrors of overpopulation in the form of large concentrations of people in any given place.
The constantly updating “population clock” of the U.S. Census Bureau showed that the U.S. population was over 308 million and world population not quite 6.8 billion as I write. To the population worriers, these numbers are far too many. Population nihilists conjure up horrendous stories of hordes of people living extremely closely together in dire poverty, clamoring for scarce resources. Fewer people equals less carbon footprints, they claim.
What about “overcrowding?” China’s coercive one-child policy to explicitly curb population is well known, but is China that densely populated? Not at all, when one looks at the relevant data. While the population of China at 1.3 billion is the highest of any country in the world, China ranks only 53rd out of 192 countries in terms of population density, as can be observed in data assembled by the CIA.
This begs the question: Which is the most densely populated country on earth? It happens to be Monaco – that wonderful principality bordering France on the Mediterranean. Monaco is by far the most densely populated country, with a population of only 32,140 but a population density of 41,971 per square mile. Singapore is the distant second, followed by Malta.
What is life like in Monaco? Certainly not what the population doomsayers would predict. The tiny country has one of the highest standards of living, quality of life and personal wealth anywhere on earth. Per capita income is the 20th highest in the world, according to the World Bank. Monaco’s population density is 2.5 times that of next ranking Singapore, which is also among the most prosperous countries, and life in Malta is equally pleasant.
The least densely populated country is Mongolia, sandwiched between China and Russia, which has a density of only five persons per square mile and a total population of 2.8 million. A mountainous and cold country, it too has a vast territory, though much smaller than its two mega-neighbors, and its partly nomadic people rank among the world’s poorest in per capita income.
Of the five most populous countries – China, India, USA, Indonesia, and Russia – India, China, and Indonesia rank 18th, 53rd, and 60th in population density, respectively. India and China each have a population exceeding one billion, but they are not nearly as crowded as other places. The USA with a fertility rate that currently is at the replacement level of 2.1, ranks number 142 on the list, while Russia, the world’s largest country in land area, with an extremely low fertility rate of 1.4 and a population already in decline, ranks as low as 177.
Although Africa is often the target of the population monitors, data do not corroborate their concerns. The United Nations population counters let it be known recently that Africa’s population had just reached the one billion mark. Even so, Africa accounts for only 15 per cent of global population, compared with 60 per cent for Asia. Among the 50 least densely populated countries, 19 are African. Of the 50 most densely populated countries only two are on the African continent: Rwanda and Burundi, and four are small island nations – São Tomé and Principe (in the Gulf of Guinea) and Mauritius, the Comoros and the Seychelles (in the Indian Ocean) which are considered part of Africa.
At a conference in New York on January 22nd, a highly acclaimed demographer who formerly headed the Population Division at the United Nations asked the hypothetical question: What would happen if all the 6.8 billion people currently on earth were to move to the United States? His answer was that the U.S. population density would become the same as that of the Netherlands! Moreover, New York, the most populous city in the United States with a population of 8.5 million has a population density of 26, 403 per square mile – less than that of Monaco.
And a final word about Monaco. Land-wise, all of Monaco can fit comfortably into the 1.32 square miles of New York City’s Central Park.
So, when we hear the cry that there are “too many people” here or there, we should ask, “Too many people for what?” It is all relative to the culture and the economy of the place. Those are the things we should be working to change, if necessary, not the number of people.
Vincenzina Santoro is an international economist in New York City. She represents the American Family Association of New York at the United Nations.
******
Comments (4)
- Petunia
First of all, we do not blame the problem on "having too many people" per se but the effect of having such a condition. True that it is relative but we cannot just totally ignore the effect of population on a locale's economic growth. The primary thing we have to look at here is the amount of resources available in a particular place since this will dictate the population that that area could support. The author's main example for a densely populated place is Monaco but she failed to consider the fact that Monaco's economy is booming due to the many hotels and casinos in that area. With the amount of money put in by rich tourists and richer locals, there is no doubt that Monaco could support its population. And then Mongolia... Well most of it is dry, non-arable land. Second, it's landlocked. These geographical features all prove to be major obstacles for economic growth. Hence, poverty. Using the most populous countries as example, is also not exactly valid since most of these have gargantuan land areas. Thus, the population density of that country will not be totally reflective of the actual condition in major cities where overcrowding is actually proving to be a threat on resources.
Totally ignoring "the number of people" factor is both arrogant and foolhardy. When considering global wellbeing, one cannot just tease out and eliminate a certain component just because it does not sit well with one's beliefs. More objectivity is needed in these situations. Especially since the sake of the entire world and all of humanity are at stake.
- Dr Susan Moore
This issue is certainly being discussed by older Australians, who expect a huge, worrying influx of migrants or would-be migrants from world trouble spots. They are worried because of our water and drought problems. We're the hottest continent on earth, and despite our land size (similar to America's) we have many unpopulated desert regions. Demographic issues like these figure in long-term calculations.
- Rob De Witt
The same Chicken Littles shrieking about overpopulation are busily constructing fantasies about the invasion of other planets while lacking the imagination to explore Utah.
- George Bartholomew
0 comments:
Post a Comment