Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Had the Brits not migrated to America, would England have such high population as US? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Had the Brits not migrated to America, would we have had such a massive population as America?
    I understand that not all Americans are from England, but those who are are estimated to be around 70 million. Would that mean the population of Britain would have risen to 130-140 million? I understand that population density and scarcity of resources puts a limit on population growth, but how much would the population have increased if the Brits never migrated to America do you reckon?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No. Wouldn't work like that.

    We might be marginally bigger, but not to that extent.


    And there's no way that there are 70 million people in the US who are only English in origin, nor British.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    No. Wouldn't work like that.

    We might be marginally bigger, but not to that extent.


    And there's no way that there are 70 million people in the US who are only English in origin, nor British.
    I found it on Wikipedia, which is totally in no way reliable, but still it's not going to be less than 40 million.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    I found it on Wikipedia, which is totally in no way reliable, but still it's not going to be less than 40 million.
    There may be 70 million people who claim part British heritage, but that's not the same thing as saying "if people had never emigrated then we'd have 70 million more people". It's not saying 70 million moved there, it's saying those few that moved there have had a part in creating that 70 million. They've stopped being British.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    There may be 70 million people who claim part British heritage, but that's not the same thing as saying "if people had never emigrated then we'd have 70 million more people". It's not saying 70 million moved there, it's saying those few that moved there have had a part in creating that 70 million. They've stopped being British.
    I understand, but if those who moved had stayed in the UK, they would have had a part in creating a proportion of this 70 million, but in the UK instead of the US, wouldn't you think.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    I understand, but if those who moved had stayed in the UK, they would have had a part in creating a proportion of this 70 million, but in the UK instead of the US, wouldn't you think.
    Yes. A portion, hence why I said we would be marginally bigger. But they would have been more limited by space and resources.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yes. A portion, hence why I said we would be marginally bigger. But they would have been more limited by space and resources.
    Yea I know, but how much do you think would the population have increased?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yes. A portion, hence why I said we would be marginally bigger. But they would have been more limited by space and resources.
    Did US folk from the same time period really reproduce that much more than their British counter-parts from the same time period? I doubt it...

    If we would not have even 20% of the 70million americans that have British heritage (although really we should just be talking about those who have British-British heritage and given the massive numbers of immigrants in the US we may expect even less would be produced, then again probably not because if Britain did have fewer migrants elsewhere we would have been bigger and more would migrate to here so there's more "foreign" people to mix with...).

    Anyway, let's assume it would be about equal then - the potential for reproductive purely in terms of the quantity of humans available, you are then suggesting that because of space/resources americans produced more than 5x as many offspring as brits from the same time period...

    So to me there are two solutions to working this out - assume the potential amount of fertile humans available to the brits (one would have to account for folk's tendencies to not breed outside their own ethnicity and perhaps nationality too despite how hard that is to quantify) that had moved to the US was similar to the amount that would have been available to them had they stayed in the UK (I have no idea if this is true) and extrapolate from there based on historical statistics concerning childbirth in each country how many children those US-migrants would have made if they stayed in the UK.

    OR, if that assumption cannot be assumed to be true, try and work out as close as possible how many more or less fertile humans would be available in that time period and use that to extrapolate the relative birth-rate. That is, the birth-rate were both countries equal in terms of people to reproduce with... And then extrapolate to figure out how it would have affected the UK population...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Except that's not what he said ever.
    • Reporter Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Except that's not what he said ever.
    I've just realised that and deleted my post.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The size of England's current population is probably not affected much at all. However, the quality of England's population has been significantly diminished. America poached much of England's finest talent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    The size of England's current population is probably not affected much at all. However, the quality of England's population has been significantly diminished. America poached much of England's finest talent.
    What's the reason for the first sentence?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    America poached much of England's finest talent.
    No. It took, en masse, many of Britain's disadvantaged, as well as transported criminals and, significantly, its most entrenched superstitious people (Puritans and other non-conformists). The legacy for the USA can be seen in its (by western standards) high levels of religious adherence and superstitious belief leading to backward-thinking morality in areas such as abortion law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    What's the reason for the first sentence?
    There are several. Nowhere near 70 million people emigrated (only about 25 million between 1600 and 2000). Most significantly, the UK's population would have been limited by space, attitudes and wealth as well as probable emigration elsewhere.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    There are several. Nowhere near 70 million people emigrated (only about 25 million between 1600 and 2000). Most significantly, the UK's population would have been limited by space, attitudes and wealth as well as probable emigration elsewhere.
    Are you suggesting primarily that 25million people couldn't produce enough offspring to lead to 70million people in that time period?

    Or are you suggesting primarily that they couldn't have done so in the UK, even if they could have and did in the US because of a difference in the natural environment?

    Of course, realistically it is a bit of both, but I don't see the justification for believing either view strongly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Or are you suggesting primarily that they couldn't have done so in the UK, even if they could have and did in the US because of a difference in the natural environment?
    Yes. A significant proportion of them left to avoid famine and poverty, and may well not have survived long in Britain. They prospered in the developing US because of the space and the need for workers to build the nation and spread the frontiers.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yes. A significant proportion of them left to avoid famine and poverty, and may well not have survived long in Britain. They prospered in the developing US because of the space and the need for workers to build the nation and spread the frontiers.
    At last! We finally get an actual reason as to why it wouldn't have worked in the UK.

    I have no idea about the truth of that statement but I have little reason to believe you're poorly informed/lying, so I'm going to assume it is true for now, but I shall watch this thread. Hopefully someone can clarify these claims for me as I cannot be bothered doing the research into it myself right now :P
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    I cannot be bothered doing the research into it myself right now
    You have a very appropriate TSR user name. As, of course, do I.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You have a very appropriate TSR user name. As, of course, do I.
    Yes, lmfao and it is funny because dormant though I often am sometimes I can explode. In all honesty though I am just very busy these days. It's such a shame as I do love researching random things. And learning.

    Of course you do ^^
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    Had the Brits not migrated to America, would we have had such a massive population as America?
    I understand that not all Americans are from England, but those who are are estimated to be around 70 million. Would that mean the population of Britain would have risen to 130-140 million? I understand that population density and scarcity of resources puts a limit on population growth, but how much would the population have increased if the Brits never migrated to America do you reckon?
    The state with the highest % of English ancestry is, believe it or not, is Utah. I always found that an interesting fact.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.