The Population Reference Bureau is reporting on the release of preliminary data from the United Nations Population Division projecting population in the year 2100. The United Nations expects India, which is likely to surpass China as the world's largest country by 2030, to reach more than 1.55 billion people in 2100. Here's the list of the world's largest countries in 2100...
- India - 1,557,468,000
- China - 944,380,000
- Nigeria - 756,007,000
- United States - 478,047,000
- Tanzania - 314,197,000
- Pakistan - 262,149,000
- Indonesia - 254,590,000
- Democratic Republic of the Congo - 212,000,000
- Philippines - 178,256,000
- Brazil - 178,134,000
It's interesting to compare this list to a current list of the world's largest countries and the estimates of the world's largest countries in 2050. Most notably, Nigeria will more than triple its current population and jump from eighth place to third, pushing the United States out of its long-held position as the world's third largest country. Additionally, Tanzania and the Philippines jump into the top ten at sixth and ninth places, respectively.
Comments
Since when has large come to mean numerous? Why this ambiguous usage? We used to say the USSR was the largest country, having the largest area. We used to say Alaska was our largest state, now it would be called a very small state. It is all so unnecessary. Does a small house become a large house when more people move in?
I agree completely about “large” as sinonimous of “populous”. Please, Matt, being a geographer, you cannot or should not mislead your readers. The largest countries are the one with the most area, and the most populous countries are the ones with more total population. Additionaly, the most populated countries are the ones with the highest population density.
In man’s history a thousand years is but a tick of the clock. But until a thousand years ago we never numbered over 0.3 billion. All those Egyptians and Greeks and Persians and Chinese civilizations we read about flourished in a world where humans were a rather rare animal. We are now about to tick over to 7 billion. I was born into a world of less than 2 billon.
We already have too many people to solve or cope with our current problems. Projecting to year 2100 is insane – we can’t rationally project to 2020.
I am in complete agreement. As of now the earth has pretty well run short of food and is desperate for fuel. The word “conservation” has almost dropped out of American political discourse. Where is more food going to come from? Where is more fuel going to come from? Crunch those numbers as ye may, but the future is pretty well unknowable. Just check back to projections from fifty years ago.
In the mean time just keep on driving those corn fed cars (ethanol) and coal burning cars (electric and smugly labeled “green”).
Don
I totally agree with your comments. I used to enjoy reading this About.com contribution but it has fallen off its pedestal. I’m surprised at you Matt.
I agree with the 2 prior posters. There’s no possible way that either Nigeria or Tanzania will be able to absorb such huge population numbers. It’s obvious that current population growth rates are just continued into the future without considering whether conditions will allow for such numbers. For that reason they are without merit.
I don’t get it … why Tanzania. They are not in top ten in 2050 … why in 2100? What is going on there that is not going on in other parts of Africa?
ha, well I’m not going to be so hard on Matt about the mis-usage of “large” as opposed to “most populous”, since we all seem to have understood the meaning anway… but I wholeheartedly agree with this last comment. Projections are fun and inevitable, but it might be useful to throw in a tidbit for each country about WHY it’s going to move up the ranks (such as Nigeria). I’m studying water resources right now and it seems evident to me now that populations can’t explode without lots of water, so maybe throw something in about how this country has recently – or is expected to – acquired more water (or food or security or whatever the case may be). Even if it’s speculation (which you shall surely be reprimanded for – but that’s leadership), it will be educated speculation and I think that’s worthwhile for the rest of us to make sense of these new numbers.
Have any of you read the source article? It answers questions about where the numbers come from, namely, it is preliminary data from the United Nations. Once it’s formally released, I’m sure there will be more background. (Oh, and I don’t apologize for using the term “largest” – it’s how most people are seeking the information online, they aren’t searching for “most populous countries.”)
Alas Audrey, the tragedy is that populations HAVE exploded without adequate water. That’s one of the reasons we are in such terrible condition. Not just inadequate for drinking and sanitation but inadequate for agriculture and manufacturing. It takes very little water to bring a baby into this world but it takes one hellofalottta water to generate electricity, make diapers, manufacture fertilizers and make human food (corn, wheat, rice).
Today most of the people making those excess babies that are swelling the populating cannot produce the goods and services to sustain them, i.e. even keep them alive without help. Already there are vast numbers of people either seriously malnourished or starving. If there is a solution I have not heard about it. In the history of life on earth populations of animals have been limited by starvation as we are all designed and programmed to keep procreating even while surrounded by starvation.
Bacteria keep reproducing in the Petri dish till the food is gone and then expire. Man seems to have no more sense than bacteria.
Matt, until you posted,” I don’t apologize for using the term “largest” – it’s how most people are seeking the information online, they aren’t searching for “most populous countries.”) I was perfectly willing to just let the matter drop.
I could write a long piece about this that would likely bore most readers so I will use restraint. Confucius said calling things by their proper name is the first step to wisdom and Mark Twain said the difference between the right word and the wrong word is the difference between horse and horsefly.
“Most people” Most people don’t know the difference between heat and temperature. Most people don’t know the difference between power and energy. Most people don’t know the difference between indigestion and an appendix problem.
The population problem is far too important to pander to what “most people” perceive. “Most people” don’t have a clue as to exponential growth. “Most people” do not know what 50% of 70 is. They excuse themselves by answering “I wasn’t a math major, yet have a degree. (I and my classmates would not have gone beyond 6th grade without knowing how to solve this problem.)
Don,
I think Matt was referring to what people type into search engines, not whether or not they are smart enough to determine the difference between the two words.
In order to make a living you have to go where the people are. In the case of the Internet, the people are at Google, Bing, Yahoo, and other search engines, so you have to be accessible to these people in this particular environment.
If people are searching for “world’s largest countries,” using the term “world’s most populous countries” won’t get the viewers to your site which means that you don’t make any money. When viewed in this way, this semantics issue that everyone is up in arms about is a non-issue. You have done things at work that are not 100% correct, and so has Matt. Lets all leave it at that.
Mike, This all started when I made one rather mild statement about countries being populous or large. It was Matt who sorta put his thumb in my eye by bringing up the idea of refusing to make an apology – an idea that had never crossed my mind.
Matt’s Blog is not selling soap. People selling soap will pander like hell to sell soap. By all means use large if it sells more soap than populous.
I just searched Bing. When I entered “Large Countries” the first page of Hits included eleven stories. Eight clearly took “large” to mean large in area. Three took it to mean population or areas and population. I very much doubt whether anyone would have been lead astray.
I apologize to Matt and to any who feel I have offended them. Matt is a big boy and I rather doubt he needs this apology, but here it is anyway.