zlacker

Link is dead but I think the population number of DRC (Congo) can't be right

Look at the size of the country (around 1/3 of USA) and the number of people living there (112M according to wikipedia), also 1/3 of USA. So the density should be about the same but when you look at satellite photos it's one giant city (18M), several smaller cities and the endless forest. Can it support other 90M people?

>>postsa+(OP)
"one giant city, several smaller cities, and the endless forest"

Doesn't that describe many US states? (although sometimes desert/plains/etc instead of forest)

>>postsa+(OP)
Um, you ever look into the size of Japan versus it's population ratio to the US? Tokyo is only twice as big as the giant city you're talking about, but the country itself is like 1/20th the size of the US.

So yea, DRC can easily be like that. Especially if they don't subscribe to 4-6 people living in a house thing that the US does.

>>postsa+(OP)
Even the capital does not look large enough. Brazzaville on the next side of the river is apparently 2 million, and Kinshasa definitely does not look 9x larger.

>>pixl97+X6
Take a look at the neighboring Uganda. Most of the country is covered by cultivated fields, roads, villages. Sure, population density is higher but it's not even comparable with emptiness of DRC

>>postsa+bc
Again, those are just assumptions you make without further understanding of a great number of things.

If you looked at US infrastructure and based the population we should have on how a developing nations population works, then you'd come up with a number like 750 million to a billion people... because 6 to 10 people live in a house, right? FYI, average US household is 2.5 people.

Simply put you cannot make any of your assumptions without more knowledge.

>>pixl97+1h
> You can't do any assumptions because you just can't, okay??

>>postsa+(OP)
Look more carefully into the rural areas of DRC and you will see little huts and hamlets everywhere, even in the jungles there are clearings clearly inhabited by human. There are also larger towns scattered around that appears to be yellow, earthy spots on the landscape but if you zoom in you can see its houses. Each of these houses can likely house an entire family.

Also keep in mind the US is very sparsely populated after all. You can easily drive hours in parts of the western US (never mind the parts you cannot even drive through, or Alaska) without encountering a single human settlement.

>>postsa+zn
Correct, show your homework, as the teacher says.

Or I should say, it's hypocritical in an article about population numbers being fake to generate your own fake set of numbers and say it's better.

>>pibake+Wp
I drove for almost an hour last night in Oregon without seeing another car. This was on a highway at 10pm not far from a city of 60K.

People forget how rural the US can be.

>>postsa+(OP)
Go look at Bangladesh (or the whole Ganges valley). Extremely dense population outside of urban cores. Tiny area compared to the US but a lot of people...maybe 500 million between India and Bangladesh.

>>johngo+fE
Just checked, Bangladesh has almost no unused land. Please take a look at google maps

>>pixl97+tu
Especially when they're based on eyeballing it on Google Maps

>>johngo+fE
Bangladesh has one of the most fertile lands on earth producing rice (which can feed 5x people wheat does), no desert and a little bit of mountains (hills actually). Gangetic Plains are also in Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. These places are not comparable to anywhere in the world sans East China.

>>johngo+A72
Who would you better believe more - your favourite government or your own lying eyes?