Hacker News Reader

> It's long been the sick man in terms of population growth since 1845

That reminds me of a section from the book "1493", discussing the introduction of the potato to Europe and later the potato-famine:

> Today Ireland has the melancholy distinction of being the only nation in Europe, and perhaps the world, to have fewer people within the same boundaries than it did more than 150 years ago.

The Famine made Ireland "Irish" in the sense that we understand it today. The famine caused people to become more pious in their Catholicism, even more impoverished and detest the British even more than what they previously did. It probably was the single most important factor in shaping modern Ireland.

Many here are probably aware that Ireland had in 1845 a population of 9 Million but only 6 Million today (all Island pop). The entirety of the UK at the time had a population of 22 Million people. This means the Britain (Scotland, England and Wales) was only 25% bigger than Ireland at that time which is completely different today with the UK having >60 Million people and Ireland (Republic) having 4.5 Million. Ireland had a similar agricultural output compared to Britain which is at least three time larger.

If the famine didn't happen Ireland could easily have a population of over 30 Million. However it did happen and alternate realities are hard to predict.

> If the famine didn't happen Ireland could easily have a population of over 30 Million. However it did happen and alternate realities are hard to predict.

In a way it has, there are that many with Irish ancestry in America, not strange as emigration there cost Ireland much more people than the famine.

Wasn't one of the forces dictating this migration the famine itself?

"If the famine didn't happen Ireland could easily have a population of over 30 Million"

Would you really want to become Bangladesh? 30 Million seems an awfully high number for a country of such size and latitude.

If Ireland had similar population density to Southeast England, it would have a population of around 39 million.

England has forests, nature reserves, fjords elsewhere. That's why this region can be so dense? Why would you want to build up everything? Where's the gain I wonder?

  > England has forests

Ireland had forests too. Where are they now? Mostly in English castles.

"fjords elsewhere"

Fjords in England? Where?

Setting questionable English 'fjords' aside, the point isn't that it would be desirable to have a population of 30 million in Ireland, but that it would be possible, without having the population density (and presumably poverty) of Bangladesh. You asked how a small island in the north atlantic could sustain more than 30 million people - well, South East England has a population density of about 1200 people per square mile, at a similar latitude. Transplant that same population density to Ireland and you'd fit 39 million people. So, if you want to know what an Ireland with 30 million people in it would look like, don't imagine Bangladesh, think of Southeast England.

And Southeast England is still considered a pretty beautiful, green part of the world. It contains the South Downs and New Forest national parks, the Chiltern hills, and about 60% of the land in the region is actively farmed. Of course, in the middle of it you've got London, which accounts for the overall density. So yes, a populated Ireland would be different; Dublin and Belfast would be vastly different cities; - but it wouldn't have stopped being the emerald isle if in an alternate history its population had reached 30m.

Yes it is possible, but why would you ever want that?

Why want Dublin faster grown and thus soulless? Why want Irish spirit to be abolished and replaced with hive mentality?

I could totally understand you if Ireland would be declining, but it's thriving, attracting people, growing naturally when most nations struggle at that. You're in a perfect position and you want to replace it with something random?

Why would anyone ever want that? Because people have different opinions about what is best. You are absolutely entitled to think that a more populous Ireland would be a bad thing, but you're being downvoted because you can't seem to see that that's just a personal preference, not an absolute truth.

Personally, I live in New Zealand (population: 4.5 million), and I'd strongly prefer it if we had twice as many people. A bigger population can sustain a healthier economy, with more opportunities for everyone. However, I'm well aware that I'm an outlier; most people think differently and I respect that.

It would need a larger city to make that happen though - Dublin is an order of magnitude smaller than London. Now a x10 scaling of Dublin would be interesting though.

If Ireland had the population density of the Netherlands, they'd have 34m people. (Ireland ~73.5/km^2 density and ~84k km^2 area; Netherlands 407/km^2 density and ~41k km^2 area).

For reference Bangladesh sits at just above 1000/km^2 density.

Nine million on Ireland in 1845?! They tell us the famine was caused by monoculture; they tell us it was a fungus; they tell us it was English land and farm policy; they tell us it was inequality; they tell us it was import quotas.

But they never mention that Ireland was horribly overcrowded. Nine million is jam packed horror.

At six million today, Ireland should be closed to immigration and paying naturalized Eastern Europeans and North Africans to give up citizenship and leave. Even six million is dangerously overpopulated. Thirty million is pure nightmare.

... Ireland has less than a fifth of the population density the Netherlands has. They don't particularly strike me as a "jam packed horror".

You're talking about a country so insanely crowded that they actually manufacture land out of the sea just to squeeze themselves in. In fact, they're famous for it because it's so awful and crazy.

There's significant danger that rising oceans and a major storm could kill millions. That sounds like horror to just about everyone.

And Netherlands has adjacent countries not so dense as itself with forests and open space to adjourn to on weekends for sanity. Ireland is an island.

I just spent a fantastic vacation in Ireland, traveling between Dublin, Cork, and Galway by car--which meant a lot of narrow but very well-kept roads between many tiny towns. The idea that double, even triple, the population of Ireland would somehow not have "forests and open space to adjourn to" is...well...it's interesting.

Wait, did I say interesting? I meant "horse manure". That is an empty country, with plenty of room and remarkably little need for the sort of xenophobia you've espoused in this thread (a xenophobia that no one I met in Ireland seemed into, either!). And I don't think HN needs it, either.

Oh, it's so nice you've seen the country from a car. A manufactured experience professionally landscaped by traffic engineers observed from within a machine those engineers are employed to promote taught you all you need to know about a country.

Ireland is almost empty of wilderness and has scant backcountry. Even the mountain ranges have a very few trails backed by industrial tree farms. Most of the supposed forest left is so tightly controlled that the wave pattern of regularity produces moire patterns in the trees. All the life, nature and interest is squeezed out.

There's certainly no place left to seek extended solitude or homestead cheap land. The youth of the countryside are leaving or escaping to cities. I'm glad the nearly-indoor controlled experience of the roads was nice for you, but Ireland is full and bursting at the seams. More people will only make it worse.

Only one thing in this entire post is not wildly inaccurate: there is a lot of rural to urban migration amongst young people in Ireland, but this is something which happens in every country in the world.

If it is any stronger in Ireland, it has much more to do with how bad the infrastructure is in Ireland and how Dublin-centric most investment is.

"A manufactured experience professionally landscaped by traffic engineers"? You give our government more credit than it deserves.

Your "not so dense" country, Germany, has more than 3 times the density Ireland does.

WildUtah, I have no idea where you are getting your information, but I am Irish, I have lived in Ireland my whole life. I'm in Ireland, looking out at Ireland as I write this message.

Your assessment is extraordinarily inaccurate.

"insanely crowded"?

Then why is the majority clamouring for more homes to be built? Property prices are climbing, not because things are too crowded, but because there aren't enough houses.[1][2]. Surely if it were "insanely crowded" here there'd be more of a popular pushback saying "where are we going to put these new houses?". Let me tell you: it doesn't exist.

The Irish government is going to great lengths to encourage new house building to meet the demand.

Ireland is famous for for manufacturing land out of the sea? Really? Well you're going to have inform this Irishman what you are referring to. The only things I can think of is the creation of Bull Island -- which was an unintended side-effect of the building of the Bull Wall, a successful project to dredge Dublin Bay undertaken in the early 18th Century [3] -- and various land reclamation projects around Dublin Port over the past 300 years, which a quick google search will inform you were more to do with planning permission than overcrowding.

For a country which is "insanely crowded", someone forgot to tell the population that. Add to this the population density facts which other commenters have provided, which you disregard and I can tell you that your information sources are lying to you.

[1] http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/review-of-the-yea...

[2] http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/features/shortage-of-h...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Wall

Really? Ireland has 13% of the population density of England, and around 1% of the population density of Greater London, both of which are keeping their heads above water just fine.

England and similarly dense countries like Bengala-Desh are horribly overcrowded. The locals are desperate to send home immigrants and refuse even to replace themselves by having enough babies.

And that's after concentrating a large population in Europe's largest city so that they can at least have a little open space elsewhere.

As a long-term resident of one of the most diverse boroughs in London, I can vouch for my own lack of desperation to deport immigrants, though I'm sure you can find the same xenophobic vocal minority that can find in most countries if you look hard enough. Though I do conceed that I am finding the task of replacing myself with a baby somewhat difficult, which may or may not be due to lack of large, sparsely populated land mass.

Northern Ireland has had a negative migration trend ever since the 90's. http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/demography/population/midyea...

However the birthrate is far outstripping any emmigration losses so they continue to have a largely positive population growth.

> t suggests all of Ireland is growing somewhat evenly when the truth is that while most if is growing Dublin and her surrounding area and Cork are growing much faster than the rest and the picture doesn't indicate that though I'm sure the data will.

As far as I could tell, the darkest red colour represents '> 2% population growth,' so that graphic is not much good at breaking down areas that are all experiencing more than 2% growth.