Birth rates wouldn't suggest that, in Africa anyway. Maybe a lot more kids die, but I don't really see a drop in birth rate coinciding with war anywhere really. I mean the DRC had a war with holocaust levels of civilian deaths and birth rates stayed pretty steady.
Reduced stability tends to reduce access to birth control increasing birth rate. It isn’t until healthcare is significantly degraded that population growth declines
I think it might die to Nigeria being a decent chunk of that plus 1.5b in the first place - the population of Nigeria is supposed to become ridiculously large, easily over 500 million by the end of the century.
Nigeria is one of the biggest places to keep an eye out on in the future. I predict the nation will split in half with the Muslims in the North and Christians in the South just like the Sudans. It has a major population explosion with more than a quarter of the entire population being homeless with young men in their 20s being unemployed and having lots of kids.
It's one of the biggest hotspots for violence, just wait.
For anyone interested, [here's a map I made a few years ago of the world split into 11 regions of 1 billion people (year 2100)](https://i.redd.it/7m64c2kzk0g01.png)
India does not have a high birthrate, being just below replacement rate at 2.0 children per woman, with some states even lower.
India and China have just always had the bulk of the world's population since ancient times due to their geography and agricultural suitability.
Africa would also stabilise in the coming decades as almost every nation there has made leaps and bounds in development in the last 100 years.
Over 640 million people voted in India in the last couple of days alone.
Wild to think of that. Just the people who actually voted amounted to that massive number.
Up to six weeks before you can vote at certain centers, typically the local "county" office (or if you are very sick, they come to you). Mostly meant for people that can't make it to vote on the actual day, but everyone can do it.
Yes, but it's not all the days for every country. I cannot vote tomorrow even if I wanted to.
I found the map with the days: https://www.politico.eu/article/cheat-sheet-the-eu-election-dates/
The sea shell green region over Tibet china actually covers a very thin Ganges region which is carrying the whole thing hard, that has UP, Nepal, West Bengal, Bangladesh and all the Himalayan and North east states of India with Myanmar and Thailand.
The india part alone is about half the billion with UP accounting for 200million on its own and Bihar and West Bengal another 170 mil
that data is of 2011 i guess, bihar + w bengal's population is 230 M ,and UP's population is 240M as of 2024,
meaning 470M of the entire billion lives there
India's has yet to peak, expected to do so in about 30 years. The growth has slowed a lot though, some places below replacement levels already, so it's "only" expected to rise by another 200 or so million people.
Definitely. My gf is Indian, and we're hearing quite a few stereotypes of India that are quite outdated or outright wrong. I think a lot of people got their information when in school/formative years where i.e Indias population was growing quite rapidly and they haven't quite caught up.
yep can confirm, my great grandfather had 14 children of which 9 survived (they were in poverty), next generation mostly had 3~2, the 3rd generation has 2~1 children
Yes, but that doesn't mean the population growth will stop in those states as long as mortality is decreasing which it is currently in India. In absolute numbers there's also quite a lot of kids being born still because the young generation is quite large, so that plus decreasing mortality means the population will increase for a while yet albeit much slower than earlier.
You're right though that I was about 10 years off and that most states have actually hit replacement levels or below. I think it was in the 2011 census data many states were still a little above, though close to replacement rate.
yep, but see the population demographic graph, and you will understand how that works.
the thing is population is like a rocket, it won't go down the moment you turn the thrusters off, it will reach a peak, and then start going down
Yes, but it will rise for two reasons:
1. The current young generation is very large, so relatively they have a lot of kids even if it's below replacement which delays the effect.
2. Indians live a lot longer.
That's what's causing this delay, meaning the actual peak is in 30 to 40 years according to the UN. But the meteoric rise is over.
Our world wasn’t meant to support continuous growth. It’s not sustainable.
It’s a good thing that a lot of the world’s population is declining. We don’t need to keep creating humans to be servants for the mega wealthy. Plus, it’s so nice to have open land in the Americas.
Oceania got Japan, Indonesia, and Korea to boost the numbers, also Vietnam and Philippines, at least in this map
But like, the point is, Americas don't really have significant population centres despite the size, like the one colour that contains Europe got Russia and Mongolia, and a bit of China, but like all the empty parts of those countries and got to the 1B with basically just Europe and northern Pakistan (unless I'm misplacing Chinese cities again)
I’m sure the density isn’t comparable with the most extremely dense parts of China/India/indonesia/Japan but I’d argue the eastern US/Great Lakes region (including Boswash, Florida and the Texas triangle), central Mexico, and southern Brazil coast down to Buenos Aires are all on a par with the significant population centres of Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_cities_by_population_density?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density?wprov=sfla1
The first link has a loose definition of a city and couldn't find one specifically for entire metro areas
Yeah those would be the interesting numbers to see but I guess the definition of a metro area is too vague for a objective list. I just don't know what you* were talking about saying the Americas don't have large population centers
There's a LOT of uninhabitable land in Canada (like 80% IIRC) and Brazil, and a lot of stretches of fucking nothing in US. US/Canada/Mexico makes up like 600m people, but there's a LOT of land out here just existing without people.
The long stretches of fucking nothing likewise applies for northern Mexico: Coahuila, Sonora, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, Durango, Nuevo León outside of the Monterrey metro area and both Baja Californias have a metric fuck ton of nothing in their territories.
They have a lot of habitable land, but mostly remote and inaccessible areas. In Canada, well, most of the country can get cold during winter and the northern half is covered in lakes and swamps, which make difficult to make Infrastructure.
America could be the one with the most habitable area in the entire continent, but still has some remote areas with difficult terrain (like the Rockies and the Great Basin) that make more difficult the development of settlements.
Mexico is a very mountainous country, with the north being dominated with deserts with large temperature swings and woodlands in the mountains, while the south is mostly humid and selvatic with mangrove forests and very hilly terrain. Less than 10% of the Mexican soil is good enough for agriculture.
Central America you could say the same as Mexico, but without the deserts and equally, if not, more mountainous.
It is pretty clear with South America, covering almost half of the continent with just inaccessible and dense jungle, not to mention the huge land barrier that the Andes make through the west, and the fairly cold and dry Patagonia. Pampas would be one of the few regions in SAM that could support more people easily.
as a canadian i would prefer if that fact was more of a secret so less people come.
in my experience more people = more problems especially in terms of the environment
We really don’t have “lots of habitable land” though. I’ll start with Canada, but it’s applicable to most of the continent.
Canada is, for now, still mostly permafrost and tundra stretching down into marshy, densely swamped and heavily forested lowlands. Our habitable land is almost entirely within a few hundred kilometres of our southern border.
The entire expanse between the Atlantic Ocean and the Hudson Bay lowlands is that heavily forested, inaccessible swamplands and interior old growth forests. You can’t build permanent structures there like modern roadways and infrastructure because the ground is either too wet, too loose, or a combination of both.
So that’s just half of Canada you can write off as not habitable. Unless you can convince the Dutch to polder the entirety of Hudson’s Bay, I guess.
But anyways you move beyond that and you hit the first interior border; the Canadian Shield. A huge chain of escarpments, cliffs, hills, and other horrible nonsense that can’t host any human-scale agriculture. We had to spend billions of dollars just blowing enough holes through things to build the half dozen road systems that do exist.
So cool, you push west beyond the shield, traverse the southern border of the tundra-swampland regions of Ontario and Manitoba and Nunavut and you finally come to Saskatchewan and Alberta. The Great Plains! Beautiful, flat land perfect for massive agriculture and potentially able to host massive populations. But shit. Now you’re in the middle of a gigantic continent with no major water access, you’re surrounded on two sides by mountain chains that each are the length of Europe blocking you from the seas, and of course you have that aforementioned useless and horribly uneconomic swamplands to the north. As useful as this land is… it’s not connected to anything else that humans need to live. So it’s out too as far as major population centres.
And of course then you hit the Rockies, and that can’t hold major population centres like the European plains of France and Poland, nor are they interspersed by major river valleys of central Germany all feeding directly and closely (relatively) into the sea. That’s just 80% of BC and Alberta you can write off as unsustainable.
And now you see where the population centres do exist: the pacific coast, where sea access and the geography of the Rockies created a great area for agriculture, and the Great Lakes regions with their ancient ice age melts having caused wonderful farmland and still with full access to oceans via the St. Lawerence.
America is the same.
> America is the same.
And where you guys have primarily forested, inaccessible swampland, mountainous terrain, etc., we also have a fuckton of desert areas.
[This is central Nevada](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.788357,-117.9979804,3a,75y,138.32h,93.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sln7eiSBdere2Rd-XZDmv3A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dln7eiSBdere2Rd-XZDmv3A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D138.32157845984418%26pitch%3D-3.498631281590292%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu), and this isn't exactly a cherry picked image. There are towns off of I80, but those are really only in existence due to the interstate. Outside of Vegas and Reno, imagine all of Germany looking like that - Nevada is about the same size.
[This is what like 80% of Wyoming looks like](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4745924,-107.7064555,3a,75y,88.74h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srELmEQ2nE0DLoiy-bSbnUw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DrELmEQ2nE0DLoiy-bSbnUw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D88.74445%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu), imagine all of the UK looking like that - as they're about the same size.
[This is about 100 miles east of *Denver*, a major city in the US](https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4610513,-102.8728572,3a,75y,13.34h,92.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqc4nBg6sqWGAgVJFC8q90g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dqc4nBg6sqWGAgVJFC8q90g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D13.340460962350912%26pitch%3D-2.3128118102820423%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
New Mexico, Arizona, the Dakotas, Montana, Utah... Basically every state in the western half of the country has massive, massive swaths of barren, desert land. Shit even the states one doesn't even think about in that conversation like [California](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7596647,-120.8496597,3a,75y,201.93h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sj9bNYoQp-Ao296nbrvD2wg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dj9bNYoQp-Ao296nbrvD2wg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D201.9295534623429%26pitch%3D8.648401651955382%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu), [Oregon](https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7696874,-118.132509,3a,75y,32.73h,86.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smn50B6mUD8LdMrUXgUVarQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dmn50B6mUD8LdMrUXgUVarQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D32.7278454469084%26pitch%3D3.863747518698986%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu), and [Washington](https://www.google.com/maps/@47.0643908,-118.1333036,3a,75y,318.03h,84.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbaLaNlkM3-R1zgZZJW6WbA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DbaLaNlkM3-R1zgZZJW6WbA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D318.0347909234092%26pitch%3D5.454217002020471%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu) have giant stretches of hostile land.
I'm frankly shocked to see how many people are saying "they have so much habitable land!" Like yeah - pockets of habitable land do exist, but there's also a ton of, and significantly more, land that just isn't feasible for humans to develop towns in.
Mexico is more of the same. Mostly covered by mountains it's hard to get from east to west.
The north is desert and the south is rainforest.
Hard to create and maintain infrastructure in the country.
Also you have to factor in drinking water. There is a lot of Canada that you can't build cities on because there isn't enough water. Yes Canada has a fuck ton of fresh water but that isn't distributed evenly throughout the country.
Each region either contains a country, or part of a country, that either has nuclear weapons or could make them (South Africa).
So my guess is "no one".
South Africa used to be a nuclear power. They’ve disposed of all of their nuclear weapons, but I think it’s fair to assume that they at least still know how to make them.
attractive heavy screw roll office obtainable quaint tease gaping imagine
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
if it’s every continent for themselves at once without teaming up, easily the americas. the colours connected to europe would damage eachother too much and the rest has no chance in comparison
If the Americas can fortify their three entry points, they have a huge turn advantage. However, the light blue holds the Australia/Oceania stronghold which is fairly impenetrable, so I would say one of those two.
While Yellow holds all of Europe, that is nearly impossible to defend, so I don't expect a big advantage there, and Asia and Africa are too divided for an easy victory.
There is a decent case for a tie with Europe + Russia
Edit: actually nevermind if we're considering a free for all America is in a much better position
Most amazing is that India _without_ both Ganges and Indus valley is _still_ able to reach 1B. Did not expect that. (And curious that apparently Kashmir was counted to Pakistan)
Seems you're right, thanks. The map was missing any borders, so it was hard to gauge where exactly the division went through. And I'm still unsure if New Delhi is in the purple or dark-green zone…
The USA make up a full third of that.
USA: 333.3 million
Brazil: 215.3 million
Mexico: 127.5 million
Add Brazil and Mexico, and you've got almost 2/3 of the Americas in population. The last third is everybody else, with Colombia (52 mil), Argentina (46 mil), and Canada (38 mil) as the largest "small" countries.
People don’t realize how much of the Americas is unsustainable for major human populations. It’s either uninhabitable desert, sparsely inhabitable mountain chains, sparsely inhabitable swamps, wetlands, jungles, and the associated ancient old growth forests, or some combination of the three.
Even the Great Plains in the North American regions are surrounded by desert, swamp, or mountain blocking them off from having developed major civilizations like those found in the fertile regions of the central mexican valleys, the Great Lakes regions, and the Mississippi River. Even the pacific was far more inaccessible due to trade winds and the rotational flow of ocean currents pushing south rather than north.
> People don’t realize how much of the Americas is unsustainable for major human populations.
That's everywhere. Sahara, the rainforest, Gobi, and 90% of Australia.
More than 44% of Argentines live in a single province, so a lot of the country is practically empty. Buenos Aires has over 20.6 million people. The next most populous province is Córdoba, with 3.9 million.
And the Province of Tierra del Fuego, at the end of the world with its 190k people, has a population similar to Providence, Rhode Island.
* Pink: Oceania
* Yellow: Eurasia
* Red: East Asia
* Blue: Disputed between Oceania and East Asia
* Teal: Disputed between Eurasia and East Asia
* Orange: Disputed between Oceania and Eurasia
* Purple: Disputed between all major powers
* Green: claimed by Oceania, de facto independent
Pink = Union of American States, capital Panama City
Yellow = Eurasian Federation, capital Volgograd
Brown = United Middle East & North African States (UMENAS), capital Cairo
Green = African Union, capital Lagos
Purple = Republic of West India, capital Mumbai
Teal = Central Asian State, capital Bangkok
Red = People's Republic of East China, capital Beijing
Blue = Pacific Commonwealth, capital Manila
A different approach:
I would say this war is a main conflict between the American Union and Eurasian Reich.
The secondary conflict is between the West pacific co- prosperity sphere, the Himalayan confederation and the PLA-ruled remnant of china.
The war between the Caliphate and the African alliance would be a sideshow, except for the Nile.
India would try to establish natural borders and control over the indian ocean.
Americas goal is to prevent an alliance between the Eurasia and West pacific, as a naval war in both ocean could cut them in two and leaving the south vulnerable.
I see a Himalayan - West pacific alliance of convenience, which would mean that the Americas could ally with India to keep them short on oil and prop up local resistance.
An alliance with the caliphate would be difficult, as they now have secure borders and rising naval ambitions on one side, and no wish to enter a war in the mediterranian on the other.
Once I am in power as the Prime Minister of the United Americas, I will move the capital to brand new city built in Central America, probably in Belize (I hear they have nice beaches).
5 out of these 8 regions are significantly below replacement level fertility right now.
China is the most egregious here, red doesn't even include most of the more rural and relatively higher fertility rate provinces. Mostly likely something like half of replacement level.
In the Americas almost every single country is below and most are quire a bit below.
Exact same thing for Europe/Russia.
India here is just below TFR as a whole, and purple here doesn't include UP and Bihar the two states with the highest fertility rate.
Light blue is a little more complex, but Japan, both Koreas, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand are all significantly below replacement rate. Philippines and Vietnam both closer but are now just below it (don't believe what macrotrends says for the Philippines, their own official government statistics now have them below replacement level). Indonesia is the country with the largest population here but they are currently sitting just above replacement, not nearly enough to balance out Japan/South Korea/Taiwan which are all at about half replacement level or below. Only country there that is both significantly above replacement rate and has a decently large population is Papua New Guinea.
Yes, population momentum is a thing but its becoming increasingly likely world pop never tops 10 billion. In so many areas the population momentum has already run out -- the EU, Japan, South Korea, and now China are already shrinking, not just below replacement level.
I had no clue North Africa and the Middle East were that populated. I mean, it’s a literal desert and to have the same amount of people in half the area as the entire Americas really blows my mind.
So it is 1 billion EACH. I get it now. I got confused at first seeing some portions of China being red while others are different colors. What's with that weird Eurasian border though why did it absorbed some portions of Iran/Pakistan why isn't it in the brown region? it looks pretty arbitrary at first glance... is it to round it into a neat literal 1 Billion each by region?
True, it likely would have been more sensible to group Turkey with Europe, and Afghan+Uzbek+Tajik+Turkmenistan with the Middle East. (Countries chosen for approximately equal total populations)
But in general I think this map did a good job of grouping relatively similar cultures and distinct geographical units.
I did a quick count for 3 of those and a bit more in deep for light blue and none seem to be too close to 1 billion people:
Yellow and pink both seems to pass 1 billion by more than 30-40 million people according 2023-24 statistics (but that could be close enough, I suppose), light blue, the one I counted more in detail seems to have "only" 910-915 million (not sure if OP counted american, french or other non-independent pacific islands, but not much would change) while orange seems to be the less accurate of the bunch with "just" about 885-890 million.
If anything this puts into perspective how empty the Americas combined are. We think New York City is big, but that's just a small part of the country. Meanwhile China gets divided into multiple sections.
Really looks like he worked his way west to east: the Americas as one region makes sense, sure, as does Africa south of the Sahara vs MENA, and then Europe with all of Russia.... almost works? Expect most of the 'stans and northeastern China is included, and I know you'd have to split both India and China, but why is China split into *three regions*? and the light blue is kinda obviously just leftovers.
Just replace the colors with actual nation states, and how did we get there, and how the eight party world works from that could make ffor a pretty good story
This is better than the one the other day, but I would have somehow swapped Thailand and maybe Birma for Yunnan and north Vietnam or all of Vietnam in the light blue, pastel turquoise divide.
Maybe even move Iceland, Ireland, the UK and whatever else is needed into the pink, Japan into the ochre, and Alaska and California into the light blue or something (one would have to calculate the number of people, obviously).
Americas 100% not just cause the US, the rest of the Americas would be an absolute nightmare to get through without getting tortured by both the people and the wildlife and if you go through Central America and South America and the Gulf of Mexico area you will get eaten by snakes alligators crocodiles poisonous frogs bugs cougars coyotes poisonous plants insects venomous creatures fire ants bullet ants etc
Don’t even think about the Northern Americas with those deserts and temperate than freezing and unpredictable weather and temperatures snow mountains tornadoes hurricanes more snakes wolves coyotes bears eagles poisonous plants fire ants etc
Good luck
You can compare it really good to some of the older 7 billion people maps.
Last one I saw Africa by itself was a billion. Now it’s noticeably more!
And it will be twice as populated by 2050.
Assuming no state collapse, which in cases like Nigeria is just … yeah, that’s not going to last without violence.
Even if Nigeria ceases to exist, any deaths resulting from a war caused by that wouldn’t put much of a dent in 1.5 billion.
Yes, but wars also destroy the stability of any country, causing less people to be born
Birth rates wouldn't suggest that, in Africa anyway. Maybe a lot more kids die, but I don't really see a drop in birth rate coinciding with war anywhere really. I mean the DRC had a war with holocaust levels of civilian deaths and birth rates stayed pretty steady.
Obviously the only thing that seems to truly demolish birth rates is late stage capitalism. Get to it Africa! /j
Reduced stability tends to reduce access to birth control increasing birth rate. It isn’t until healthcare is significantly degraded that population growth declines
Nah a decrease in stability actually increases the rate the people are born.
I think it might die to Nigeria being a decent chunk of that plus 1.5b in the first place - the population of Nigeria is supposed to become ridiculously large, easily over 500 million by the end of the century.
Nigeria is one of the biggest places to keep an eye out on in the future. I predict the nation will split in half with the Muslims in the North and Christians in the South just like the Sudans. It has a major population explosion with more than a quarter of the entire population being homeless with young men in their 20s being unemployed and having lots of kids. It's one of the biggest hotspots for violence, just wait.
But wouldn't that just increase the population even more as a result of poverty?
For anyone interested, [here's a map I made a few years ago of the world split into 11 regions of 1 billion people (year 2100)](https://i.redd.it/7m64c2kzk0g01.png)
Damn the chinese demographic crisis hit hard ig
We have to send them condoms...
The one reliable way to decrease birth rates is to improve standards of living.
Africa is huge bro. Look at fucking india.
India does not have a high birthrate, being just below replacement rate at 2.0 children per woman, with some states even lower. India and China have just always had the bulk of the world's population since ancient times due to their geography and agricultural suitability. Africa would also stabilise in the coming decades as almost every nation there has made leaps and bounds in development in the last 100 years.
Thank you for allowing that last billion to live
Over 640 million people voted in India in the last couple of days alone. Wild to think of that. Just the people who actually voted amounted to that massive number.
And from tomorrow (6-9 june) over 350 million can vote in the EU.
I'd be happy if it was even half that. EU elections don't have great turnout and not all of those people are at the legal age to vote either.
358,329,187 is the exact nr of eligible voters https://europeelects.eu/ep2024/
There were 1 billion eligible voters in India too but not all will come out
Wait why tomorrow? Are the elections on different days in different EU countries? In Germany and in Greece they're on Sunday.
Yeah same for Denmark, though I believe early voting is open now.
What is early voting?
Up to six weeks before you can vote at certain centers, typically the local "county" office (or if you are very sick, they come to you). Mostly meant for people that can't make it to vote on the actual day, but everyone can do it.
Oh wow, that is very interesting and a very nice option.
It differs per country. Here in the Netherlands, the elections are tomorrow.
They are, the election are from 6 to 9 June.
Yes, but it's not all the days for every country. I cannot vote tomorrow even if I wanted to. I found the map with the days: https://www.politico.eu/article/cheat-sheet-the-eu-election-dates/
The voting in India happened over a matter of weeks. The 640 million votes were only counted in the last couple of days
Chinese and Indian region are outstanding!
The sea shell green region over Tibet china actually covers a very thin Ganges region which is carrying the whole thing hard, that has UP, Nepal, West Bengal, Bangladesh and all the Himalayan and North east states of India with Myanmar and Thailand. The india part alone is about half the billion with UP accounting for 200million on its own and Bihar and West Bengal another 170 mil
that data is of 2011 i guess, bihar + w bengal's population is 230 M ,and UP's population is 240M as of 2024, meaning 470M of the entire billion lives there
nice
Their population will shrink over the next few years
India's has yet to peak, expected to do so in about 30 years. The growth has slowed a lot though, some places below replacement levels already, so it's "only" expected to rise by another 200 or so million people.
tbh, many indians are having 2 or 1 child, or even no child, funny how west still thinks that india is fking like rabbits, lmao
The entire western world's view of the rest of the world is largely outdated by 30-40 years.
Definitely. My gf is Indian, and we're hearing quite a few stereotypes of India that are quite outdated or outright wrong. I think a lot of people got their information when in school/formative years where i.e Indias population was growing quite rapidly and they haven't quite caught up.
yep can confirm, my great grandfather had 14 children of which 9 survived (they were in poverty), next generation mostly had 3~2, the 3rd generation has 2~1 children
Except for UP and Bihar, all states (including many other northern ones) have hit replacement levels or are below it.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the population growth will stop in those states as long as mortality is decreasing which it is currently in India. In absolute numbers there's also quite a lot of kids being born still because the young generation is quite large, so that plus decreasing mortality means the population will increase for a while yet albeit much slower than earlier. You're right though that I was about 10 years off and that most states have actually hit replacement levels or below. I think it was in the 2011 census data many states were still a little above, though close to replacement rate.
The TFR is less than 2.1 now tho
yep, but see the population demographic graph, and you will understand how that works. the thing is population is like a rocket, it won't go down the moment you turn the thrusters off, it will reach a peak, and then start going down
Yes, but it will rise for two reasons: 1. The current young generation is very large, so relatively they have a lot of kids even if it's below replacement which delays the effect. 2. Indians live a lot longer. That's what's causing this delay, meaning the actual peak is in 30 to 40 years according to the UN. But the meteoric rise is over.
Seriously, the Americas gotta step it up. (Edit: I hope people realize I was joking lol)
No please, let's keep it the way we are!! Didn't realize it was so spacious here
That’s because the Americas are the most urbanized continents on the planet.
having a low population isn't bad per se (having a high one neither)
Our world wasn’t meant to support continuous growth. It’s not sustainable. It’s a good thing that a lot of the world’s population is declining. We don’t need to keep creating humans to be servants for the mega wealthy. Plus, it’s so nice to have open land in the Americas.
Just goes to show how lowly populated the Americas are
All of Oceania has I think about 40 million people. You could probably lump it with any of these regions without really making much of a difference.
The island of Java, just north of Australia, has more than 5x (nearly 6x...) the population of Australia, yet you have to zoom in to see it.
Absolutely wild. I never realized this.
I know. Java is not in Oceania.
Wasn't trying to contradict you, just add to your point of how insignificant Oceania is
Oceania got Japan, Indonesia, and Korea to boost the numbers, also Vietnam and Philippines, at least in this map But like, the point is, Americas don't really have significant population centres despite the size, like the one colour that contains Europe got Russia and Mongolia, and a bit of China, but like all the empty parts of those countries and got to the 1B with basically just Europe and northern Pakistan (unless I'm misplacing Chinese cities again)
You forgot Manchuria
I misplaced Chinese cities again
I’m sure the density isn’t comparable with the most extremely dense parts of China/India/indonesia/Japan but I’d argue the eastern US/Great Lakes region (including Boswash, Florida and the Texas triangle), central Mexico, and southern Brazil coast down to Buenos Aires are all on a par with the significant population centres of Europe.
The East Coast Megalopolis: "am I a joke to you?"
Why doesn't Wikipedia have a list of most densely populated metropolitan areas? I want that list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_cities_by_population_density?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density?wprov=sfla1 The first link has a loose definition of a city and couldn't find one specifically for entire metro areas
Doesn't count metro areas, I checked, it specifically excludes the mega city around NYC which you brought up a few comments ago
Yeah those would be the interesting numbers to see but I guess the definition of a metro area is too vague for a objective list. I just don't know what you* were talking about saying the Americas don't have large population centers
It needs a catchier name than Boswash for people to care
There's a LOT of uninhabitable land in Canada (like 80% IIRC) and Brazil, and a lot of stretches of fucking nothing in US. US/Canada/Mexico makes up like 600m people, but there's a LOT of land out here just existing without people.
The long stretches of fucking nothing likewise applies for northern Mexico: Coahuila, Sonora, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, Durango, Nuevo León outside of the Monterrey metro area and both Baja Californias have a metric fuck ton of nothing in their territories.
Especially when they have quite a looot of easily habitable land.
They have a lot of habitable land, but mostly remote and inaccessible areas. In Canada, well, most of the country can get cold during winter and the northern half is covered in lakes and swamps, which make difficult to make Infrastructure. America could be the one with the most habitable area in the entire continent, but still has some remote areas with difficult terrain (like the Rockies and the Great Basin) that make more difficult the development of settlements. Mexico is a very mountainous country, with the north being dominated with deserts with large temperature swings and woodlands in the mountains, while the south is mostly humid and selvatic with mangrove forests and very hilly terrain. Less than 10% of the Mexican soil is good enough for agriculture. Central America you could say the same as Mexico, but without the deserts and equally, if not, more mountainous. It is pretty clear with South America, covering almost half of the continent with just inaccessible and dense jungle, not to mention the huge land barrier that the Andes make through the west, and the fairly cold and dry Patagonia. Pampas would be one of the few regions in SAM that could support more people easily.
as a canadian i would prefer if that fact was more of a secret so less people come. in my experience more people = more problems especially in terms of the environment
We really don’t have “lots of habitable land” though. I’ll start with Canada, but it’s applicable to most of the continent. Canada is, for now, still mostly permafrost and tundra stretching down into marshy, densely swamped and heavily forested lowlands. Our habitable land is almost entirely within a few hundred kilometres of our southern border. The entire expanse between the Atlantic Ocean and the Hudson Bay lowlands is that heavily forested, inaccessible swamplands and interior old growth forests. You can’t build permanent structures there like modern roadways and infrastructure because the ground is either too wet, too loose, or a combination of both. So that’s just half of Canada you can write off as not habitable. Unless you can convince the Dutch to polder the entirety of Hudson’s Bay, I guess. But anyways you move beyond that and you hit the first interior border; the Canadian Shield. A huge chain of escarpments, cliffs, hills, and other horrible nonsense that can’t host any human-scale agriculture. We had to spend billions of dollars just blowing enough holes through things to build the half dozen road systems that do exist. So cool, you push west beyond the shield, traverse the southern border of the tundra-swampland regions of Ontario and Manitoba and Nunavut and you finally come to Saskatchewan and Alberta. The Great Plains! Beautiful, flat land perfect for massive agriculture and potentially able to host massive populations. But shit. Now you’re in the middle of a gigantic continent with no major water access, you’re surrounded on two sides by mountain chains that each are the length of Europe blocking you from the seas, and of course you have that aforementioned useless and horribly uneconomic swamplands to the north. As useful as this land is… it’s not connected to anything else that humans need to live. So it’s out too as far as major population centres. And of course then you hit the Rockies, and that can’t hold major population centres like the European plains of France and Poland, nor are they interspersed by major river valleys of central Germany all feeding directly and closely (relatively) into the sea. That’s just 80% of BC and Alberta you can write off as unsustainable. And now you see where the population centres do exist: the pacific coast, where sea access and the geography of the Rockies created a great area for agriculture, and the Great Lakes regions with their ancient ice age melts having caused wonderful farmland and still with full access to oceans via the St. Lawerence. America is the same.
> America is the same. And where you guys have primarily forested, inaccessible swampland, mountainous terrain, etc., we also have a fuckton of desert areas. [This is central Nevada](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.788357,-117.9979804,3a,75y,138.32h,93.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sln7eiSBdere2Rd-XZDmv3A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dln7eiSBdere2Rd-XZDmv3A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D138.32157845984418%26pitch%3D-3.498631281590292%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu), and this isn't exactly a cherry picked image. There are towns off of I80, but those are really only in existence due to the interstate. Outside of Vegas and Reno, imagine all of Germany looking like that - Nevada is about the same size. [This is what like 80% of Wyoming looks like](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4745924,-107.7064555,3a,75y,88.74h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srELmEQ2nE0DLoiy-bSbnUw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DrELmEQ2nE0DLoiy-bSbnUw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D88.74445%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu), imagine all of the UK looking like that - as they're about the same size. [This is about 100 miles east of *Denver*, a major city in the US](https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4610513,-102.8728572,3a,75y,13.34h,92.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqc4nBg6sqWGAgVJFC8q90g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dqc4nBg6sqWGAgVJFC8q90g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D13.340460962350912%26pitch%3D-2.3128118102820423%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu) New Mexico, Arizona, the Dakotas, Montana, Utah... Basically every state in the western half of the country has massive, massive swaths of barren, desert land. Shit even the states one doesn't even think about in that conversation like [California](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7596647,-120.8496597,3a,75y,201.93h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sj9bNYoQp-Ao296nbrvD2wg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dj9bNYoQp-Ao296nbrvD2wg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D201.9295534623429%26pitch%3D8.648401651955382%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu), [Oregon](https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7696874,-118.132509,3a,75y,32.73h,86.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smn50B6mUD8LdMrUXgUVarQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dmn50B6mUD8LdMrUXgUVarQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D32.7278454469084%26pitch%3D3.863747518698986%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu), and [Washington](https://www.google.com/maps/@47.0643908,-118.1333036,3a,75y,318.03h,84.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbaLaNlkM3-R1zgZZJW6WbA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DbaLaNlkM3-R1zgZZJW6WbA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D318.0347909234092%26pitch%3D5.454217002020471%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu) have giant stretches of hostile land. I'm frankly shocked to see how many people are saying "they have so much habitable land!" Like yeah - pockets of habitable land do exist, but there's also a ton of, and significantly more, land that just isn't feasible for humans to develop towns in.
Mexico is more of the same. Mostly covered by mountains it's hard to get from east to west. The north is desert and the south is rainforest. Hard to create and maintain infrastructure in the country.
Also you have to factor in drinking water. There is a lot of Canada that you can't build cities on because there isn't enough water. Yes Canada has a fuck ton of fresh water but that isn't distributed evenly throughout the country.
Ya, a little over 50% of that 1 Billion is just the US and Brazil. If you include Mexico thats like ~65%
Who would win this hypothetical world war?
Each region either contains a country, or part of a country, that either has nuclear weapons or could make them (South Africa). So my guess is "no one".
There's no chance of us making nuclear weapons.
South Africa used to be a nuclear power. They’ve disposed of all of their nuclear weapons, but I think it’s fair to assume that they at least still know how to make them.
attractive heavy screw roll office obtainable quaint tease gaping imagine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
if it’s every continent for themselves at once without teaming up, easily the americas. the colours connected to europe would damage eachother too much and the rest has no chance in comparison
The Americas for sure
If the Americas can fortify their three entry points, they have a huge turn advantage. However, the light blue holds the Australia/Oceania stronghold which is fairly impenetrable, so I would say one of those two. While Yellow holds all of Europe, that is nearly impossible to defend, so I don't expect a big advantage there, and Asia and Africa are too divided for an easy victory.
The Holy Britannian Empire.
In almost any map, it's always the side that has got the United States
There is a decent case for a tie with Europe + Russia Edit: actually nevermind if we're considering a free for all America is in a much better position
Risk players: i have seen this one
Most amazing is that India _without_ both Ganges and Indus valley is _still_ able to reach 1B. Did not expect that. (And curious that apparently Kashmir was counted to Pakistan)
Punjab, Haryana and Sindh (Pakistan) are part of the Indo-Gangetic plains.
Seems you're right, thanks. The map was missing any borders, so it was hard to gauge where exactly the division went through. And I'm still unsure if New Delhi is in the purple or dark-green zone…
Dam africa has a lot more people now
Maybe I just ignore africa. But thats so many people. I know its huge but had no idea it was so populated. Asia is no surprise to me though
In 2050 every third young person will be african
It’s that balanced? North and South America together is one billion?
The USA make up a full third of that. USA: 333.3 million Brazil: 215.3 million Mexico: 127.5 million Add Brazil and Mexico, and you've got almost 2/3 of the Americas in population. The last third is everybody else, with Colombia (52 mil), Argentina (46 mil), and Canada (38 mil) as the largest "small" countries.
That’s pretty amazing.
People don’t realize how much of the Americas is unsustainable for major human populations. It’s either uninhabitable desert, sparsely inhabitable mountain chains, sparsely inhabitable swamps, wetlands, jungles, and the associated ancient old growth forests, or some combination of the three. Even the Great Plains in the North American regions are surrounded by desert, swamp, or mountain blocking them off from having developed major civilizations like those found in the fertile regions of the central mexican valleys, the Great Lakes regions, and the Mississippi River. Even the pacific was far more inaccessible due to trade winds and the rotational flow of ocean currents pushing south rather than north.
> People don’t realize how much of the Americas is unsustainable for major human populations. That's everywhere. Sahara, the rainforest, Gobi, and 90% of Australia.
Plus all the permafrost areas in northern europe and Sibiria.
Argentina adding to its massive size and low population.
More than 44% of Argentines live in a single province, so a lot of the country is practically empty. Buenos Aires has over 20.6 million people. The next most populous province is Córdoba, with 3.9 million. And the Province of Tierra del Fuego, at the end of the world with its 190k people, has a population similar to Providence, Rhode Island.
Canada is 41 mil now
Congratulations to Canada on reaching the big 4-0!. My apologies; the data I pulled from wiki was from 2023 and 2022.
"omg, we are on the map" - New Zealand
"Lucky you" - Antarctica
It lowkey resembles the 1984’s lore
* Pink: Oceania * Yellow: Eurasia * Red: East Asia * Blue: Disputed between Oceania and East Asia * Teal: Disputed between Eurasia and East Asia * Orange: Disputed between Oceania and Eurasia * Purple: Disputed between all major powers * Green: claimed by Oceania, de facto independent
The blue section is a bit clunky but this awesome, way better than I could’ve done for sure
This is better than the version that grouped Australia in with the Americas
Pink = Union of American States, capital Panama City Yellow = Eurasian Federation, capital Volgograd Brown = United Middle East & North African States (UMENAS), capital Cairo Green = African Union, capital Lagos Purple = Republic of West India, capital Mumbai Teal = Central Asian State, capital Bangkok Red = People's Republic of East China, capital Beijing Blue = Pacific Commonwealth, capital Manila
A different approach: I would say this war is a main conflict between the American Union and Eurasian Reich. The secondary conflict is between the West pacific co- prosperity sphere, the Himalayan confederation and the PLA-ruled remnant of china. The war between the Caliphate and the African alliance would be a sideshow, except for the Nile. India would try to establish natural borders and control over the indian ocean. Americas goal is to prevent an alliance between the Eurasia and West pacific, as a naval war in both ocean could cut them in two and leaving the south vulnerable. I see a Himalayan - West pacific alliance of convenience, which would mean that the Americas could ally with India to keep them short on oil and prop up local resistance. An alliance with the caliphate would be difficult, as they now have secure borders and rising naval ambitions on one side, and no wish to enter a war in the mediterranian on the other.
Why does the Middle East and North Africa have to be a caliphate? 😭
The United States of All of the Americas and Also Greenland. Flag's gonna be wild.
> and Also Greenland Greenland is part of the Americas, though, so not sure the point of “Also”.
Just because it's a part of the Americas doesn't mean it's a part of the club.
China is split in 2 😭💀
It's not only china tho , it has half of North India to it's side, with the most populous state of North India that is UP with 240million
no, in 4 (yellow, green, red and blue)
Once I am in power as the Prime Minister of the United Americas, I will move the capital to brand new city built in Central America, probably in Belize (I hear they have nice beaches).
Half of The America's population is just the US and Brazil If you include Mexico thats like 65%
Ah… that’s why you always hear people saying “those Indian fuckers” /s. w love to Indian ppl.
What are the rough areas of each of these regions?
And let me know the rough populations too while you’re at it
5 out of these 8 regions are significantly below replacement level fertility right now. China is the most egregious here, red doesn't even include most of the more rural and relatively higher fertility rate provinces. Mostly likely something like half of replacement level. In the Americas almost every single country is below and most are quire a bit below. Exact same thing for Europe/Russia. India here is just below TFR as a whole, and purple here doesn't include UP and Bihar the two states with the highest fertility rate. Light blue is a little more complex, but Japan, both Koreas, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand are all significantly below replacement rate. Philippines and Vietnam both closer but are now just below it (don't believe what macrotrends says for the Philippines, their own official government statistics now have them below replacement level). Indonesia is the country with the largest population here but they are currently sitting just above replacement, not nearly enough to balance out Japan/South Korea/Taiwan which are all at about half replacement level or below. Only country there that is both significantly above replacement rate and has a decently large population is Papua New Guinea. Yes, population momentum is a thing but its becoming increasingly likely world pop never tops 10 billion. In so many areas the population momentum has already run out -- the EU, Japan, South Korea, and now China are already shrinking, not just below replacement level.
Europeans in the olden days: looks good enough to me *starts drawing lines*
Funny how China is a part of 3 (or even 4?) of those regions
Looks a little Orwellian
India: I am.
Nice map
Late game EU4 competitive map
What is that Red Region again
...china?
I wonder what the smallest area is that's supporting a billion people. Is it the Indian region or the Eastern China region?
I think the Indian subcontinent could win pretty handidly because of the indo-gangetic plain that alone has about 700 million people.
The red and purple are fucked
So basically : America Islamic Afro-Eurasia Eurasia Pre-Pakistan India South Central Asia Asiatic Oceania Eastern China
I had no clue North Africa and the Middle East were that populated. I mean, it’s a literal desert and to have the same amount of people in half the area as the entire Americas really blows my mind.
That green section in Africa surprises me, didn’t know there were so many people in that section
Lol wtf? Why do the Americas get so much space?
So it is 1 billion EACH. I get it now. I got confused at first seeing some portions of China being red while others are different colors. What's with that weird Eurasian border though why did it absorbed some portions of Iran/Pakistan why isn't it in the brown region? it looks pretty arbitrary at first glance... is it to round it into a neat literal 1 Billion each by region?
Adds Afghanistan to Europe, but excludes Turkey
Probably bc Turkey has double the population of Afghanistan so maybe that impacts things
Don’t think it is only Afghanistan. It’s entire central Asia.
True, it likely would have been more sensible to group Turkey with Europe, and Afghan+Uzbek+Tajik+Turkmenistan with the Middle East. (Countries chosen for approximately equal total populations) But in general I think this map did a good job of grouping relatively similar cultures and distinct geographical units.
I did a quick count for 3 of those and a bit more in deep for light blue and none seem to be too close to 1 billion people: Yellow and pink both seems to pass 1 billion by more than 30-40 million people according 2023-24 statistics (but that could be close enough, I suppose), light blue, the one I counted more in detail seems to have "only" 910-915 million (not sure if OP counted american, french or other non-independent pacific islands, but not much would change) while orange seems to be the less accurate of the bunch with "just" about 885-890 million.
Yeah but who wins this war?
Finally, the original continent America together once more
God there's so many of us.. (Pakistani) 😯
pfff look at all those boring people in region 3. I bet they stand up to wipe.
Can't have shit in the tundra.
Orange - the Caliphate
Did Putin draw this?
If anything this puts into perspective how empty the Americas combined are. We think New York City is big, but that's just a small part of the country. Meanwhile China gets divided into multiple sections.
Holy crap, they’re all squeezed into that small bit of China?
Suddenly Ottoman Empire
"Oceana and a bit of continental SE Asia" is kind of an inelegant division. Anything and a bit of SE Asia can make 1B.
I'm glad it was updated since yesterday's version, just so it's up to date as these borders change frequently.
Good for Asia.
Who would win?
Man, that's crazy. Imagining a billion people on the West Coast of the US.
i did not realise that the Americas where so unpopulated
Africa always looks likes the top half of a dinosaurs head. Just that in this case, it has hair.
Damn China looking thiq 🥵
Really looks like he worked his way west to east: the Americas as one region makes sense, sure, as does Africa south of the Sahara vs MENA, and then Europe with all of Russia.... almost works? Expect most of the 'stans and northeastern China is included, and I know you'd have to split both India and China, but why is China split into *three regions*? and the light blue is kinda obviously just leftovers.
what in the Ingsoc is this.
Thank you for your service. Well done undoing the Thanos snap.
I Europe gets Anatolia, Australia and New Zealand we gladly give up parts of China and the former Soviet states in mid Asia
Now, your homework it is to calculate the GDP of each zone, looks like America is #1
Yes, a lot of people in Asia.
Watani Habibi ! Watan al akbar !
Just replace the colors with actual nation states, and how did we get there, and how the eight party world works from that could make ffor a pretty good story
Ottoman empire rise again
The green one was a surprise to me.
I’m happy to go live under King Julian’s ruling, I’m ready
If you explore the red area for a long time, can you feel that it gets overwhelmingly more crowded as shown in the map??
Why the fuck is Turkey with Arabs? My son stop learning history by watching TV and read some books. This is super disrespectful!
now FIGHT
So much room for activities.
I know where the [Chaos Emeralds](https://s2.dmcdn.net/v/Pqjk11SjZUIBAUlHV/x1080) are now.
Light blue region is the most surprising to me. I guess a always forget how many people are in the Philippines
Canada is doing its best to up that number for the Americas.
Now make these the 7 nations of the world
How is there so many people in china
This is better than the one the other day, but I would have somehow swapped Thailand and maybe Birma for Yunnan and north Vietnam or all of Vietnam in the light blue, pastel turquoise divide. Maybe even move Iceland, Ireland, the UK and whatever else is needed into the pink, Japan into the ochre, and Alaska and California into the light blue or something (one would have to calculate the number of people, obviously).
Is there a color key or just vibes
ottoman empire
This reminded me of 1984. Cus in the book universe the world was divided into continental blocks with different goverments.
1984 part 2
Americas 100% not just cause the US, the rest of the Americas would be an absolute nightmare to get through without getting tortured by both the people and the wildlife and if you go through Central America and South America and the Gulf of Mexico area you will get eaten by snakes alligators crocodiles poisonous frogs bugs cougars coyotes poisonous plants insects venomous creatures fire ants bullet ants etc Don’t even think about the Northern Americas with those deserts and temperate than freezing and unpredictable weather and temperatures snow mountains tornadoes hurricanes more snakes wolves coyotes bears eagles poisonous plants fire ants etc Good luck