Well, I guess if an animal feels threatened it will bite or scratch. However, none of those are animals I'd associate as being scary. The biggest fright any of them would give us is them colliding with our cars, though that's not really an issue for the quokkas.
I was not expecting the three small countries/territories along the north coast of South America (Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana) to be on this list. Had no idea their populations were so small.
Its like he said mostly because of the amazon forest, which isnt a good place for agriculture to begin with. Northern brazil, which holds most of the forest than any country, has the least population density in the national territory with it being also the largest in area, but a lesser population than greater sao paulo area (or new york)
please make that video comparing Australia and Canada, as an Aussie I feel like I can relate pretty well to Canadians but I'd be interested to see what the differences are
Some similarities that come to mind: Both have huge land areas, tiny populations concentrated around a handful of medium-sized cities on the extreme ends of the country, both made up of states/provinces with sub-national governments, both have the British monarch as head of state (both being former British colonies (France too in the case of Canada), similar political systems (parliamentary system), both have complex relationships with their indigenous populations (which tend to be disadvantaged economically / socially and a perennial political issues), both have very multi-cultural populations owing to very high rates of migration (particularly Asian migrants)... Some differences I can think of: Australia has no French-speaking population / communities (and thus the English vs French issues don't feature in Australian politics)..the weather is obviously hugely different. American influence also MUCH stronger in Canada
@@Hadrianus01 Actually, all or (more likely) part of Australia could have become French when first settled by Europeans. See Noelene Bloomfield's book Almost a French Australia.
Thank you for this interesting video, Paul. When I am in a bad mood, I sometimes wish I lived in the Svalbards, but most of the time I would settle for a compromise, that is a small to very small sized city (I might go for Reykjavik... or perhaps Akureyri). By the way, the perceived "size" of a city is subjective: here in Italy, we consider a 250.000 city a fairly large one and Rome is considered a metropolis. One thing is certain: growing old, I am not attracted to big cities anymore. Too many people, too much chaos. It's true that there are plenty of services and free-time offers, but who has the time to regularly enjoy them? I've lived in Rome for nine years but I was too busy with work and too often stuck in traffic to have much time to go to the theatre or some ethnic restaurant. If I were to live in Japan, for example, and were free to choose, I would probably settle for a mid sized city on the sea with a convenient shinkansen station to be able to move around. Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto wouldn't be my first choice anymore.
I don’t know if this counts, but I live in Maine (USA). We have some towns and cities, but the majority of the state is covered in forests. A lot of tourists come to Maine to get away from the city life.
The one that surprised me here is Libya - given its prominence in news and politics, I never realized its population was so small. Great video though - and makes me want to visit Suriname even more!
My country Argentina also has a pretty low population density, but not that extreme like the countries/territories on the list, is actually 4 times denser than Canada, but still a pretty low number in general (out of the top 200 from almost 250 countries/territories in total), comparable with Finland, Norway and Saudi Arabia. But the situation is curious, although it has a big portion of desert (The Patagonia), is not even the half of the total area, and it doesn't have that extreme temperatures in general. And we have this population density even with the historic emigration waves towards Argentina (1870-1950), until ending the XIX century we had even less total population than Chile! However, isn't a weird number for a South American country, not only due to "the Guyanas", but also Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay have similar numbers and only Ecuador is above the world average (and by little). Also I would add that unlike Canada and Australia, Argentina doesn't have many colosal metros, just the AMBA. Without counting the most populated metropolitan area, Australia and Canada have other several metros with more than 2 million of people while Argentina not, Cordoda (city) and Rosario have a little bit more than 1 million and then the rest is bellow that number. We have more cities but smallers. Fun fact and believe me I'm not angried nor anything similar lol the extremely low population density on Malvinas Islands is one of the (toooo many) arguments on the Argentine claim for the islands, related with the inserted population argument (it's what they say, agree or not).
I live 300km above the polar circle in northern Norway where we have a population density of 3.2 people per square kilometer, so not far of from the countries on this list. The province I live in is as big as Czechia, but holds only 2% of the population of Czechia.
Don't ask. India is a highly populated country due to its' rich nature and availability of rivers and fertile land. Population density is also very higher.
I really like countries with low population density , i feel like they give you the best of both worlds , you can live in the city with lots of people but can take trips outside where everything is pure and quiet and see the stars at night .
I'm not a geogpraph-idiot (and read Papillon several times), but those South American countries surprised me. 😲 I'd easily replaced them with (I don't know) Kazakhstan, countries from the Sahara or from the Arabian Peninsula. P.S.: Those "scary" australian animals were hilarious! 🤣
would be cool to see the opposite, the most densely inhabited places, in fact, I think this one is even more surprising, because places like India and China, despite their size, have a higher population density than many smaller countries just because of their total population
Love it, but can't resist pointing out that a Canadian football field is 10 yards longer and 11⅔ yards wider than an American football field. So a football field for us covers 34% more area ;) And if you include the endzones (ours are twice as deep), the total area of a Canadian football field is 52% larger. So we won't get so many football fields to ourselves, but still enough space to go around!
The issue with that kind of density measurment is that it means almost nothing for living conditions. Most Canadians, Mongolians, Iceland or anywhere live in packed cities. And in dense country like Japan or Italy you can find pristine lands and lonely places.
Canada only has one big city. Toronto. Vancouver kind of counts if you include the areas around it since I guess I’m including the entire GTA. but there isn’t a single other “packed” big city in the entire country. At. All.
@@cristoferchanimak It's not about "big city" it's about the fact that most Canadians do live in cities, big or small, they don't live in villages, Calgary, Winnipeg and Edmonton are effectively packed islands in a sea of empty grasslands. Also Montreal exists as a big city.
Great video! How about a breakdown of our Canadian Territories population density! It’s my experience, that people are sparse up there! Keep your smiles on!
I'd like to respectfully suggest not using 'American football fields' as a reference unit, since that's a niche sport played only in one specific part of the world. How am I, a European, supposed to have a good grasp of how big one is?
I'm American and don't know how big a football field is. I don't watch ball sports. I don't know what's a good reference for area, but at least the metric units are clear. Though for big distances on Earth I'd use megameters.
I live in the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan, USA. According to Wikipedia, the area of the UP is 42,420 square km, the population is 301,609, and the population density is 7.1 per square km. Our region is heavily forested, and the winters are long, cold, and snowy (most of the UP is geologically part of the Canadian Shield). No real cities, and the largest town is less than 21,000. Our people are spread across the area in small towns, villages, and rural dwellings. I spoke recently with a visitor from Siberia who said he feels so at home here that sometimes he forgets he is in a foreign country. We love to complain about the UP, but most of us can't stand living elsewhere (and many of us have tried it). If I had to move, it would probably be across Lake Superior to north Ontario in Canada. Keep up the good work, Paul!
I don't know if there's any way to do this quickly, but I'd define the local population density like this: For each person, find the six closest neighbors. Construct the smallest circle enclosing them, and set the density to a constant divided by the area of the circle. The constant should be set so that the density is right for a hexagonal lattice.
My country has the population density of 22.2 inhabitants per square kilometer (57.5 people per square mile). 85% of the population lives in urban areas in the south of the country (not at all surprising). Thought we would get higher on the list, but apparently not. If one looks at images of where the population lives, there are lots of livable land where either no one or practically no one lives. Sweden is more densely populated than I thought, though.
When talking distance, is it Canadian Football field size or American Football field sized? A Canadian once told me that Canadian football fields have a 55 yard line.
I was surprised Russia wasn't on the list (though a comment says it's #12, so close), and I never would have guessed that Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana would be on the list, but when you explain why of course it makes perfect sense. Also is there somewhere on our awful byzantine government website where I can go claim my 40 football fields of private land?
@@aaronblygh4719 The USA has 34 people per sq km, yet it is the 3rd largest in population country. China is the same - on the East coast it is densily populated but at the West - it's like Mongolia.
Its interesting to think how population density "locked" my country, brazil mostly from international mingling and spreading. The vast majority of the people live in the atlantic ocean's coast so the best way out is by plane, since the western border is very far away and spread thin ( half of it is in the amazon basically) of people. And the countries that border it also are usually not very populated on their side too, so in brazil the only "land" connection to other countries thats fairly in use is in the south or center west with uruguay argentina and paraguay
Although most of my country is located in Sahara ( 02 million square kilometers with less than 5 millions inhabitants) we have about 380.000 square kilometers north with Mediterranean and Continental climates with almost 40 millions inhabitants.
I live in Canada near Vancouver, and it always is hard to wrap my head around how empty this country truly is. I feel like I live in a over-crowded and over-populated country, when that’s not the case at all. Wish I lived in a more remote area lol
Which makes Java far more vulnerable to the devastating effects of a mammoth volcanic eruption the size of Pinatubo 1991 or bigger than a number of other volcanically active areas like the Kamchatka Peninsula and the Aleutians/southern Alaska.
This was my guess for top 10 above the line, and the ones I left out below it: Mauritania Argelia Libia 6 Canadá 8 Saudi Arabia Rusia Australia 3 Niger Malí Islandia 4 ---------- Suriname 7 Guyana 5 French Guyana 3.5 Namibia 2 Mongolia 1
0:56 Yes but that doesn't mean many of those are not squeezed with each other in big cities, like any other country. Just a "come on now" so people wouldn't think "Canada is like a paradise" and mistakenly start migrating there like crazy. Plus the cold weather, even colder than the NE United States for the most part. No no, not going. 1:14 YES exactly.
When compared to New York or Washington DC, locales like Montreal feel like Minneapolis in terms of the winters, and locales like Winnipeg or Baie Comeau/Sept Iles (how much more so James Bay and upwards) are even colder yet.
If most of the people in Australia or Iceland or the Guianas or Libya are concentrated on some (but not all) of the coasts, then most of the people in Canada are concentrated on a "coast" that's not actually a coast - namely, the US border.
Antarctica is a continent not a country so I guess it didnt make the list. I was surprised by the sparsly populated southamerican countries and didnt know Mongolia was that empty.
Lots of fun facts here - but population divided by area is an utterly irrelevant statistical indicator in international comparison. Surprisingly, it is quite often referred to, although its practical usefulness is questionable at best. At the very least, areas that are obviously uninhabitable should be excluded - but that is in practice not possible. Enjoyed the video though!
I already knew it, but Mongolia might be surprising for other people. Unlike other nations in this list, they conquered the world. To think the descendants of the #2 biggest empire ever had such low population...
I live in mongolia capital city ulaanbaatar and here half the population of the country live in capital city so its even emptier in outside of the city
I’m surprised Russia isn’t on this list, especially its republics in Siberia (like the Sakha Republic) with the area of over 3 million km2 and population of only around 950000 people.
When I was a kid I was very proud to live in the most densily populated country in the world, the Netherlands. But alas, we are surpassed by, amongst other countries, Bangladesh, South Korea and Taiwan. India (!) is coming close.
