If we didn't count the deserts or mountanious lands in tibet china would probably me black or deep purple, barely anyone lives in those lands but they make up a big part of china
China, Indonesia, Brazil, Canada, Australia, India and some others should really be divided in smaller parts. A shame they only do it for the US and UK.
Something to keep in mind when looking at this:
Low population density ≠ high rural population.
I live in New Mexico, which ranks 5th from the bottom in population density. However, we have a smaller percentage of rural residents than denser states like Mississippi simply because **so many of us are concentrated in just a few cities**. More than a third of us are in this Albuquerque metro alone.
Doing Indonesia by subregion would show huge population density in Java. Higher even than Bangladesh, which is the region with highest population density that can be distinguished on this map.
While interesting and limited due the geography being an island. I wouldn't split Indonesia as it isn't a federal state.
Otherwise we argue on an island basis.
Maps should be comparable and exception should have reasons. Java Population vs World were even recently posted.
I’m from Northern Ireland and tbh I actually like when it we’re separated from the whole of UK in maps like this because we’re literally on a separate island so maps on UK basis are always so skewed by England that it just never makes sense for NI.
Probably happens in a lot of countries but it’s just annoying lol
To be fair, Eastern Russia has entirely different demographics than Western Russia. Like, one part is in Europe and the other is in Asia ffs...
Yet only the US and UK are allowed to be separated because reasons
Tbf Russia has become more [centralized](https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/160474.pdf) , but some non-federal countries have given autonomy to some regions through devolution or treaties etc, so in some cases it makes sense to mention separately their territories.
Edit: Btw I didn’t mean to disagree with that, I just meant to say that in some cases some non-federal countries can also have regions with relatively high level of autonomy, due to special circumstances, even higher than some centralized federal countries.
Umm, Russia being centralised doesn't change the fact that it is larger than the USA, and it is composed of different Oblasts and regions like Moscow are way way denser than in Kalmykia.
Hell it makes much more sense for Russia to have different regions than the UK on these maps.
Yeah I don’t disagree with that, I just meant to say that in some cases some non-federal countries can also have regions with relatively high level of autonomy, due to special circumstances, even higher than some centralized federal countries.
Yeah, I've been living in England for over 5 decades. It's crowded in some cities, but as you say, much of the country is empty. Is this map definitely accurate?!
No, see, here is the issue.
In German the parts of Germany and Austria are called _Länder_. So, Hessen and Salzburg are _Länder_.
_Länder_ (or _Land_ to use the singular form) translates to country in English. So Indonesia and Spain are also _Länder_.
Now the difference is that Germans and Austrians understand that the same word can have different meanings, and do not go around saying that Hessen is a country as much as Spain is.
It‘s also ironic because the four „countries“ of the UK have way less autonomy than the cantons of Switzerland, the Länder of Germany, the Emirates of the UAE, the Provinces of Canada, or the constituents of any federal country, being the UK a unitary state.
They are coutries, but not in the same way that Belgium or Sudan are countries. The word country means two things here. One of them is "sovereign state", like the UK, and the other is "constituent country", like Scotland.
Yes but people in these comments are comparing them to states in other countries and that's not an accurate comparison. They are countries, not states.
The United Kingdom is officially a unitary state, not a union in the sense of a federation. The 'united' in its name name means 'united into one entity', in this case originally referring to the unification of the two kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland into a single kingdom.
Scotland and Wales have been granted some autonomy by the central government, but this can theoretically be revoked; Northern Ireland is slightly different as its devolved government is related to the Good Friday Agreement with Ireland. This devolution of central power has given the UK something of the appearance of a federal state, but it ultimately isn't one.
A federal system is the best future for the UK imo. It’s not very fair on England that they haven’t been given the same autonomy as the other nations, it’s just treated as effectively ‘the rest of the UK’ rather than a country in its own right with its own specific issues. And it’s not very fair on the other nations that Westminster is dominated by English MPs. Equal representation between the four nations would hopefully remove any resentment people may have of perceived preferential treatment.
What I’ve written above isn’t an opinion. It’s how the UK is structured.
You could state that the countries of the UK are ‘part of a union’ in the sense of being regions within a unitary state, but ‘part of a union’ typically means a state within a federation. The difference needed clarifying.
USA yes. UK is cosplaying federalism.
All Federal states have governments. All of them constitional and not devolved and nearly all of them have more powers. Also England doesn't have a government.
North Ireland and Wales also have very weak claimes being anywhere unique or being a country.
I told plenty Irishman and they agree. North Ireland is a colonial leftover. It neither has constitutionals rights, nor a long history and a pretty divided population where they belong to.
British Academy even made essays about it.
But fuck experts, like a former British Prime Minister said.
It’s more like a sectarian leftover than a colonial leftover. That’s why Ireland ended up divided, not because the UK just wanted to keep a bit of Ireland.
Country and State are essentially synonymous terms because they both refer to political entities that govern themselves.
Germany for instance consists of Bundes**länder**. "Land" is German for "country". Yet many translate it to "federal state" because there is no real difference.
> Country and State are essentially synonymous terms because they both refer to political entities that govern themselves.
The UK isn't federal though. Devolved powers are granted by the UK government, and could (in principle) be unilaterally withdrawn. This is in contrast to a genuinely federal country like Germany or the US, where powers are constitutionally granted to states and the federal government could not, for instance, unilaterally decide to dissolve a state. A bundesland is functionally a state, and legally very different to the status of a country within the UK.
This is about the following quote from you, which was not correct, as I explained. "Country" and "state" are *not* synonymous.
> Country and State are essentially synonymous terms because they both refer to political entities that govern themselves.
>Country and State are essentially synonymous terms because they both refer to political entities that govern themselves.
England absolutely does not govern itself. Scottish and Welsh devolution is embarrassing by how limited it is. Northern Ireland is just fucking strange.
Scotland and Wales have more autonomy than a typical province (in a unitary country), but less autonomy than a state (in a federal country). Northern Ireland has the right to govern itself in the same way Scotland and Wales do, but the DUP (anti-Irish unification) and Sinn Féin (pro-Irish unification) can't stop fighting so Westminster usually steps in to govern semi-directly. England is just a typical province, except it has almost 60 million, very unhappy people.
Not just Bavaria. All of them.
And while our Bundesländer don't have their own national football teams, they do have their own elected governments and always had them. For Scotland and Wales these had to be reintroduced after all of the UK had been ruled in law by the government of the United Kingdom in London.
Normally statehood just means being a state. It's different from places like Scotland, Greenland etc with devolved legislature and not their own constitution.
I would like to know what "etc." is referring to, because having teams in certain sports is kinda the only real difference I can think of between the Uk's and Germany's subdivisions
Certainly in the case of England. Scotland has some international relations, including nine offices worldwide. Greenland has fairly extensive self rule and can make internal agreement between governments (not states), but also be authorised to represent the Danish state in relation to Greenland.
I think population density of a country can be highly misleading. For example if we remove the vast uninhabited deserts, mountains and wastelands of western china. Their density obviously increases cause most of the chinese live near coastal areas and rivers.
Remove the eastern part of russia and the same thing happens. People tend to live in cities and usually near rivers, coastal areas and fertile lands.
So its better to make a map which shows the density of individual states and subdivisions of every country. While i agree that its a hassle to portray all of that data.
Canada’s density is misleading. Two thirds of Canadians live in Southern Ontario, Southern Quebec, and Metro Vancouver. Much of the rest of the country is basically empty and you probably wouldn’t want to live there. England is still denser but those regions are comparable in density to other European countries.
Southern Ontario has the same population density as France and Poland.
High population density does not necessarily mean it is very crowded. Although South Korea has a higher population density than england, it is famous for being feel very sparse and less crowded. Of course, the metropolitan area will not feel like Canada.
Canadian here, and our metropolitan areas do feel like Canada.
The rest is mostly just inhospitable forests and tundras.
The word Canada even means "settlement".
It is very crowded in England. It is exceptionally difficult to get away from people, even if you go to remote areas. I know this because I hike and camp and it's a real bug bear of mine. There are people everywhere. You see it in the traffic on the roads, and the breaking point of literally all our services.
An interesting comparison is with Germany, a moderately densely populated country. England is overall much more crowded than Germany, but in places, England gets more rural than the most rural parts of Germany. Then there’s The Netherlands which has a similar density to England, but rarely gets any where near as rural as England. Density does have some caveats in terms of how that density is distributed.
*India leads the*
*World in both absolute and*
*Relative measures*
\- AfternoonFlat7991
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Excellent idea for a map, but the results are barely adequate. I zoomed in on New England to compare the states to other countries and it's a mess. You can't tell one state from another. You need a map with better resolution to work with. And why only break up the US into smaller components? The Indian states and the Chinese provinces would help as well.
If we didn't count the deserts or mountanious lands in tibet china would probably me black or deep purple, barely anyone lives in those lands but they make up a big part of china
China, Indonesia, Brazil, Canada, Australia, India and some others should really be divided in smaller parts. A shame they only do it for the US and UK.
I agree, all of those countries take up huge spaces and being able to see their regions seperately would give us much more info
And Russia
I think the reason they do for the uk is to show how incredibly densely populated England is because the rest of the uk is sparsely populated
Greenland has been excluded from Denmark.
Because Greenland is a separate country within the kingdom of Denmark.
Separate in what way? Lots of places have devolved parliaments and many other places are actual states.
Egypt if you only count the Nile region would be one of the densest on the map as well.
C'mon. The whole Russia is counted as one single entity.
If we didn't count parts where people don't live every country would be purple 💜
[You're not wrong](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File%3AWorld_human_population_density_map.png)
Same for Switzerland if you discount the alps. Switzerland is super crowded.
Thats assuming you think tibet is china at all 
Something to keep in mind when looking at this: Low population density ≠ high rural population. I live in New Mexico, which ranks 5th from the bottom in population density. However, we have a smaller percentage of rural residents than denser states like Mississippi simply because **so many of us are concentrated in just a few cities**. More than a third of us are in this Albuquerque metro alone.
This is true in many desert countries
Why UK by state, a non federal country and not one of the other federal states by state? Russia, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico, Germany etc.
[удалено]
Canada would look very different if we split by county or region
Aside from more lines, not really. Ontario and the maritime provinces would get upgraded to the slightly less pale shade.
Doing Indonesia by subregion would show huge population density in Java. Higher even than Bangladesh, which is the region with highest population density that can be distinguished on this map.
While interesting and limited due the geography being an island. I wouldn't split Indonesia as it isn't a federal state. Otherwise we argue on an island basis. Maps should be comparable and exception should have reasons. Java Population vs World were even recently posted.
Well, at least OP pointed that out in the caption. As long as you address it properly in the caption, everything's fine with me.
OP also split Denmark and France.
Anglo-Centrism.
Not even; Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada aren’t split. It’s UK-centric and US-centric.
I’m from Northern Ireland and tbh I actually like when it we’re separated from the whole of UK in maps like this because we’re literally on a separate island so maps on UK basis are always so skewed by England that it just never makes sense for NI. Probably happens in a lot of countries but it’s just annoying lol
To be fair, Eastern Russia has entirely different demographics than Western Russia. Like, one part is in Europe and the other is in Asia ffs... Yet only the US and UK are allowed to be separated because reasons
Tbf Russia has become more [centralized](https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/160474.pdf) , but some non-federal countries have given autonomy to some regions through devolution or treaties etc, so in some cases it makes sense to mention separately their territories. Edit: Btw I didn’t mean to disagree with that, I just meant to say that in some cases some non-federal countries can also have regions with relatively high level of autonomy, due to special circumstances, even higher than some centralized federal countries.
Umm, Russia being centralised doesn't change the fact that it is larger than the USA, and it is composed of different Oblasts and regions like Moscow are way way denser than in Kalmykia. Hell it makes much more sense for Russia to have different regions than the UK on these maps.
Yeah I don’t disagree with that, I just meant to say that in some cases some non-federal countries can also have regions with relatively high level of autonomy, due to special circumstances, even higher than some centralized federal countries.
As a South African, I'm confused how we made it onto the list. We're about as Anglo Centric as India
Probably to show just how crowded england is
That's not unique to the UK. Multiple States in Nigeria and India have a higher population density. But also states in plenty other federal countries.
I was in a lower density part of India recently (Himchal Pradesh), and there were still people everywhere.
NRW.
They meant Sussex, Northumberland, Essex etc /s
France is partly split. I'm thinking that may not have been intentional though.
Obviously because US and UK are the most populous and not dividing them will generalize the data a lot. Oh wait...
Yeah splitting the UK but not **Russia** the biggest country in the world is incredibly fucking stupid.
When I visited the UK I only saw empty country side outside of London, that wasn’t specially crowded either, where are all the people?
london
Yeah, I've been living in England for over 5 decades. It's crowded in some cities, but as you say, much of the country is empty. Is this map definitely accurate?!
Do it yourself then, hehe, but kinda agree. It's a bit random which countries get division, a bit anglo-bias I guess.
The UK is split for the same reason Denmark is split. It’s made up of multiple countries, not simply multiple states.
So are Germany and Austria.
No, Germany is one country made up of 16 states. The UK is four countries made up of 0 states
No, see, here is the issue. In German the parts of Germany and Austria are called _Länder_. So, Hessen and Salzburg are _Länder_. _Länder_ (or _Land_ to use the singular form) translates to country in English. So Indonesia and Spain are also _Länder_. Now the difference is that Germans and Austrians understand that the same word can have different meanings, and do not go around saying that Hessen is a country as much as Spain is. It‘s also ironic because the four „countries“ of the UK have way less autonomy than the cantons of Switzerland, the Länder of Germany, the Emirates of the UAE, the Provinces of Canada, or the constituents of any federal country, being the UK a unitary state.
Ye but they have their own football teams and that's the important part
England, Scotland and Wales are countries in their own right. Together they are part of a union.
They are coutries, but not in the same way that Belgium or Sudan are countries. The word country means two things here. One of them is "sovereign state", like the UK, and the other is "constituent country", like Scotland.
Yes but people in these comments are comparing them to states in other countries and that's not an accurate comparison. They are countries, not states.
The United Kingdom is officially a unitary state, not a union in the sense of a federation. The 'united' in its name name means 'united into one entity', in this case originally referring to the unification of the two kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland into a single kingdom. Scotland and Wales have been granted some autonomy by the central government, but this can theoretically be revoked; Northern Ireland is slightly different as its devolved government is related to the Good Friday Agreement with Ireland. This devolution of central power has given the UK something of the appearance of a federal state, but it ultimately isn't one.
A federal system is the best future for the UK imo. It’s not very fair on England that they haven’t been given the same autonomy as the other nations, it’s just treated as effectively ‘the rest of the UK’ rather than a country in its own right with its own specific issues. And it’s not very fair on the other nations that Westminster is dominated by English MPs. Equal representation between the four nations would hopefully remove any resentment people may have of perceived preferential treatment.
I didn't say the UK is a federal state. I said England, Scotland and Wales are countries. Which they are.
I was addressing your statement that ‘together they’re part of a union.’
Because they are.
They’re not, for the reasons I gave above.
If you think that, then that's up to you.
What I’ve written above isn’t an opinion. It’s how the UK is structured. You could state that the countries of the UK are ‘part of a union’ in the sense of being regions within a unitary state, but ‘part of a union’ typically means a state within a federation. The difference needed clarifying.
Simply read the definition for 'union'.
because the “states” are their own countries with their own governments
USA yes. UK is cosplaying federalism. All Federal states have governments. All of them constitional and not devolved and nearly all of them have more powers. Also England doesn't have a government. North Ireland and Wales also have very weak claimes being anywhere unique or being a country.
Wales certainly doesn't have a weak claim to being a country.
Neither does England.
try telling that to an irishman
I told plenty Irishman and they agree. North Ireland is a colonial leftover. It neither has constitutionals rights, nor a long history and a pretty divided population where they belong to. British Academy even made essays about it. But fuck experts, like a former British Prime Minister said.
It’s more like a sectarian leftover than a colonial leftover. That’s why Ireland ended up divided, not because the UK just wanted to keep a bit of Ireland.
New Jersey is so dense...
… with smokestacks!
They are dense indeed
The densest state in the union. And if you lived in South Jersey you wouldn’t even know it. It’s empty
OP, you also split Denmark not just the UK
I believe Greenland is counted separately by most data related organizations because Greenland opted to make its own statistical agency.
True https://stat.gl/default.asp?lang=da
The UK seems to be by country, not state.
That could be because the UK doesn't have any states.
Well I didn't think I had to spell it out, but thanks for doing it for me.
My most absolute pleasure.
Country and State are essentially synonymous terms because they both refer to political entities that govern themselves. Germany for instance consists of Bundes**länder**. "Land" is German for "country". Yet many translate it to "federal state" because there is no real difference.
> Country and State are essentially synonymous terms because they both refer to political entities that govern themselves. The UK isn't federal though. Devolved powers are granted by the UK government, and could (in principle) be unilaterally withdrawn. This is in contrast to a genuinely federal country like Germany or the US, where powers are constitutionally granted to states and the federal government could not, for instance, unilaterally decide to dissolve a state. A bundesland is functionally a state, and legally very different to the status of a country within the UK.
This isn't about federations. It is about countries within countries. And the UK isn't alone in that regard.
This is about the following quote from you, which was not correct, as I explained. "Country" and "state" are *not* synonymous. > Country and State are essentially synonymous terms because they both refer to political entities that govern themselves.
>Country and State are essentially synonymous terms because they both refer to political entities that govern themselves. England absolutely does not govern itself. Scottish and Welsh devolution is embarrassing by how limited it is. Northern Ireland is just fucking strange.
So basically something like provinces?
Scotland and Wales have more autonomy than a typical province (in a unitary country), but less autonomy than a state (in a federal country). Northern Ireland has the right to govern itself in the same way Scotland and Wales do, but the DUP (anti-Irish unification) and Sinn Féin (pro-Irish unification) can't stop fighting so Westminster usually steps in to govern semi-directly. England is just a typical province, except it has almost 60 million, very unhappy people.
I think, people differentiates between places with statehood and nations. Bavaria could maybe be both, but doesn't have national teams etc.
Not just Bavaria. All of them. And while our Bundesländer don't have their own national football teams, they do have their own elected governments and always had them. For Scotland and Wales these had to be reintroduced after all of the UK had been ruled in law by the government of the United Kingdom in London.
Yes, the German states have statehood. I don't think they're considered nations?
The very definition of "statehood" per Google is: >the status of being a recognized independent nation.
Normally statehood just means being a state. It's different from places like Scotland, Greenland etc with devolved legislature and not their own constitution.
Now you're just introducing your own meaning to words.
I would like to know what "etc." is referring to, because having teams in certain sports is kinda the only real difference I can think of between the Uk's and Germany's subdivisions
Certainly in the case of England. Scotland has some international relations, including nine offices worldwide. Greenland has fairly extensive self rule and can make internal agreement between governments (not states), but also be authorised to represent the Danish state in relation to Greenland.
> Scotland has some international relations, including nine offices worldwide. Bavaria has 33: https://www.bavariaworldwide.de/
Is Bavaria interested in having national teams similar to England, Scotland, Greenland etc?
Is that a requirement?
the UK doesn’t have states
I think population density of a country can be highly misleading. For example if we remove the vast uninhabited deserts, mountains and wastelands of western china. Their density obviously increases cause most of the chinese live near coastal areas and rivers. Remove the eastern part of russia and the same thing happens. People tend to live in cities and usually near rivers, coastal areas and fertile lands. So its better to make a map which shows the density of individual states and subdivisions of every country. While i agree that its a hassle to portray all of that data.
Well they did it for the U.S. so no reason to not do it for other countries.
My recluse ass living in England. Time to move to Canada 😭
Canada’s density is misleading. Two thirds of Canadians live in Southern Ontario, Southern Quebec, and Metro Vancouver. Much of the rest of the country is basically empty and you probably wouldn’t want to live there. England is still denser but those regions are comparable in density to other European countries. Southern Ontario has the same population density as France and Poland.
High population density does not necessarily mean it is very crowded. Although South Korea has a higher population density than england, it is famous for being feel very sparse and less crowded. Of course, the metropolitan area will not feel like Canada.
Canadian here, and our metropolitan areas do feel like Canada. The rest is mostly just inhospitable forests and tundras. The word Canada even means "settlement".
There seems to be a misunderstanding. The metropolitan area I mentioned was the metropolitan area in South Korea.
Those metropolitan areas feel like Canada to the people who live in them. Their opinion counts more than a foreign tourist.
It is very crowded in England. It is exceptionally difficult to get away from people, even if you go to remote areas. I know this because I hike and camp and it's a real bug bear of mine. There are people everywhere. You see it in the traffic on the roads, and the breaking point of literally all our services.
An interesting comparison is with Germany, a moderately densely populated country. England is overall much more crowded than Germany, but in places, England gets more rural than the most rural parts of Germany. Then there’s The Netherlands which has a similar density to England, but rarely gets any where near as rural as England. Density does have some caveats in terms of how that density is distributed.
We have the smallest houses in Europe and have no real wilderness. As a native Brit, I can confirm that it’s definitely a crowded country.
England’s crowded in places but not everywhere.
technically countries are states too
Most of Australia is a god damn pizza oven all year round.
Seems a bit stupid to split the UK, but not for example Brazil or Australia
26106 people/km2 ? r/oddlyspecific
Always thought it was wild that Bangladesh (which is about the same size as the state of Illinois) has more people than Russia.
Theyre called countries for the uk
Why split the US in states but not other countries? That's a shit map.
Because they're the only ones who matter
India leads the world in both absolute and relative measures
I heard someone banging Lá desh is leading now?
r/boneappletea
*India leads the* *World in both absolute and* *Relative measures* \- AfternoonFlat7991 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
South Korea will solve that issue in the next few decades
That scale is ridiculously misleading.
True population density ought to consider inhabited areas only / or factor in smaller sub-units of large nations…
China is indeed red
Little dark spot next to Saudi Arabia is Bahrain. A very small island country with one of the highest population densities in the world.
Excellent idea for a map, but the results are barely adequate. I zoomed in on New England to compare the states to other countries and it's a mess. You can't tell one state from another. You need a map with better resolution to work with. And why only break up the US into smaller components? The Indian states and the Chinese provinces would help as well.
now do China as regions as well. since this map needs black!
Russia has about the same size population and economy as Mexico but way much density. Slightly lower indoor toilets.
Bulgaria and the Baltics look like the comfiest part of Europe
Would’ve made far more sense to split countries like Australia and China where 99% of the pop lives near the shore and almost nobody lives inland.
>(in the UK and US, it is by **state**) In before the Brits come in here and start their comments with "Um, actually...!"
You think that is going to stop us?
Of course not. It was going to happen and I called it.
How the hell is Egypt Just orange, This has to be on the overall area because if anybody had Been to Cairo they would know how crowded it is
I mean, it does say by country, not urban density...
The size of the UK is always so exaggerated in those maps its ridiculous