Australia is of course ten times less dense than the US, comparable to Idaho, but we have a unique combination of moderately dense land in the east and south west plus shockingly sparse areas with little to no infrastructure at all.
Australia is of course ten times less dense than the US, comparable to Idaho, but we have a unique combination of moderately dense land in the east and south west plus shockingly sparse areas with little to no infrastructure at all.
If Alaska seceded, almost nobody in the other states would feel the difference, but the population density would jump 15%: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%28population+USA+-+...
(Or in reverse if Trump acquires Greenland — with no real change to people's experiences, the population density would go down 23%: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%28population+USA+%2...)
Likewise Australia, the outback is about 70%-85%-ish of the country depending who I ask, with about 607k people in it, so if the Aboriginal Australians were to secede with it, the rest suddenly gets x3-x6 the population density with no actual change to their experiences.
The questions that seem to matter, and for which population density is a proxy, are: how crowded does it feel, and how easy is it to get to the socioeconomic advantages of being near other people (infrastructure, commuting, shopping, community sports, faith buildings, pubs, etc.)?