Three Letters Re: List of Countries by Real Population Density

Jim-

Dr. Hugh asked the question about population density in the US States.  Below is the answer. Since I couldn’t finagle Wolfram Alpha to do this in people per square kilometer, I did it in square miles.

For reference:

If you convert Dr. Hugh’s figure of 245 people per square kilometer to people per square mile and that equates to 634.5 people per square mile

Keeping that number in mind, I used this Wolfram Alpha equation, and learned:

[JWR Adds: Readers might want to compare that table with the 19 states in my rankings of states, by retreat potential. BTW, the preceding table is so useful that I’ve added it to my Retreat Areas static page.]

James Wesley:
Checking the writer’s conclusions, I found: 

In 1955, Japan had a population of 90,077,000.  Assuming that their amount of arable land was the same in 1955 as it is today, 43,620 square kilometers, then the population density is 2,065 persons per square kilometer or about 8.4 persons per acre.  This assumes that Japan was not importing any food at this time. 

In 1955, the population of China was 610,465,000.  Assuming that their amount of arable land was the same in 1955 as it is today, 1,385,905 square kilometers, The population density is 440 persons per square kilometer or about 1.8 persons per acre.  This assumes that China was not importing any food at this time. 

China and Japan do not have European or US climates and they do not have Western diets but the broad assumption that the land can support about 1 person per acre may not be true world-wide.  – Richard J.

Jim & Family:

I studied soils in school, as part of my Geology degree. I also studied Hydrology. Both aspects have a huge impact on soil fertility and thus carrying capacity. While I respect the basic effort involved in the carrying capacity list, its missing those crucial details. The reason that France and California and the Midwest have such amazing fertility and crop yields is they have the ideal balance of water and soil types. You can’t say the same for many places which merely offer numbers which look good on the surface.

The ugly truth is the best places to grow food have the highest population density, as a rule. They will be fought over, should push come to shove. California is routinely fought over for water rights in the courts, and in bribes to authorize those rights or transfer them to the “right” person (holding the bribe). The book “Cadillac Desert” describes this well and is worth reading if you want to understand the Western States, Water Rights, land grabs, and dam building.

Generally speaking, Western Europe, south of the serious frost/snow areas of Scandinavia (which lacks good soil thanks to the glaciers carving it away), is the place in the EU for best rainfall, for soil fertility, and for best crop yields. Largely: France and Spain. The UK goes up and down that scale due to excessive summer rains killing crops with molds and pests. They can have great years. But they can also have terrible years. France is more consistent. Morocco tends to lack the better rains and dam sites so its often too little water. Spain varies due to rainfall like England, only to getting to little rather than too much.

Of all the places on Earth with the best combinations of rain and sun, the USA [is the largest single region that] has the best, period. The USA is the swing producer of food for the planet. It is what will back our currency once the oil is mostly traded in Yuan/Renminbi.

Its up to us to insure that moral and ethical men and women govern our nation. I am sure it seems like a very distant goal, considering modern times, but we must persevere.   Sincerely, – InyoKern