Why is Asia so densely populated?

[Winner]

It is rather simple question:

Asian countries like China and India have huge population of people crowded in relatively small territory.

Whole Europe (including Russia) has about 700 million people, but much more high-quality arable land. Historically, Europe had the best conditions for agriculture, so why does Asia have much more people?

I can think of few explanations:

1) Civilizations started there sooner than in Europe (why? maybe the good natural conditions don't stimulate people to advance to next level? Does worse conditions (like in Mezopotamia, Egypt, Chinese plain, Indus and Ganges river valleys, Persia, Greece etc.)
2) Centralized government(s) are better in organizing large-scale agriculture projects (irrigation, canals etc.).
3) Culture more supportive of large families?

What do you think?

 

[FriendlyFire]

1) Major river systems including the Yellow, Yantze, Mekong delta
BTW Mekong Delta allows THREE sometimes FOUR crops to be sown per year. The Nile allows two crops per year.

But then again the Amazon is believed to support some 1.5 Million people at one stage. before contact with more advanced western civilisation

As you correctly guessed almost all civilization formed near major rivers providing argiculture. It is believed though that China were the first to domesticate rice.

2) Hmmm advancements in argicuture by the chinese were aready very advanced compared with european practices. My knowledge here is limited I do know by the time european armies limited numbers in the medieval age numbered say 30,000 chinese armies were about 100,000. huge numbers.

3) sorry while large families are encouraged this was true in europe as well.
I do know sons are favoured in our culture.

 

[GenMarshall]

When you have lots of food and very few incidence of major plaques and famines. You will have a population boom.

 

[Leifmk]

Historically, Europe had the best conditions for agriculture,

I don't think it did, actually.

1) Civilizations started there sooner than in Europe (why? maybe the good natural conditions don't stimulate people to advance to next level? Does worse conditions (like in Mezopotamia, Egypt, Chinese plain, Indus and Ganges river valleys, Persia, Greece etc.)

Yes; much sooner; these areas are close to where the ancestral species of most of our domesticated crops and animals were native in the wild, and where they were first domesticated. Therefore they've been under heavy cultivation much longer. Many places have also suffered severe ecological damage due to soil exhaustion, subtle shifts in regional climate, etc. (large parts of northern Africa and the middle east, for example, were far more productive, relatively speaking, in the classical period than they have been in modern times).

Adapting crops, in particular, to different climates is a very timeconsuming process; even more so before the advent of modern understanding of genetics. Early agriculture was able to spread much faster within a generally similar climate zone (on a rough east-west axis) than into new ones (roughly north-south). Northern Europe, in particular, began farming much later than the Mediterranean lands, using a smaller set of crops since many would not grow usefully, and getting lower yields of those crops that would grow.

 

[Winner]

1) Major river systems including the Yellow, Yantze, Mekong delta
BTW Mekong Delta allows THREE sometimes FOUR crops to be sown per year. The Nile allows two crops per year.

But then again the Amazon is believed to support some 1.5 Million people at one stage. before contact with more advanced western civilisation

As you correctly guessed almost all civilization formed near major rivers providing argiculture. It is believed though that China were the first to domesticate rice.

2) Hmmm advancements in argicuture by the chinese were aready very advanced compared with european practices. My knowledge here is limited I do know by the time european armies limited numbers in the medieval age numbered say 30,000 chinese armies were about 100,000. huge numbers.

3) sorry while large families are encouraged this was true in europe as well.
I do know sons are favoured in our culture.

The third option isn't very credible, it is just a guess.

I am just wondering why Asia has such a large population. In the past, there were usually large agricultural surpluses in Europe, that allowed the aristocracy to live comfortably without impoverishing their subjects (relativelly speaking of course). Peasants in mediaeval India (for example) were much worse off, because their aristocracy took almost everything they produced.

If their conditions (both natural and social) were worse, how comes they maintained such a high population growth?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

When you have lots of food and very few incidence of major plaques and famines. You will have a population boom.

Bwahahaha, Asia's history has been full of famines.

 

[Winner]

When you have lots of food and very few incidence of major plaques and famines. You will have a population boom.

Well, almost any Chinese civil war killed more people than WW1. Floodings usually killed few millions. Famines and wars another millions. Still, they easily replaced these loses.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I think the chief reason Asia has such a large population is that Asia is huge. Huge to the tune of 33% of global land area, to be numerical.

I'll also question the notion Europe has better agricultural land. Wet rice agriculture as practiced in southern China, SE Asia, much of India, etc is hugely productive.

 

[Dann]

Several factors.

Early agricultural progress combined with favorable terrain and climates definitely was one. Especially rice as a crop. It's an amazing grain that could feed much more people per square meter than anything else.

The choice of food was another. Until recently common people's diet wasn't even that heavily dependent on animal sources. Ancient peasants could get all their protein from just soya. Meat was a luxury.

And then you have early knowledge about sanitation practices. Not necessarily aqueducts and running water, but the ancients knew enough to have a clean water supply, generally clean surroundings and a waste disposal system, even if they had to resort to heavier manpower requirements to achieve this. But hey they've got lots of people in the first place.

Organization was another factor. Once unified and free from wars, Chinese rulers (at least the good ones) really dug into developing irrigation, canals, roads etc. and building granaries. The result? Baby boom x N in every mid-cycle of every dynasty. Ands we've had lots of these periods.

In contrast Europe was on permanent war footing until only after the end of the Cold War.

Lastly Indians and Chinese are notoriously more communal, easily satisfied and less individualistic. They don't need that much maintenance before too much unhappiness makes the city or town slip into civil disorder, and so their settlements can grow to a bigger size.

 

[Winner]

I think the chief reason Asia has such a large population is that Asia is huge. Huge to the tune of 33% of global land area, to be numerical.

Asia may be huge, but most of its population is packed in relatively small areas:

 

[Rik Meleet]

(..) even if they had to resort to heavier manpower requirements to achieve this. But hey they've got lots of people in the first place.(..)

So there are more people because there are more people ...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Asia may be huge, but most of its population is packed in relatively small areas:[/IMG]

That's true of every continent. Canada+Alaska+Greenland make up half of N America by area and 6% by population, frex.

 

[Winner]

Several factors.

Early agricultural progress combined with favorable terrain and climates definitely was one. Especially rice as a crop. It's an amazing grain that could feed much more people per square meter than anything else.

The choice of food was another. Until recently common people's diet wasn't even that heavily dependent on animal sources. Ancient peasants could get all their protein from just soya. Meat was a luxury.

And then you have early knowledge about sanitation practices. Not necessarily aqueducts and running water, but the ancients knew enough to have a clean water supply, generally clean surroundings and a waste disposal system, even if they had to resort to heavier manpower requirements to achieve this. But hey they've got lots of people in the first place.

Organization was another factor. Once unified and free from wars, Chinese rulers (at least the good ones) really dug into developing irrigation, canals, roads etc. and building granaries. The result? Baby boom x N in every mid-cycle of every dynasty. Ands we've had lots of these periods.

In contrast Europe was on permanent war footing until only after the end of the Cold War.

Lastly Indians and Chinese are notoriously more communal, easily satisfied and less individualistic. They don't need that much maintenance before too much unhappiness makes the city or town slip into civil disorder, and so their settlements can grow to a bigger size.

That sounds logical.

What about India? Indian kingdoms have been at war almost all the time, and yet India had more people than Europe.

I think you hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph - Europeans need more space to feel comfortable

 

[Winner]

That's true of every continent. Canada+Alaska+Greenland make up half of N America by area and 6% by population, frex.

European population is relatively evenly distributed.

 

[Kal'thzar]

I remember reading somewhere that europe lagged behind because the its agriculture conditions were TOO good.

Simply put, the worse agrcultural conditions in the fertile cresenct (what my source referred to). FORCED people to help each other and to form communaties and cities to make the most out of the land.

Whilst in Europe families could easliy support themselves, hence no communities etc. (ok, you have italy and Greece etc, not sure how to factor them in, well apart from that their a compartivly small area of Europe).

I'm sure you can conjecture from this point onwards

EDIT: Also explains the compartive even distribution of population

 

[Mirc]

Might be because for a long time, especially in the XXth century, many countries of Asia have been extremely poor. When a country is extremely poor, it almost always encourages a population boom. It's not a paradox, it's understandable. There are many factors for this. First all the families have more kids, so that more of them can survive.

It's anyway known poor people tend to have more children. Example: gypsies in Romania have 3 times as many kids as the other people. Turks in Germany have a higher natality than Germans, etc. That's the best explanation I could come up with.

 

[Dann]

So there are more people because there are more people ...

I dunno how to explain this, but yes it's the polar opposite of a vicious cycle.

They find that their land is producing a surplus, but need many hands to work it. So they make more babies, ideally until an equilibrium is reached. But there's no birth control back then, and what is there to prevent them clearing that forest to the north/south/east/west to make more farmland hmm?

And that's how that big blob of dark you see in easten China in Winner's map came to be.

 

[aneeshm]

It is rather simple question:

Asian countries like China and India have huge population of people crowded in relatively small territory.

Whole Europe (including Russia) has about 700 million people, but much more high-quality arable land. Historically, Europe had the best conditions for agriculture, so why does Asia have much more people?

I can think of few explanations:

1) Civilizations started there sooner than in Europe (why? maybe the good natural conditions don't stimulate people to advance to next level? Does worse conditions (like in Mezopotamia, Egypt, Chinese plain, Indus and Ganges river valleys, Persia, Greece etc.)
2) Centralized government(s) are better in organizing large-scale agriculture projects (irrigation, canals etc.).
3) Culture more supportive of large families?

What do you think?

Actually, you've got your facts a bit off. India herself has enough good-quality agricultural land to support the entire world more than once over.

The British all but destroyed the agricultural prosperity of India, and that is why you think that Europe has better land. Famine was a work unknown to Indians before they came.

If you read the ArthaShastra, you'll realise why India has always had a much higher population and population density that Europe, or in fact, anywhere else in the world. The agricultural, economic, and political institutions which that economic treatise describes are ones which can support vast and great civilisations, far denser than Europe and the West.

And it was written at a time when the land was not even fully tamed! Tax breaks for people or villages who build public works (like irrigation and roads), who bring barren land into cultivation, and stuff like that encouraged the building of a very intense and advanced system of agriculture.

However, governance was decentralised - the implementation of economic principles laid out in these treatises was left to the ruler, with advice provided as to how to keep the people happy and prosperous. Taxes were gentle - a flat tax of 16.67% of agricultural income. Customs duties were also not harsh. Women, the aged, learned men, and ascetics were provided with free ferry services by the state across rivers (these were the points where duties were collected). The sheer size and population density of India made centralised governance an impossibility.

There was something akin to a passport system - merchants and travellers had their papers stamped. Merchants had their goods accounted for.

The concept of the state acting as a buffer to stabilise the market for essential commodities was first proposed in India - Chanakya tells us that the ruler should buy grain at the time of an abundant harvest, when prices are low, and sell it when prices have, in his opinion, exceeded tolerable limits, to ensure market stability and to make sure that the poor can afford food. A side-benefit is that the state makes a tidy profit.

The wealth of those days is hard to imagine. The lowest salary a worker for the state could draw per year was five panas, for part-time manual labour. The highest salary was sixty thousand panas, granted to the ruler's inner circle. Five panas was enough to sustain with dignity the manual labourer - imagine the wealth of the state when it could provide its top ranks with an income twelve thousand times larger - and then all the grades in between.

In general, the state of those times, before the Muslim invasion, resembled the modern state in innumerable ways. The ruler was always at the mercy of his subjects - "Keeping the people happy so that they do not revolt" is almost a mania with these authors.

Also, the Indus and Saraswati valleys provided an excellent ground for the building of a civilisation in India. If you see the climate of the region, and of Gangetic plain, you'll realise how much harsher Europe's climate is.


In fact, the effect of the twin invasions - by the Muslims, and by the British - have been so pernicious that the answer to such questions is not obvious. A thousand years back, these questions would never have arisen - the supremacy of Asia was an axiom, and the reasons for it were self-obvious.

 

[Dann]

What about India? Indian kingdoms have been at war almost all the time, and yet India had more people than Europe.

This I cannot explain. Perhaps our Indian posters might be able to inform us if they join this thread.

EDIT: Cross-posted with aneeshm....

 

[The Last Conformist]

European population is relatively evenly distributed.

That's because it's all subarctic wasteland.

Plus, Scandinavia+northern European Russia is something approaching a third of area with hardly any population at all.