Just looking at the population of countries in 1900 https:/

I'm not your pal, buddy

>>72212967
When industrial era came every country had this baby boom, europeans just had it earlier than Egypt or other countries.

>>72212967
Nasser nationalized the aristocrats' lands and gave it for free to the uneducated low class peasants who knew nothing but to breed. they ruin the fertile land the country was known for and the toppled social structure and they became the dominant culture somehow. I heard of people having more than 15 son it's fucking insane. and it's eleven times now lol.

>>72212967
Certainly interesting
>Portugal hasn't had much population growth.
>1900- 5.8 million
>2017-10.5 million

>>72213399
I'm not your buddy pal

>>72214614
Mass emigrate from poorutgal

>>72212967
>>72212967
>Germany had 56 million people in 1900
>Germany has only 81 million people in 2017

>Japan had 42 million people in 1900
>Japan has 128 million people in 2017

>Brazil had 17 million people in 1900
>Brazil has 206 million people in 2017

For some countries population increased immensely.
But for countries like Germany and France it barely grew at all compared to others.
If Germany grew at the same proportion Brazil did, it would have a population of around 679 MILLION PEOPLE today. That's an insane rate of increase for Brazil if you think about it, despite all that land.

>>72212967
>Niger 1900 - 1.5 million
>Niger today - 18.6 million

REALLY MAKES YOU THINK

>>72220862
>>Brazil had 17 million people in 1900
>>Brazil has 206 million people in 2017

weeeeeew

>>72214614
That's actually a lot considering around 40% of our population emigrated during the 20th century, mainly to France, Guyana and Hawaii.

>>72220862
I know for the UK there was loads of emigration to the Commonwealth and USA, Without emigration we'd we way higher

>>72220862
To be fair, Brazil got 30-40 million immigrants

Relatively Germany lost a lot of land, and Japan has very few immigrants

>>72220862
>>72220965
>>72221007
Here's another comparison:
>France had 30 million in 1800
>France had 38 million in 1900
>France has 65 million in 2017

In comparison:
>Russian empire had 35 million people in 1800
>Russian empire had 120 million people in 1900
>The former Soviet Union States have 292 million people combined in 2017

>Mexico had 12 million in 1900
>Mexico has 120 million plus a lot of diaspora in the countries it neighbors in 2017


>>72220965
Do you mean:
>Nigeria 15 million in 1900
>Nigeria 186 million in 2017

File: pepenaoacredita.jpg (46KB, 500x461px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x461px

>>72212967
>we added 200 million people in a century
Of course this shit wouldn't work.
>>72220992
>mainly to France, Guyana and Hawaii.
Kek

>>72222000
Wew dem numbers

File: 2,w=559,c=0.bild.jpg (96KB, 559x664px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 559x664px

>>72212967
It was a better world back then.

We shouldn't have destroyed it.

>>72213851
Bullshit

>>72220862
Brazil has been growing at the same rate as of the USA for the last few decades, and actually our birth rate is lower nowadays than the American birth rate

File: Global Population.webm (1MB, 1000x471px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x471px

Africa is projected to have over 4 billion people by 2100

File: birth rate.jpg (26KB, 613x336px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 613x336px

>>72222612
forgot pic

Interesting, it seems Belgium had higher population at that time (6.1 million compared to our 5.6 million) and now we have a way bigger population than them (our 17.1 million versus their 11.2 million) I wonder what may have brought about this demographic shift, as we are culturally quite similar.

>>72222622
I wonder what will happen to India in the future.
Will they be able to handle the population increase? Or is India going to explode?

>>72222130
Blame the anglos
This is the future they chose

>>72222758
India's birth rate is only a little above population replacement down and will almost certainly fall below in the culture and they have some of the most fertile land on the planet. They'll be ok unless climate change fucks them up.

>>72212967
wow, i never realised that greenland is so big before

it's almost the same size as africa

>>72222758
india already has a lower nominal gdp per capita than africa lmao

>>72223000
i know you're probably trolling but you never know, that map doesn't correctly display the proportions of our continents. It turns out that projecting a sphere onto a flat surface will do this for you.

>>72223000
pls be joking

>>72223000
you burger?

File: 1441688235655.png (778KB, 777x719px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 777x719px

>>72213399
Don't be RUDE!

>>72212967

>Brazil 17,000,000

100 years later there are 200.000.000

world used to be simple. Look at it today, what a fucking mess.

>>72223817

Technology is getting too complex. Now you have to specialize instead of having the skill to to maintain the whole thing.

>>72222000

Why the hell did Brazil expand this much?

>>72223876
The bunda was hard to pull out

>>72223817
>world used to be simple
when? You mean when you were too young to grasp simple concepts or before you were even born? The world was never simple.

>>72223817
I wish I was a serf to a based feudal lord, I'd form so well to impress my lord.

File: 2647px-Map-of-Ottoman-Empire-in-1900-German.svg.png (526KB, 2647x1660px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 2647x1660px

>>72212967
It always astounds me how sparsely populated the Ottoman Empire was. When I think of those regions; Iraq, Syria, Anatolia, the Balkans, I always think of them as very agricultural populous areas, but the population of the entire Ottoman Empire in 1900 was less than metropolitan France.

Really clues you in on why it was a failing Empire by that point.