Comment by deepspace
6 days ago
That is an utterly meaningless statistic. Canada, with four times the population, ranks #233, because most of the country is uninhabited / uninhabitable.
6 days ago
That is an utterly meaningless statistic. Canada, with four times the population, ranks #233, because most of the country is uninhabited / uninhabitable.
Population weighted density is a better metric for this use case. It's more stable than population density when adding large areas of sparsely populated land, because the denser, more highly populated areas are more heavily weighted. It shows, roughly, the density experienced locally by the average person in some region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_weighted_density
The problem is it's difficult to compare across polities because nobody will agree on the right granularity of parcel size to use (and indeed, it is not really obvious what the right granularity is, and choice of parcel size can drastically change the number).
It's similar to the metrics of "average class size" vs. "student-weighted class size". https://allenschwenk.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/0...
Whichever of the reasonable parcel sizes you choose, it's still miles better than the population density based solely on the territory of a country.
> That is an utterly meaningless statistic
It's very meaningful, when the main argument is population overcrowding.
The entire human population can fit within Los Angelas. It’s not a good metric in general. Pressure on public services, resources and housing is far more useful
The entire human population could stand there: each person would have roughly 1.5 to 5.4 square feet of space—less than the size of a single chair. If you actually did get all of humanity in LA it would instantly break out in war.
It's completely useless, because you're comparing country area level.
Read the rest of the post.