Random Mode Keyboard shortcut: Command/Ctrl + Shift + R
thumbnail

Countries Growing the Most by 2070

Which countries are projected to increase their population by the greatest percentage by the year 2070?
Based on UN projections from 2024–2070. More info here.
Color coded by continent
Take a version to see which countries gain the most total people here
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: February 29, 2024
You have not attempted this quiz yet.
First submittedFebruary 29, 2024
Times taken2,222
Average score85.0%
Rating4.74
4:00
Enter answer here
0
 / 20 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
%
Country
285
Niger
202
D. R. Congo
180
Mali
175
Somalia
171
Chad
168
Angola
165
Central African Republic
%
Country
163
Tanzania
149
Senegal
149
Benin
144
Mozambique
142
Mauritania
138
Zambia
136
Burundi
%
Country
134
Ivory Coast
134
Cameroon
128
Uganda
127
Sudan
127
Vanuatu
126
Malawi
+4
Level 92
Mar 2, 2024
These huge population increases across Africa, primarily in relatively poor countries, coupled with the significant declines in the projected populations in many European countries shown in another recent updated quiz, raises some interesting questions. For example, will these countries grow stronger economically as they expand in population, or will it result in a struggle to prosper in a poor overcrowded area and perhaps trigger a massive striving to immigrate across the Mediterranean? If the latter, will the European countries be willing to admit large inflows of immigrants? China and Japan are also projected to decline in population, but the physical and cultural divide may preclude any significant movement there.
+3
Level 62
Mar 2, 2024
I am afraid that Africa has no chance: the West has not prepared a Chinese or South Korean scenario for them — it clearly does not plan to pour capital there. So, yes, we are likely to get even more poor people.
+3
Level 62
Mar 2, 2024
The only thing that can change the future for Africa is if powerful capital arises somewhere outside the West. There is already China, but it treats Africa not as the West treats China or Japan, but as the West... to Africa — debt bondage, slave labor, valuable resources for next to nothing and key infrastructure in the hands of foreign "investors". Russia does not have large capitals — it clearly does not have enough funds for the sufficient development of other countries, so it is trying to make a breakthrough at least for itself. India, Brazil? Almost the same as with Russia — they are only in the development stage, and without the help of large capital from abroad (and therefore the desire of foreign capital to develop them), it will take a very long and difficult time for everyone. So, big money men just don't care about Africa.
+2
Level 59
Mar 4, 2024
Capital can rise in Africa without foreign investment, a majority of African states have increased in GDP since 2000.
+1
Level 62
Mar 13, 2024
Increased GDP and powerful capital are not the same thing. Yes, your GDP has grown, maybe you even have some kind of industry. However, especially rejecting the Maghreb and South Africa, did they have large banks, did patents appear, did technological production open? The majority of Africans' money comes from the "help" of the West and the "investments" of China, but at the same time, almost all African countries still export raw materials, remaining a raw material appendage. There are no mass transfers of industry to Africa, most Africans are still in mines, plantations and landfills, growing cocoa or extracting bauxite for the "owners". Maybe everything will change, but so far I don't see the shifts that once were in South Korea, China, India and Southeast Asia.
+1
Level 62
Mar 13, 2024
I will disappoint you, but no country in our time will become developed without foreign investment, especially the African one. Even the USSR in the 1930s resorted to the help of Western countries to successfully build industry. How do you imagine the emergence of powerful capital in Africa? After all, capital is not equal to GDP, and GDP is not just numbers, they just won't grow. No matter how fast the economy of Guyana grows, it will not become the richest country with developed capital, only if foreign investors do not come to it, provided that they also do not want to just rob the country. Therefore, no matter how fast the GDP of Africans grows, they will have no more intellectual property or industrial development.
+1
Level 59
Mar 15, 2024
Actually Guyana’s main industry is now oil, not great if it falls to the resource curse or if venezuela pulls somethin

anywho, then what do you think lead to the development of asia and the development that is already occuring in africa

+1
Level 62
Mar 17, 2024
That's what I'm talking about. In Guyana, it seems that ExxonMobil and the like are currently engaged in development, and not Guyanese corporations. They will be lucky if they buy out their place of birth and corporations in the future, like the Saudis or the Emiratis. It is too early to judge whether Guyana will prosper, or all the wealth will pass by the residents, I hope for the former. But remember Equatorial Guinea — its GDP growth was the highest in the world, and GDP per capita was higher than many European countries, but the population was terribly poor. Yes, there is a lot to do with corruption, but even without it, the economy would not thrive on the empty sale of resources — for this it is necessary to develop industry and finance, that is, to create capital.
+1
Level 62
Mar 17, 2024
That's the problem — money in Africa does not stay in Africa — rich people let them pass by it, even if they appear, or local kings keep everything to themselves, not realizing that with the development of the country their wallets will be thicker. And those who can understand are faced with the first problem.

In any case, I will be glad if you are right after all, and Africa will flourish, at least like Botswana. Africa has been in the grip for too long, if the next decades are going to be its finest hour, then it's only for the best! I just find it hard to believe, even if I hope

+1
Level 59
Mar 2, 2024
More poor people historically hasn't happened as economies transition along with the demographic transition. Estimated income of niger vs botswana:

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$mountain$data$filter$dimensions$geo$/$or@$geo$/$in@=ner;;;;;;;;;&billy$encoding$selected$data$;;;;;;&chart-type=mountain&url=v1

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$mountain$data$filter$dimensions$geo$/$or@$geo$/$in@=bwa;;;;;;;;;&billy$encoding$selected$data$;;;;;;&chart-type=mountain&url=v1

+3
Level 62
Mar 2, 2024
I have a feeling what kind of hell we will be in by 2070. Africa has nothing to feed now, and if the population increases on such a scale. Plus, the demographic catastrophe of Europe and East Asia is currently the most developed regions of the world, in this situation, you can forget about the national cultures of these regions, which is already leaving (the USA, Canada and ANZ do not count, for them migrants are the basis of everything). It's scary to imagine the world if these predictions are correct.
+1
Level 73
Mar 6, 2024
While famine is a serious issue in Africa, if they didn't have food to at least allow this many people to survive, they would've died already.

While the loss of cultures is certainly a tragedy, I don't see what that has to do with population growth in Africa— Bulgaria's population is gonna decline whether Africa has 3 billion people or 3 thousand. And I don't know of any national cultures that are expected to disappear by 2070. There will be less Japanese people for sure, but Japanese culture won't go extinct.

And I don't see how a world with less Eurasians and more Africans is necessarily scarier. Europe had around 500 million people in 1913, around 20% of the global population. Today Europe has around 10% with around 750 million. In 1913, Africa had no more than 150 million, roughly 7% of the world. Today Africa has over 1.3 billion, around 20% of the world. I personally wouldn't consider today to be scarier than 100 years ago, despite the population shift that's already happened.

+1
Level 62
Mar 13, 2024
There is a noticeable difference between the fact that 20% of the world lives in the most industrialized region of the world and the fact that 20% of the world lives in the most backward region of the world. In addition, in absolute terms, 20% of the world's population, if they come true (and Neodymium provides a lot of evidence why not), they will be catastrophically large.

However, let's think about what Europe was doing when its population was 20% of the world's? She has made a cultural expansion all over the world, and a very cruel one at that. Now it is clear that many of the inhabitants of Africa have chosen not to live "like in Europe", but simply "in Europe, without any "like"" (after all, no one will allow Africans to live like in Europe), which will clearly affect the cultural code of Europe. Okay, let's end the conversation about culture, since this is considered fascism.

+1
Level 62
Mar 13, 2024
Therefore, I will conclude with this: previously, Europe used its technological advantage and establish hegemony over Africans, now it will be their turn, I use demographics. A cruel but well-deserved punishment?
+1
Level 59
Mar 20, 2024
No clue what you are yapping about fascism but no, no cultural punishments. We have outgrown that age. The number of europeans still around from the colonial era is few and the next generation of europeans should not suffer from the mistakes of their forefathers. Cruel and undeserving and not gonna happen.
+3
Level 84
Mar 2, 2024
Why Vanuatu?
+3
Level 95
Mar 2, 2024
Vanuatu's current population is about 340,000. Their population is projected to more than double and reach near 750,000 by 2070. A 100% increase means double what the current population is.
+2
Level 77
Mar 9, 2024
This does not answer the question. Why will it more than double? (Its population pyramid.) Is this trend shared among other Melanesian countries? (Sort of.) Does it have a particularly high growth rate? (No, it's around 50th worldwide.) Does it have a particularly high birth rate? (No, even in Melanesia it's surpassed by Samoa and the Solomon Islands.) Most importantly: why is its population pyramid like that? (Probably a combination of factors that put it just into the range of this quiz. Idk)
+3
Level 59
Mar 2, 2024
omg i swear if another person says “oh no starvation”, the green revloution worked for asia as it developed, as africa develops it’l work out too
+8
Level 70
Mar 2, 2024
the crazy thing is, we already produce enough food for 9 billion people, but food wastage and capitalism make it so that we're somehow okay with almost a billion dealing with severe food insecurity...
+3
Level 62
Mar 2, 2024
Answer: specifically, you and I consume too much. And it is unlikely that the average inhabitant of any Richmond, Poznan, Yekaterinburg or Okayama thinks about whether a poor child is now eating enough in an Ethiopian village or on plantations in Ivory Coast, does the pauper in Cotonou drink clean water and does the poor man in N'Djamena drink at all
+2
Level 70
Mar 3, 2024
The problem is not production, is distribution. We need to rethink this system of depending on few crops produced in few areas (such as soy in Brazil and wheat in Ukraine/Russia) created by capitalism. It's not about individually thinking of the waste and scarcity, it's about think how to create sustainable conditions for every human being to be able to live and develop.
+1
Level 62
Mar 4, 2024
Then a new stage should appear instead of capitalism, and post-industrial society assumes this. Are we talking to Herr Marx again?

Still, it's interesting to think about what might replace capitalism. Socialism has not justified itself, it is still difficult for us to imagine something else, just as it was difficult for people of the Middle Ages to imagine capitalism.

+2
Level 59
Mar 4, 2024
I think the first argument of rethinking one crop/area is wrong. If every place had autarky and grew all crops they wanted, many of those crops would be underealised. Crops should be grown where they do best, then exported to areas in which they are not. If America tried to grow their coffee need in America, the yeild would suffer due to a different climate.
+1
Level 73
Mar 6, 2024
This is true, but to my knowledge monocrops are not sustainable long-term. Blights are devastating when you rely on only a few crops, and I've heard somewhere that monocrops slowly but surely destroy the soil they're planted in. I don't know what the solution is (or if there is one).
+2
Level 59
Mar 7, 2024
crop rotation or something, leaving some land fallow, and changing the crop every few years. slash and burn (in cases when its not old growth forest etc). But but in general, autarkic farming is not great.
+3
Level 62
Mar 2, 2024
It should be borne in mind that in Asia (in those places that suffered from hunger), there was a pretty good climate: the same Ganges and Yangtze valleys are excellent for agriculture, they are the cradles of civilization for a reason. Therefore, in order to eradicate hunger there, it was enough to apply intensive technologies instead of extensive ones (in other words, use modern technologies instead of old ones). And there is plenty of water and fertile land in Asia (we do not take any Xinjiang or Mongolia).

In Africa, the climate in many territories is not very good, to put it mildly, especially in the countries leading the birth rate, but, as you already know, the most terrible problem is water. The Nile and the Congo are abundant with water, but the Nile can no longer cope, and the Congo is almost completely wild forests. Moreover, Africans live mainly in areas that are not rich in water (unlike Asia, where everything is the other way around).

+1
Level 59
Mar 2, 2024
Wet Rice farming is usually intensive so i dont think that was the change exactly, the difference was the gmo crop + pesticide. As for the water in africa, some of the largest growing areas, such as congo + nigeria have rivers. Keep in mind as well, the areas amazing in production of things, such as Central Valley california (see how much of world crops come from there) and the midwest all rely on pumping water out the ground, which can be done in africa, (not that it is sustainable).

One last thing, all of these numbers are prolly wrong as the increase in education, change in economic structure, decrease in need for children due to the last two, will lead to a faster drop in fertility than Eu & and Asia

+1
Level 59
Mar 4, 2024
also the idea that people live where water isnt is not usually true in less developed areas. People live where the farms are and those are good agricultural areas, see a rain fall and then population map
+1
Level 62
Mar 4, 2024
Yes, you're right, I mixed hot with round — rice culture is more dependent on water, with wheat and millet it's not like that. However, it will not grow in arid areas, as well as in waterlogged ones. However, as long as Africans mainly cultivate not the most fertile land with a plow, they will not achieve much without combines, industry and fertilizers.

As I said, you will have to take it, which is expensive, or create it yourself, which is difficult completely without foreign help. Who will provide such a service to Africa for free?

In any case, you, as an Indian country, which has done what we are talking about relatively recently and very breakthrough, probably understand this issue better, which is noticeable. Europeans and Americans simply cannot fully understand this, as I see it, including myself.

+1
Level 59
Mar 4, 2024
It is hard to do but possible. All I’m saying is the future of Africa is not contingent on the development of an area outside the west. It’s contingent on African development

(also while indian i dont live there + most of my k knowledge on demographic topics comes from study of human geography)

As for water usage, Nigeriens already grow the two most water efficient crops: Millet and Sorghum. It seems they also grow Sugarcane and Rice in areas by the river. The only more water efficient crop seems to be beans…but who wants that?

If perhaps the Niger river was dammed and Nigeriens voluntarily quit planting lucrative rice and sugarcane, cotton (that is so outlandish I would never ask of it), water could be used to flood new areas and transform to farmland. As for the damming issue, it seems many cities are around the area, so this is out of the question. Using irrigation seems to be the best option. That, gmos, tech, pesticides, & pumping water is the solution to food & water problems

+1
Level 73
Mar 6, 2024
There are crops that grow in tropical areas, like yams. I think you bring up a good point with water, though, drought and desertification are worsening issues in West Africa.
+1
Level 59
Mar 15, 2024
upon further investigation, i find that the main crop in niger, sorghum and millet, do 0.3 tons per hectare while potatoes do over 20. perhaps potatoes are the future? but then again, they likely pull more water than millet.
+1
Level 76
Mar 2, 2024
I just cannot see these numbers coming to pass. I fear that overpopulation combined with water and food shortages will cause a massive crash in population al over the place.
+3
Level 59
Mar 2, 2024
World population will decrease by the end of the century:

https://www.jetpunk.com/data/population/countries/world

fast decreases in fertility rate are possible:

https://www.jetpunk.com/users/quizmaster/charts/birth-rates-in-selected-countries

Iran went from 6 babies/woman, to 3 babies/woman in just 10 years. China did it in 11. South Korea in 18. And my proof that this can get faster is that the USA did it in 82. Since Africa has far to go, they can decrease their fertility rate at a higher percent. Its also good to see success stories like Tunisia instead of Niger, who decreased in 21 years, ending in '94. Botswana, 24 years, ending in '06. Niger's fertility rate is the highest in the world and is not representative of all of Africa. And lets keep in mind the fact that people just dont keep having children for no reason. These are real people. Continued:

+3
Level 59
Mar 2, 2024
Niger's fertility rate decreased by 1.02% in 21-22. In 00-01, it decreased by 0.13%. The fertility rate decreased by 0.82, or 11%. And that is our worst case scenario.

Ok, water shortages I have less of a long term explination for, but food, Green Rev. For example, the difference between attainable (how a similar climate performs) and actual yeild in Afghanistan for wheat is around 87%, just for this year, not counting the future advancements in technology aplicable to Afghanistan and similar nations. This attainable yeild calculation applied to corn in Niger means right now, in a similar climate, corn is doing 4.9x as well. Niger could quintuple their corn production.

My biggest proof?

.

Last year world pop increased by 0.9%. Cereal production only increased by 1.99%. Corn over 5 years (due to fluctuations): 1.53%. Rice: 2.3% Bananas 2.8% (though cavendishes may be on the chopping block soon.)

Food increases more than people (as of now)

The food just isnt in the right place.

+4
Level 59
Mar 2, 2024
My point is all of these problems can be solved with distribution of agricultural tech. Tho maybe this time dont copyright the seeds?
+2
Level 62
Mar 4, 2024
The problem is not only that it is difficult to move products to the "right" place. Try to explain to a layman from Canada, Belgium or Latvia that he needs to order less pizza and not buy twenty bags of food every week. I think they won't be very happy. No, I've heard that someone would like to try grasshoppers, but still it's not the most of people
+5
Level 87
Mar 3, 2024
If there are not enough people in Europe, but too many people next door in Africa, am I the only one who thinks the answer is staring us in the face?

Kingfisher thinks us Europeans can wave our culture goodbye, but this is to fundamentally misunderstand culture. What he is right about is a large and rapid change to that culture, which is likely to be resisted by many, but the end result is always a new culture, synthesised from its component parts (human beings) and objectively as valuable as the previous one.

I am far more optimistic about the future generally - the vast majority of Homo Sapiens are decent, kind and wish to cooperate with their neighbours.

I bet there have always been folk who see “disaster” in the not too distant future, and yet here we are…

+1
Level 59
Mar 4, 2024
Extremely right in that last paragraph! The biggest proponent of the idea that food production will not meet population growth was a guy named Malthus, who led to more malthusians and the malthusian trap, that population would out grow food. So was he right? Was Thanos and all the other malthusians we see in these comments right? Just a few years after Malthus’s time the industrial rev occured. Since 1800 the world population has 8xed, yet famine is rarer then ever. Such theorists have always been here. Populations have always changed, and people have always been concerned by it.
+1
Level 62
Mar 4, 2024
I think it's the difference in mentality. The USA, Canada and Australia are migrant colonies, they are very open to other cultures. You British were a great empire in the past, owning colonies all over the world, so you are a more cosmopolitan nation. It's no secret, but we Eastern Europeans are completely different in this matter.

Yes, Russia was also an empire, and even now it is multinational, but the problem is that it is not colonial. Dozens of peoples of Russia are like a family to each other — we are clearly united with each other and around the center, therefore, with all our multinational nature, we acutely feel "our own and others", and are quite closed to other cultures with our diversity. About Eastern Europeans, for whom the preservation of national identity is a way of survival, I will keep silent, because they have it even stronger. I sincerely don't want to say that any of us are worse or better in this regard - it's just a difference of perception.

+1
Level 62
Mar 4, 2024
Interestingly, it is culturally closed countries (Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Japan, Bulgaria) that are prone to extinction. I think it's easy to understand why, but I don't want to post the giant text again.
+1
Level 73
Mar 6, 2024
Russia in particular I think was colonial? The settling of Central Asia and Siberia always seemed colonial to me. Though maybe it's different in that most settlers were Russians, rather than people from many different countries like happened in Britain's colonies. Still, I know there's multiple cultures in Russia. There are still Muslim Tatars living amongst you, right? I don't know enough about the rest of Eastern Europe to say anything on them in this regard.

While wanting to preserve your culture is understandable, I think seeing other cultures as an inherent threat is objectively a problem. That perception is what's driven many, many, many crimes against humanity in recent history.

+3
Level 59
Mar 7, 2024
seeing outsiders as threats are mostly in areas not built by immigration or where the immigration has been forgotten by the predominant population. Russia, for instance, while expanding east, their og center in europe was already kinda diverse to begin with, at least more so than say, england
+1
Level 62
Mar 8, 2024
Not only Tatars (usually they are the maximum that foreigners know about), Bashkir Muslims, Lucky Tatas, Lezgins, Chechens, Nogai, Azerbaijanis, Buddhist Buryats and Tuvinians, Mari Christians, Ossetians and Chuvash, traditional believers Yakuts, Koryaks and Nenets live in Russia... Even I am not Russian by nationality. If you list all the nations that live in Russia on historical rights, not counting the displaced nations, then it will be difficult to stop. However, you didn't get the point. I don't want to slip into some pathetic arguments about imperialism or something else, like some kind of propagandist. Therefore, I will try to compress: throughout history, distant cultures have been under the heel of Western Europeans, beyond the seas, their neighbors are under the heel of Russians, therefore, distant cultures are very alien to Russians. We can say that our family is very diverse, but we love each other, others, maybe even similar to us, still cause suspicion.
+1
Level 62
Mar 8, 2024
I don't even know. All this attitude brought many crimes: chauvinism, isolationism, imperialism, and nationalism. I don't want to raise a quarrel about who did the most crimes, but your overt hint of brown ideology is very unpleasant.
+2
Level 59
Mar 10, 2024
idk what you mean by my overt hint of brown ideology im literally saying that despite not having a major history of immigration, russia is more accepting of migrants i think because they are dicerse and not nationstates like western europe, not matter what the leaders tried???

I am not saying russia is against outsiders

+2
Level 62
Mar 13, 2024
Oh, no, I wasn't replying you, Neodymium. There is not a drop of such hints in your answer
+2
Level 83
Mar 3, 2024
Vanuatu is an.....outlier.
+4
Level 59
Mar 4, 2024
A few skyscrapers and the vatican could be on here!