How high a population could the island of Ireland realistically support ?

mcmanaman

At present the population of the whole island is approximately 6.2 million though it would much higher had the famine & emigration not occurred. I would think that Ireland could support a population of 25 million or just over. As an aside I read a similar discussion on politics.ie. One contributor made reference to Robert Kane's book Industrial Resources of Ireland (1844) in which he theorised that Ireland could support a population of 35 million. Does that not seem a bit unrealistic though ? Even for it to reach 30 million would be a bit of a stretch.

owenc

30 million a stretch are you foreal englands population is 51million and it's not much bigger than the size of the island... I'd say the limit would be about 80million would be the limit but that's never going to happen 10 million will be the highest it ever reaches and that'll take forever to reach.. What does the popclock predictor say the highest it'll reach ?? Hmm... But I think the republic could only cope with 50million at a sterch sorry as for northern Ireland probably 15 million the 80million would be the bear minimum

The Scientician

There are 145 countries more densely populated than the Republic of Ireland.
Taiwan and South Korea both fit 10 times as many people into every square mile than we do. Depending on how the country is developed and how the majority of us lived, it would be possible to have 10s of millions of people living here. Presumably water resources and other infrastructural issues put a reasonably clear limit on how many people the country/island can support.

CDfm

would we have to eat spuds

mcmanaman

CDfm wrote: »

would we have to eat spuds

Yes spuds for breakfast,lunch and dinner

citizen_p

well if we went back to the culture of familys with 10-15 kids it would grow alot faster...

fulmer1984

with a population of 35 million, we wouldnt have any fields to grow spuds !!

owenc

Mousey- wrote: »

well if we went back to the culture of familys with 10-15 kids it would grow alot faster...

Well sure that went on for like hundreds of years and if it didn't happen then it'll naw happen now! I wouldn't fancy having 20 brothers and sisters either! :eek:

owenc

CDfm wrote: »

would we have to eat spuds

We could bin "spuds" ... I couldn't survive if that was the case.. my dad has ate that many potatoes over the years that he has made me hate them!

rock22

is this really the history forum?

slowburner

mcmanaman wrote: »

At present the population of the whole island is approximately 6.2 million though it would much higher had the famine & emigration not occurred. I would think that Ireland could support a population of 25 million or just over. As an aside I read a similar discussion on politics.ie. One contributor made reference to Robert Kane's book Industrial Resources of Ireland (1844) in which he theorised that Ireland could support a population of 35 million. Does that not seem a bit unrealistic though ? Even for it to reach 30 million would be a bit of a stretch.

'Support'? What does that mean? A comfortable lifestyle? A subsistence lifestyle? Poverty? Penury?

CDfm

slowburner wrote: »

'Support'? What does that mean? A comfortable lifestyle? A subsistence lifestyle? Poverty? Penury?

'Xactly, exactly how.

The Duke of Wellington predicted the Irish famine and discussed it in correspondence in 1832. So the 8 1/2 million of 1840 was the highest you would get with subsistence farming.

Comparing us to korea -well the climate is different.

So the how is a big thing.

mike65

If the Dutch can sustain 16.6 million in an area half the size of Ireland....then again most of us know the quip about if the Irish had the Netherlands they'd drown and if the Dutch had Ireland they'd feed the world.

The Orb

mike65 wrote: »

If the Dutch can sustain 16.6 million in an area half the size of Ireland....then again most of us know the quip about if the Irish had the Netherlands they'd drown and if the Dutch had Ireland they'd feed the world.

Correct.
A more suitable proposition is how many people could an island the size of Ireland support. An awful lot more is the obvious answer. However factor in the fact that our little nation is currently bollixed through a national inability to run the state properly and the fact that the nation wasted it's opportunities then this little island of ours shouldn't increase in size.

slowburner

mike65 wrote: »

If the Dutch can sustain 16.6 million in an area half the size of Ireland....then again most of us know the quip about if the Irish had the Netherlands they'd drown and if the Dutch had Ireland they'd feed the world.

Then again, you need to remember that proportionately more of Holland is available as productive land. Even the Dutch would find it a challenge to make our bogs and mountains useable for food production.

recedite

There is no limit to the population in any one country.
But at high densities, people live mostly in apartments like Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Manhattan. Most food is imported.
Of course, you have to have something to sell to the rest of the world....

Dublin_Gunner

recedite wrote: »

There is no limit to the population in any one country.

Pretty sure there's a physical limit!

recedite wrote: »

But at high densities, people live mostly in apartments like Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Manhattan. Most food is imported.
Of course, you have to have something to sell to the rest of the world....

We could sell houses / apartments

If we're talking theoretically, the max supportable population of Ireland would be around the 30-40 million mark. This would require massive expansion of our existing cities, and development of new cities and suburban areas, transport / telecomms infrastructure, commerce etc

Ireland is very sparsely populated currently.

Realistically, taking economy / facilities / infrastucture into account, I cannot see the ROI supporting more than about 10m in its current state (even that would requrie a fair bit of development in commerce, transport / telecomms infrastructure and housing).

recedite

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Realistically, taking economy / facilities / infrastucture into account, I cannot see the ROI supporting more than about 10m in its current state (even that would requrie a fair bit of development in commerce, transport / telecomms infrastructure and housing).

Contradiction?

There is no limit, but as I said, we would mostly be living in skyscrapers.

Dublin_Gunner

recedite wrote: »

Contradiction?

There is no limit, but as I said, we would mostly be living in skyscrapers.

No contradiction. The levels of development required are vastly different in both situations I posed.

CDfm

recedite wrote: »

Contradiction?

There is no limit, but as I said, we would mostly be living in skyscrapers.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

No contradiction. The levels of development required are vastly different in both situations I posed.

Nonsense - a century ago 10 or 20% of the population lived in mud huts or tenements so you cannot just assume the same standard of living

In 1850 or there abouts the average mortality was 38.3 years with a very high birth rate.

Bottle_of_Smoke

mike65 wrote: »

If the Dutch can sustain 16.6 million in an area half the size of Ireland....then again most of us know the quip about if the Irish had the Netherlands they'd drown and if the Dutch had Ireland they'd feed the world.

That's nonsense though. Have you been to netherlands? they have no hills. Its perfectly flat land virtually everywhere perfect for agriculture, industrialisation and I'm sure other things too.

Though maybe the first part has some truth. Paddy might have drowned

owenc

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's nonsense though. Have you been to netherlands? they have no hills. Its perfectly flat land virtually everywhere perfect for agriculture, industrialisation and I'm sure other things too.

Though maybe the first part has some truth. Paddy might have drowned

I'll tell you one thing its naw perfect when its flipping flooded! :rolleyes:

owenc

CDfm wrote: »

Nonsense - a century ago 10 or 20% of the population lived in mud huts or tenements so you cannot just assume the same standard of living

In 1850 or there abouts the average mortality was 38.3 years with a very high birth rate.

Don't think so most of the family trees that i have done most of the people have lived to 80 or 90 at least and thats dating back to the early 1700s. The youngest i found was 60. I find that hard to believe no one will die at 38 when they are perfectly healthy, unless you have some sort of disease prevalent in your family genetics!

owenc

recedite wrote: »

Contradiction?

There is no limit, but as I said, we would mostly be living in skyscrapers.

Not really theres millions and millons of acres of land which hasn't even got a single house on it never mind a skyscaper!

owenc

slowburner wrote: »

Then again, you need to remember that proportionately more of Holland is available as productive land. Even the Dutch would find it a challenge to make our bogs and mountains useable for food production.

Not everyone is a bloody farmer! We can survive on things other than bloody potatoes! :mad:

Bottle_of_Smoke

owenc wrote: »

I'll tell you one thing its naw perfect when its flipping flooded! :rolleyes:

You'd wanna see the place. Its incredible. Their drainage systems ensures they deal with floods so much better.

One thing you notice compared to ireland/northern ireland is after it rains the place dries up so so quickly.

CDfm

owenc wrote: »

Don't think so most of the family trees that i have done most of the people have lived to 80 or 90 at least and thats dating back to the early 1700s. The youngest i found was 60. I find that hard to believe no one will die at 38 when they are perfectly healthy, unless you have some sort of disease prevalent in your family genetics!

I looked it up for a different thread

Demographic projections by O’Grada suggest, however, that prior to
the famine, women only had the same life expectancy as men (38.3 years on
average in 1821-41) and had higher mortality rates from ages 1-45 (Boyle and
O Grada, 1986). This would suggest that prior to the Great Irish Famine,
gender bias in mortality in Ireland was also the highest in Europe (everywhere
else women had a 1-2 year survival advantage), which is also consistent with
data on relative heights of females and males from that time period (Nicholas
and Oxley, 1993)

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/webfac/cromer/e211_f07/klasen.pdf

owenc

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You'd wanna see the place. Its incredible. Their drainage systems ensures they deal with floods so much better.

One thing you notice compared to ireland/northern ireland is after it rains the place dries up so so quickly.

Well they are still more liable to flooding than us and i'm sure that if they got enough rain they would flood.

owenc

CDfm wrote: »

I looked it up for a different thread




http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/webfac/cromer/e211_f07/klasen.pdf

Well you can show me figures all you like i don't believe them a person is hardly going to without disease at that age its just daft! And your dna can't suddenly change when you get into the 1850s or something your family can't skip from living from 40 to 80 in 30 years thats just impossible! They should've done it on folks who were living without disease then the figures would be accurate considering some areas weren't affected with the potato famine due to different farming methods etc.

enda1

With sufficient forward thinking and planning, Ireland could easily sustain more than one hundred million people. It'd just be a very different life for us all, that's all.

owenc

enda1 wrote: »

With sufficient forward thinking and planning, Ireland could easily sustain more than one hundred million people. It'd just be a very different life for us all, that's all.

Yes i think them folks saying 40 million are being pathetic, maybe they are talking about with a good economy but with land area well over 40 million would work! Just look at India!