World's most prolific reproductive people?

[XenoEnsi-14]

No. Germans were always numerous.

In Europe yes, but not across the whole world. Prior to 1500 the Anglo-Saxons settled the British Isles, which is why Britons speak English not Celtic. English is a Germanic language, so genetically and linguistically British Colonialism and Germans population of the world between 1500's and 2000 is one in the same, the British a subgroup of German.

the Germans did the most to populate the world between 1500-2000.

 

[LA se Karachi]

It's an interesting topic. You can also see how the global population has shifted over the years:


Year 1:

Year 1500:

Year 1900:

Year 1960:

http://www.worldmapper.org/textindex/text_index.html



Year 2013:

 

[Aramagedon]

Which part of "between 1500-2000" did you people not understand? We all know what sex is all about. We all know that growth varies across the world. However I was more interested historical strategic population growth rate. Africa contrary to what most people think has had very low absolute/relative population.

Of interest here is the strategic effect and shaping of the present world over the preceding 5 centuries. To understand that, it is of little use in giving damned snapshots of slivers of time. A camera snap today of a 500 year dynamic is pretty useless. I place British Isles first. In 1500 the population of England was 2.5 million and all of UK slightly more than 3.5 million. Yet that 3.5 million has shown such prolific growth as to win the "Olympic Gold".

1500AD - 3.5 million = Today

* 55 million
* 96 million
* 25 million
* 21 million
* 2 million
* 1.5 million
* There are small pockets in Zambia, Kenya, Zimbabawe and Argentina.

Total 199.5 million people with roots to British Isles. That is 57 times increase from 3.5 million in 1500. Can anybody else match this? And population of many European countries only appear to be low because huge amounts were exported abroad, mostly to the so called New World, filling them coast to coast.

Population increase follows what is known as demographic transition model (below) and countries are on it although at differant stages. It's funny to see for example German's mocking (who are at stage stage 5) Kenyan's who are at stage 2. In late 1890s Germans were in same spot - stage 2 and mas exported surplus German's as migrants to America, Australia and Brazil to name a few. Today significant number of American's are of German extraction.

There are also significant numbers of Swedes in US who also migrated during the high growth rate they experianced in 1890s. Today we live in a world where we regard migration as a affliction specific to some people. The fact is this is global and historical phenomenon. The major change over the last one and half centuries is not migration but the mass extermination of peoples to create space for migrants as was seen in North and to a degree in South America.

If all peoples were "nativized" or "repatriated" to their ancestoral origins UK, Spain, Germany would not have space to stand given the deluge that would take place. The largest recent migrant wave to displace native people occured only in 1947 when the Mediteranean saw boats full of Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukranians, Russians etc running from post war Europe to refuge in Palestine. In a strange twist of fate today people proximate from the same region - Western Asia are today moving in the exact reverse direction.

I will look at the German and Spanish 'prolific' record in next post.

@Technogaianist @Nilgiri @2800 @KediKesenFare

Nice info. thanks.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Correction: I forget to add the location of the British 'diaspora'. Amended below.

1500AD - 3.5 million = Today

* 55 million ~ United Kingdom [source region]
* 96 million ~ United States of America
* 25 million ~ Canada
* 21 million ~ Australia
* 2 million ~ New Zealand
* 1.5 million ~ South Africa
* There are small pockets in Zambia, Kenya, Zimbabawe and Argentina.

Total 199.5 million people with roots to British Isles. That is 57 times increase from 3.5 million in 1500.

the Germans did the most to populate the world between 1500-2000.

Yes, I entirely agree. although I actually separated the Germans from Britons but as you state both belong to the same stock. In my calculation Britons came first in population proliferation followed by Germans. Clearly if you include both then Anglo-Saxons have been the most prolific baby making and people proliferating people by a wide margin.

In 1890s 8-9 children was common in Ukraine, Sweden and even Britain although the latter had seen a drop since the high of the early 1800s. Today of course the same lecture and look down at others about people proliferation. America was largely won on the back of more babies being pumped by the invaders then the natives. Thus Native American population shrunk but European migrant population exploded - what is more almost every European country exported en masse their excess peoples. The Irish, Germans, Italians, Poles, Swedes, French, Spanish got off by the 'banana boatloads' out numbering the Native Americans into oblivion. In fact the victor just swamped the vanguished in sea of people.

It's an interesting topic.

Indeed. It's not the sex that is interesting but the strategic effect of people proliferation supported by massive high population growth. Western Europe excelled at this. Other regions are now catching on as they move along the demographic transition model. Those who saw high growth first and now either in slow lane or even in decline.

 

[Nilgiri]

Correction: I forget to add the location of the British 'diaspora'. Amended below.

1500AD - 3.5 million = Today

* 55 million ~ United Kingdom [source region]
* 96 million ~ United States of America
* 25 million ~ Canada
* 21 million ~ Australia
* 2 million ~ New Zealand
* 1.5 million ~ South Africa
* There are small pockets in Zambia, Kenya, Zimbabawe and Argentina.

Total 199.5 million people with roots to British Isles. That is 57 times increase from 3.5 million in 1500.

Yes, I entirely agree. although I actually separated the Germans from Britons but as you state both belong to the same stock. In my calculation Britons came first in population proliferation followed by Germans. Clearly if you include both then Anglo-Saxons have been the most prolific baby making and people proliferating people by a wide margin.

In 1890s 8-9 children was common in Ukraine, Sweden and even Britain although the latter had seen a drop since the high of the early 1800s. Today of course the same lecture and look down at others about people proliferation. America was largely won on the back of more babies being pumped by the invaders then the natives. Thus Native American population shrunk but European migrant population exploded - what is more almost every European country exported en masse their excess peoples. The Irish, Germans, Italians, Poles, Swedes, French, Spanish got off by the 'banana boatloads' out numbering the Native Americans into oblivion. In fact the victor just swamped the vanguished in sea of people.


Indeed. It's not the sex that is interesting but the strategic effect of people proliferation supported by massive high population growth. Western Europe excelled at this. Other regions are now catching on as they move along the demographic transition model. Those who saw high growth first and now either in slow lane or even in decline.

Don't know how old this diagram is (I have seen some similar ones when I was studying in school long time back) but India has moved firmly into late stage 3....and approaching stage 4 (sometime in next decade-end)

Its crude birth rate is now below 20 and continues to fall by about 0.3 - 0.4 each year:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN?locations=IN

You can actually see which stage it was at which year over time in the data here.

Many parts of India (esp in the South) are already firmly in stage 4 with very low birth rates and fertility rates below replacement levels....similar to China.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

@Nilgri The same trend can be seen in Pakistan although it is trailing India largely because of the conservative culture - however the trend is following the demographic model. I think Punjab is seeing reduction in growth with certain urban areas showing even greater slow down. I expect Balochistan and K-Pk to to be last see reduction but the inevitable will happen.

Religion, culture may cause some deviation from the model but the over all trend will follow the same pattern. For instance Muslim's are seen to be high proliferators which actually is nonsense if one looks at the historical record. In recent times Iran has seen extreme drop in growth, indeed so precipitous has the drop been that the Iranian government is trying to create incentives to increase the population.

I guess it boils down to all regions all over the world having seen the same demographic transition model - the only differance being everybody is at differant points on the same conveyor belt.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Indeed. It's not the sex that is interesting but the strategic effect of people proliferation supported by massive high population growth. Western Europe excelled at this. Other regions are now catching on as they move along the demographic transition model. Those who saw high growth first and now either in slow lane or even in decline.

Agreed. Especially the British and the Spanish. The growth in North America and South America is quite dramatic after 1500. Sub-Saharan Africa barely registered before the latter part of the 20th century.

Coming to the present, it's interesting that a majority of the world's population lives in ten countries.

Many parts of India (esp in the South) are already firmly in stage 4 with very low birth rates and fertility rates below replacement levels....similar to China.

Indeed. Southern Kerala and Northwestern Tamil Nadu stand out in particular:

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

I have found that "Freer" the people = more kids. By Free I mean from central government and regulations. I've seen here in U.S. people who even intend to have many kids cannot because of multitude of reasons foremost their personal financial wellbeing. Whereas people who are free from these bounds and debt cycles tend to have more kids even if they don't desire that many. The effect on males and genes in these times must be studied at a more closer level because it's implications are profound on future generations. That may also reveal if we are on Correct trajectory as a species.