# World Populations (top 20)



## DoctorZero2 (Mar 2, 2005)

kyenan said:


> However, none of them are as impressive as the Phillippines' population growth, which is from 0.5 mil to 100 mil!! Unbelievable!!!


Maybe it's because they are the only Catholic nation in Asia. You know the Pope got a problem with contraception


----------



## MightyKC (Dec 20, 2004)

11. Mexico - 106,202,903
12. Philippines - 97,857,473
13. Vietnam - 83,535,576
14. Germany - 82,431,390

Some years ago Germany was next to Mexico, the Philippines and Vietnam are growing fast, Mexico didnt' grow that much, prob in the next years the Philippines will surpass Mexico


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

Pakistan will soon surpass Brazil's population...


----------



## Leovigildo (Nov 22, 2004)

1. China.......1,306,313,812.....0,6%
2. India........1,080,264,388.....1,7%
3. US.............295,734,134.....0,6%
4. Indonesia....241,973,879.....1,6%
5. Brazil..........186,112,794.....1,3%
6. Pakistan......162,419,946.....2,4%
7. Bangladesh..144,319,628.....2,1%
8. Russia.........143,420,309....-0,6%
9. Nigeria........128,771,988.....2,9%
10. Japan........127,417,244.....0,1%
11. Mexico......106,202,903.....2,1%
12. Philippines...97,857,473.....2,0%
13. Vietnam......83,535,576.....1,2%
14. Germany.....82,431,390....-0,2%
15. Egypt.........77,505,756.....2,0%
16. Ethiopia......73,053,286.....2,4%
17. Turkey.......69,660,559.....1,4%
18. Iran...........68,017,860.....1,2%

I add it rate of natural increse, net migration is not considered.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

These 18 countries contain what percent of the worlds total population? I am truly too lazy to whip out a calc..


----------



## N/A (Jul 25, 2003)

> if pakastan and bangladash did not......


"if" :sleepy:


----------



## Harkeb (Oct 12, 2004)

YangtzeSea said:


> I think it's because the weather of East & South Asia makes it that the place can feed more people.


Strange how there is such an imbalance in human population between west & east, isnt it? The western male is sooo concerned about his ***** size eventhough it's bigger on average than the asian *****. Yet, it can't produce as many babies as their oriental counterparts. Is it because western males can't use their tools properly?? :banana: :banana2:


----------



## DoctorZero2 (Mar 2, 2005)

harkerb said:


> Strange how there is such an imbalance in human population between west & east, isnt it? The western male is sooo concerned about his ***** size eventhough it's bigger on average than the asian *****. Yet, it can't produce as many babies as their oriental counterparts. Is it because western males can't use their tools properly?? :banana: :banana2:


Trouble is the West got proper males but no females worth of them. East Asia got all the lovelies, but it's a tad too far away ...


----------



## bustero (Dec 20, 2004)

Indonesia is truly the worlds sleeping giant. If the Philippines is a country many people don't know anything about then Indonesia is even a greater mystery. At least there are the 8 million people (not counted in the surveys ussually) who work abroad making sure many countries have encounter them, our neighbor is so huge in population and area yet most people don't even know where it is (guess how many time zones it has!).


----------



## bustero (Dec 20, 2004)

DoctorZero said:


> Maybe it's because they are the only Catholic nation in Asia. You know the Pope got a problem with contraception


You don't know how true this is , this si like a major debat in this country. just check out the PHilippine forums and you'll find this never ending discussion on this topic. How do you think we ended up with a city as big as Manila haha.


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

Notice that although USA, Brasil and Russia have large populations, they are not heavily populated, because they have huge territories. 

Brasil for example has only about 22 people per sq km!! Thats much lower than Europe.

Brasil is about the same size as Europe without Russia... 8 million sq km... but while Europe has about 700 million people, Brasil has 180 million. Thats a huge difference in density.

The countries in the list that surprised me were Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Vietnan. I didnt even knew there were SEVERAL big cities in Ethiopia and Vietnan...


----------



## Down Under (Mar 17, 2005)

haha only 3 out of those 20 are developed countries, thank god for that, otherwise australia would be so unimportnat .. lol


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

harkerb said:


> Strange how there is such an imbalance in human population between west & east, isnt it? The western male is sooo concerned about his ***** size eventhough it's bigger on average than the asian *****. Yet, it can't produce as many babies as their oriental counterparts. Is it because western males can't use their tools properly?? :banana: :banana2:


Not really... its more a question of women independence. Women in the west work, are worried with other things besides taking care of their homes and having children. In the 50s, there was a baby boom in US, and even before, couples used to have more children.

In Brasil the same thing. My father has 4 brothers and one sister. The father of my girlfriend has like 3 or 4 brothers and 3 sisters. But today in Brasil couples have few kids... very few... only very poor people still have many children. 


Brasil is btw 95% catholic but we dont give a damn about the pope being against condons and pills...


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

Down Under said:


> haha only 3 out of those 20 are developed countries, thank god for that, otherwise australia would be so unimportnat .. lol


well, you surely have territory to have a much larger population! Why dont you start reproducing???


----------



## Down Under (Mar 17, 2005)

hmmm the mosty unpopulated countries r 

1. russia 
2. australia & canada at same place
3. brazil 
...


----------



## Down Under (Mar 17, 2005)

AcesHigh said:


> well, you surely have territory to have a much larger population! Why dont you start reproducing???


australia (and canada) can easily get double the population lol in less then a year or more, but we dont, we only take in the amount we can deal with, means that we can build a house for, find a job for, etc ... keep the country in a good shape, where all ppl r happy and dealt with, australia doesnt have a problem of getting ppl, its just a matter of dealing with them.


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

@Down Under: its not like if there was a permission to have children and such. You dont have more kids because as in all developed countries parents dont want to have more children and women are worried about their jobs, not kids. It happens in Brasil too, tough mostly in the higher layers of society. Poor people still have many kids.


----------



## DoctorZero2 (Mar 2, 2005)

AcesHigh said:


> Brasil is btw 95% catholic but we dont give a damn about the pope being against condons and pills...


Oh these naughty Brazilians, don't let the Pope know it ...


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

imho, theres nothing more naughty then forbidding condons, pills and such.

In muslin countries, how do couples avoid children? Are condons and pills allowed? If not, that would help explain the huge populations of Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, etc...


----------



## Down Under (Mar 17, 2005)

^ ahahahhaahha hahaah lol !


----------



## Down Under (Mar 17, 2005)

AcesHigh said:


> @Down Under: its not like if there was a permission to have children and such. You dont have more kids because as in all developed countries parents dont want to have more children and women are worried about their jobs, not kids. It happens in Brasil too, tough mostly in the higher layers of society. Poor people still have many kids.


i was talking about migrants comming into oz, we could get 10 million tomorow if we wanted to, but then what, what do we do with them, there's no homes, jobs, food etc for them, they become a problem, unemployment goes up by 100% lol ..etc, what im saying is we only take in enought ppl that we can deal with


----------



## DoctorZero2 (Mar 2, 2005)

AcesHigh said:


> imho, theres nothing more naughty then forbidding condons, pills and such.
> 
> In muslin countries, how do couples avoid children? Are condons and pills allowed? If not, that would help explain the huge populations of Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, etc...


"Calma", I didn't mean it seriously  ...

In Subsaharan Africa many men take pride in "producing" as many children with as many women as possible, it's a cultural trait. That's also why AIDS is rampant. They are not ignorant of the perils of HIV infection, but tradition (and hormons) win over reason.


----------



## Down Under (Mar 17, 2005)

lol same thing with the chinise and indians i guess, they just wanna make babies lol! horny buggers, thats why they're so poor, so many ppl to take care of, but not enough resources to do so, which is why aus takes in a certain of ppl into the country each year, so that it can deal with them.


----------



## skyscraper_1 (May 30, 2004)

^China's population is growing very slowly...and its not really that poor anymore.


----------



## Down Under (Mar 17, 2005)

^ it is, maybe not "that" poor, but its still very very poor, just look at an average family there, quite poor, ofcourse not as bad as some african countries, but its still in a bad condition, it may look urban and good structures, but quality of life on average is quite bad


----------



## marathon (Jun 6, 2004)

Where's #19 and #20?

Thailand and the United Kingdom


----------



## marathon (Jun 6, 2004)

cello1974 said:


> Pakistan will soon surpass Brazil's population...


What's fascinating is that tiny Bangladesh has more people than Russia...


----------



## LooselogInThePeg (Nov 20, 2004)

Actually, the acknowledged reason for population growth is lack of education. In the industrialized world, there are fewer babies because people tend to weigh the cost of having them. Some don't of course, but in general, that's the case. China's rate of growth is slowing and is projected to be negative by 2050 or so. Japan is already there. Russia and most of Europe are already experiencing this and North America is not far behind. However, with North America there is a high degree of immigration which will keep the populations rising. Mexico on the other hand is underdeveloped and poor. Notice that it's population is rising dramatically. In muslim countries, it is considered a duty of sorts to have children (as evidenced by Turkey which is European in all aspects save religion) 

Baically, there is a tangible correlation between the literacy rates and the population growth rate. The less people know, the more babies they have.


----------



## Down Under (Mar 17, 2005)

lol yeh, altho usa, canada aus oz will not be going negative for a very very very long time yet, so much of the world would more than love to migrate to these countries, and these countries are taking ppl in, being 3 of the largest countrys and quite welathy they can and need to, to keep the economic growth up.


----------



## DoctorZero2 (Mar 2, 2005)

LooselogInThePeg said:


> Actually, the acknowledged reason for population growth is lack of education. In the industrialized world, there are fewer babies because people tend to weigh the cost of having them.


But it's not always like that. Malaysia for instance has a well educated population and its economy has a fairly high degree of industrialization. Nonetheless they have a very high population growth. Would be interesting to know if this growth is equally distributed between the ethnic Malays (which are Muslim), Indians and Chinese in this country.


----------



## DoctorZero2 (Mar 2, 2005)

This just occured to me:

The fall of Apartheid in South Africa is also said to be a consequence of population growth. The segregation laws weren't abolished because the Afrikaaners had miraculously become conscience-stricken, but because of the rational insight that they would soon be quantitatively overpowered by the non-white population which was growing at a much higher rate.

Now being the cynic that I am I would suppose that Apartheid might not have been reversed had the then ruling party anticipated the effects of AIDS on the black population ...


----------



## Loga (Mar 15, 2005)

Leovigildo said:


> 1. China.......1,306,313,812.....0,6%
> 2. India........1,080,264,388.....1,7%
> 3. US.............295,734,134.....0,6%
> 4. Indonesia....241,973,879.....1,6%
> ...



that list has many mistakes... I wonder where did you get it???

This is the actualized to 2004 from CIA 



*Population growth rate:*

China 0.57%
India 1.44%
US 0.92
Indonesia 1.49%
Brazil 1.11%
Pakistan 1.98%
Bangladesh 2.08%
Russia -0.45%
Nigeria 2.45%
Japan 0.08%
Mexico 1.18%
Philippines 1.88%
Vietnam 1.3%
Germany 0.02%
Egypt 1.83%
Ethiopia 1.89%
Turkey 1.13%
Iran 1.07%


----------



## Ellatur (Apr 7, 2004)

the last 4 digits of all countries change every day


----------



## km-sh (Mar 3, 2004)

Indian population will surpass China in some years.


----------



## N/A (Jul 25, 2003)

India needs much more family planning.


----------



## schmidt (Dec 5, 2002)

:eek2:

I'm surprised with some countries:

12. Philippines - 97,857,473
13. Vietnam - 83,535,576
15. Egypt - 77,505,756
16. Ethiopia - 73,053,286

I thought Ethiopia had some 5 million people :lol:


----------



## Down Under (Mar 17, 2005)

holly shit with the phillipines.... had no idea !


----------



## Leovigildo (Nov 22, 2004)

Loga said:


> that list has many mistakes... I wonder where did you get it???
> 
> This is the actualized to 2004 from CIA
> 
> ...


I don't see so many mistakes. Basically, they are the same date, only slightly higher.

I take it from _2004 world population data sheet_.
http://www.prb.org/pdf04/04WorldDataSheet_Eng.pdf


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

If India, Pakistan, and Bangaldesh would join as one nation, it would exeed that of China, and it would have less land area. 

So I guess that means Southwest Asia is the most densly populated area in the world!


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

Leovigildo said:


> I don't see so many mistakes. Basically, they are the same date, only slightly higher.
> 
> I take it from _2004 world population data sheet_.
> http://www.prb.org/pdf04/04WorldDataSheet_Eng.pdf


Thanks, Leovigildo. Intresting document!


----------



## TallBox (Sep 21, 2002)

goschio said:


> ^
> Wish we could go back to that. Today its kind of overcrowded.


Nah, that's not it - if we (the western world) gave a bit more, or at least played fair, then everyone would get a fair share of resources. 

It's says something about our selfishness when if you look at oil consumption, North America comes no1 with 7.62 toe (tonnes of oil equivalent) per person, compared with 0.77 in Africa and 0.62 in South Asia.


----------



## TallBox (Sep 21, 2002)

Look said:


> Compare this with 1936 list:
> ...
> 12. Poland - 35


Quite amazing that Poland's population has only grown by 3 million in 70 years. Though I guess the whole annexation by Germany/becoming a satellite state of the USSR had a lot to do with it...


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

shaun said:


> Quite amazing that Poland's population has only grown by 3 million in 70 years. Though I guess the whole annexation by Germany/becoming a satellite state of the USSR had a lot to do with it...


6 million were killed during the war and another 6 million lived on the territories annexed by USSR. Thus Poland population after the war was only about 23 million.


----------



## Shimo (Apr 6, 2005)

km-sh said:


> Asian Coutries always have the most population.


Yeah, poor countries always have higher birth rates than rich countries.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

Shimo said:


> Yeah, poor countries always have higher birth rates than rich countries.


not really. some poor countries have finished the "demographic transition" like armenia, georgia, moldova, and have less kids than richer countries like canada, uk, france


----------



## DarkLite (Dec 31, 2004)

i think the western hemisphere should be more crowded


----------



## tkr (Apr 3, 2005)

joaquin said:


> i think the western hemisphere should be more crowded


wrong. the eastern hemisphere should be less crowded!


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

Vietnam and Ethipia REALLY surprised me!!...was not expecting such a large population..


----------



## sean storm (Nov 18, 2004)

china and india never cease to amaze me.

all these idiots and bigots on this forum obsessed with ***** size and "making babies" are just pathetic IMO. you children demonstrate lack of education, and i find it ironic and sad that you harp on education and wealth as a justification for less populated country.

china and india became so huge not because they breed like rabbits. european families were no smaller than asian or indian families a century ago. 

the reason why china and the indian subcontinent are so huge in population is because they both are cradles of ancient civilizations that have flourished longer than any other region in the world. the land is fertile and culturally both emphasize the importance of having a large family. you combine all these factors and that's why you see such a huge difference between china/india.... be it today or 1900.... and the next big country which is still only a fraction of their size.


----------



## Christerdom (Apr 9, 2005)

boom said:


> :eek2:
> 
> I'm surprised with some countries:
> 
> ...


Yeah, 5 million people with AIDS...


----------



## Kenwen (May 1, 2005)

The Chinese and the indians in the old days started farming very early while europe is still hunting, the stable food supply from farm makes population growth very fast.China and India also became civalized very early as they were slready huge nations when the other part of the world like europe was still tribes(excpet Rome and Greek states) eg. In the early 19th century when britain has less than 10 million people, china already had 400million people, so interms of changes, chinese pop growth is 300%, is more than 600% for britain.


----------



## richpol (Feb 19, 2005)

for the record, the Philippines' pop. from cia website is only...

Philippines 87,857,473 July 2005 est

and not 97M as originally posted. I was really surprised to see that!


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

Brasil and USA are basically empty countries (like Russia, Canada and Australia too), if you consider the population density. Brasil is the size of Europe, but the pop is only 182 million while Europe has what? 750 million people?


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Ive heard the official population of China is 1.3 billion. The unofficial one according to outside 'china-watching' sources points to 1.5 billion - each year China uses up grain and food sources for an estimated extra 200million people - mostly unaccounted for children, migrants and ethnic groups (declaring a second child loses that child it's state benefits - declaring a third child imposes a fine on top), something the govt finds embarrassing due to its failures in the one child policy. Millions of people are on the move too, the biggest human migration in history as China urbanises with millions of illegals entering the cities - you need a permit to live in the big cities (in Shanghai at a rate of 27,000 a day in 2003) - mostly all unregistered.

Of the 200million odd ethnic minorities, they are exempt from the one child policy in order to boost their numbers, and census taking in these regions are far less vigilant.

The 'ideal' population acc. to the govt would be 500 million.


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

richpol said:


> for the record, the Philippines' pop. from cia website is only...
> 
> Philippines 87,857,473 July 2005 est
> 
> and not 97M as originally posted. I was really surprised to see that!


Yeah, me too! 
Forumers should post statistics that are credible, accurate and exact. dealing with numbers is a nasty thing, so make sure before posting anything related to statistics, doublecheck, if people believed that we have 97 million people in the country, that would've caused another pessimistic idea about the Phils.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

the spliff fairy said:


> Ive heard the official population of China is 1.3 billion. The unofficial one according to outside 'china-watching' sources points to 1.5 billion - each year China uses up grain and food sources for an estimated extra 200million people - mostly unaccounted for children, migrants and ethnic groups (declaring a second child loses that child it's state benefits - declaring a third child imposes a fine on top), something the govt finds embarrassing due to its failures in the one child policy. Millions of people are on the move too, the biggest human migration in history as China urbanises with millions of illegals entering the cities - you need a permit to live in the big cities (in Shanghai at a rate of 27,000 a day in 2003) - mostly all unregistered.
> 
> Of the 200million odd ethnic minorities, they are exempt from the one child policy in order to boost their numbers, and census taking in these regions are far less vigilant.
> 
> The 'ideal' population acc. to the govt would be 500 million.


have you been to china?what a ignorant boy! :hahaha: 

truth:

1.since last year,lots of chinese big cities have suffered from the lack of labour forces,just incredible for you,boy,no?

2.in shanghai which you mentioned,there are 7 million migrants from other regions of  china.the unofficial real number of shanghai city's population should be about 18 million.

3.all the chinese agriculturers can have two children.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

If the 'ideal' population to the chinese govt is 500 million,what would be the number for Europe?200 million?


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

and what are the 'comrades' going to do to achieve the ideal population?

china is going to be a demographic time-bomb with its ageing population quite soon. cutting down its population will only worsen it


----------



## Jai (Jan 5, 2003)

People who are poorer often have larger families beacuse more progeny gives a better chance that the family as a whole can survive. That is why it was not uncommon in the Western world at the turn of the century and depression eras to have large (avg 6 children) families. And that is why the poor in developing nations have larger families today.

The colonizing of the New World, and the exploitation of the colonized east led to Europe and eventually America to industrialize and develop quite rapidly, only over the course of several decades... but at the cost of completely destroying the historical economic powerhouses of the east, China and India. 

This economic meltdown led to a population surge in both those countries. Chinese population control policies and economic development from the 70s led to China controlling their population; as prosparity increases, population growth rate decreases, the one-child-policy aside. 

India has only started its economic growth in the 90s, and only since then has the population growth rate slowly come down. I expect it to come down as the country develops. Though, I think a China-like population control law is necessary, it would be political suicide for any Indian leader, until I fear it may reach critical mass in a worst-case senario. 


I don't know much about China's methods (perhaps the Chinese forumers can explain better), but India is putting all resources into modernizing agriculture. Technically, India's yearly crop at current farming levels (that is, where most of the farms are subsistance farming with not much modern technology) can feed twice India's population size comfortably, due to the lush soil and climate, and hence India is a net exporter of foodstuff and hasn't had a widescale famine since the British, and never since the 60s. However, 1/3 - 1/2 of the food spoils before reaching the market -- and that is without modern farming technologies. 

Modernization of infrastructure and farms will not only get currently produced food to market, increasing population sustainability, but I've heard studies saying that wholescale introduction of modern machinery and GM crops can literally triple India's foodstuff output, technically sustaining a population of 4.5 billion people alone, albeit at current (i.e. minimal) calorie intake.

My point being that the Indian government isn't concerned about population growth as much as economic growth; as economic growth will not only make for agriculture development increasing food, but will also decrease population growth rates. And since the Indian economic boom, growth rates have fallen on avg about .2% a year, increasing each year.

-Jai


----------



## LAuniverse (Dec 25, 2004)

The gap between #2 and #3 is ridiculous.


----------

