Census: Brazil's population growth slows dramatically

[Tender Branson]

The 2010 Census numbers were released last week and annual growth is almost down by half:

2010: 185.712.713 people (+0.90% annually)
2000: 169.799.170 people (+1.63% annually)
1991: 146.825.475 people (+1.93% annually)
1980: 119.002.706 people (+2.48% annually)
1970:   93.139.037 people (+2.88% annually)
1960:   70.119.071 people (+3.05% annually)
1950:   51.944.397 people (+2.34% annually)

http://www.censo2010.ibge.gov.br/dados_divulgados/index.php

http://www.geohive.com/cntry/brazil.aspx

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, probably that's not a bad thing. Slower pop growth usually comes with economic development.

[Hash]

Well, probably that's not a bad thing. Slower pop growth usually comes with economic development.

^^

imo, it indicates a shift from a developing country to developed or near developed country style. Joining Argentina and Chile, basically.

The population growth seems pretty even nationally, with a high of 2% per annum in the North and a low of 0.72% per annum in the Southeast.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This is not surprising. Birth rates are crashing worldwide & most likely will continue to do so.

[patrick1]

This also speaks to the declining influence of the RCC. The opposition to contraception has been marginalized and/or ignored.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This also speaks to the declining influence of the RCC. The opposition to contraception has been marginalized and/or ignored.

Especially since the Brazilian Government opened it's own condom factory to ensure supply, along with sex education programs to prevent the spread of HIV... it worked.

Suck on it Vatican

[ag]

Joining Argentina and Chile, basically.

Mexico is also around there, I shall insist (we have to wait for the census result a few more months though, but it has been rapidly dropping all along).

[dead0man]

I agree with the consensus here, this is what happens when nations become "developed" and it's a good thing. 

Will this make nutters stop bitching about the always just around the corner overpopulation of the planet?  No, of course not.

[Sbane]

I agree with the consensus here, this is what happens when nations become "developed" and it's a good thing. 

Will this make nutters stop bitching about the always just around the corner overpopulation of the planet?  No, of course not.

Even if we add billions more people in this world, we still have enough land to feed them. We don't cultivate those lands efficiently enough today, basically in the third world, but that will happen in due time. Water might be the only problem, but even there it's a matter of getting it from where it's abundant to where it is sparse.

[dead0man]

Agreed.   There is plenty of food to feed the world, the reason people starve is sh**tty governments blocking aid and/or trade.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That's an increase of nearly 10% in a decade. Similar to the US, but with much less immigration.

[Hash]

That's an increase of nearly 10% in a decade. Similar to the US, but with much less immigration.

yes, and in the past, Brazilian pop growth was comparable not the US/western countries but likely to similarly developing nations such as Indonesia et al.

[Edu]

Well, this got me to search a bit and yes, Argentina is also at around 1% annually.
It's estimated a population growth of about 10% in the past 10 years. Between 1991 and 2001 it was about 11%. Before that it was 17% in the 80's and almost 20% in the 70's. The last time we had a decade with population growth of more than 20% was between 1947 and 1960 (well, it was a bit more than a decade) were it was 25%

[ilikeverin]

Welcome to the first world, Brazil, or at least maybe the first-and-a-halfth world!   We're so glad you could make it.

[Tender Branson]

That's an increase of nearly 10% in a decade. Similar to the US, but with much less immigration.

yes, and in the past, Brazilian pop growth was comparable not the US/western countries but likely to similarly developing nations such as Indonesia et al.

I´ve looked up some facts and it seems that these are only preliminary figures for Brazil, which is the people who were counted in their homes. The final figures will be released in December and will include follow-up counts, so the figure might be a couple millions higher than that.

[Tender Branson]

Here are a few results from other countries who conducted a Census in 2010:

Qatar: 1.699 Mio. (+14.55% annual growth)

Saudi Arabia: 27.137 Mio. (+3.26%)

East-Timor: 1.067 Mio. (+2.44%)

Singapore: 5.077 Mio. (+2.37%)

Panama: 3.323 Mio. (+1.59%)

Indonesia: 237.556 Mio. (+1.50%)

...

And for 2009:

Chad: 11.176 Mio. (+3.67% annual growth)

Mali: 14.517 Mio. (+3.28%)

Kenya: 38.610 Mio. (+3.02%)

Guinea-Bissau: 1.548 Mio. (+2.69%)

Vietnam: 85.847 Mio. (+1.18%)

Azerbaijan: 8.922 Mio. (+1.13%)

Kyrgyzstan: 5.363 Mio. (+1.07%)

Kazakhstan: 16.010 Mio. (+0.69%)

Belarus: 9.504 Mio. (-0.52%)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Qatar: 1.699 Mio. (+14.55% annual growth)

LOL

[Hash]

Qatar: 1.699 Mio. (+14.55% annual growth)

LOL

Doha was booming already when I went there in 2005 (iirc), when it still kinda looked like a 1970s Arab town, but now it must be a modern Dubai/Abu Dhabi like Arab city.

The American army moving from Al-Kharj in Saudi Arabia to Qatar back in 2002 or something also gave the place a big boom (and then you had a Dubai-like economic and tourism policy, with the Asian Games etc).

[Verily]

Agreed.   There is plenty of food to feed the world, the reason people starve is sh**tty governments blocking aid and/or trade.

Most of it has to do with the market. Food producers would rather sell their food in markets willing to pay premium prices -- the developed world -- than in the developing world.

The differentials in price and ability to pay are so dramatic that it is worthwhile to gamble by sending all of your food production to developed countries. Sometimes, that food goes to waste (it rots or otherwise doesn't get sold because the demand isn't sufficient), other times the food producer gets lucky and sells all of it. Even if only 10% of the time does the food producer sell all of his food (and the rest of the time sells nothing, and it all rots), he still achieves greater profits than if he sold all of his food 100% of the time in certain developing countries, where food prices are so much lower because the population cannot afford developed-country food prices.

Say, for example, you have a choice between shipping flour to the US or to Ethiopia. (Assume shipping costs are the same; it's coming from Russia, say.) Your flour will sell to consumers for $1.00/lb in the US or for $0.10/lb in Ethiopia. Say, also, that if you ship your flour to the US, 50% of the time it will be sold and 50% of the time it will rot on the shelf. If you ship it to Ethiopia, 100% of the time it will be sold, but prices are not going up because Ethiopians cannot afford to pay more than $0.10/lb for flour. If you ship your flour to the US, you will have a gross intake of $0.50/lb; if you ship to Ethiopia, you will have a gross intake of $0.10. So, what do you do? You flood the US market with flour and send none to Ethiopia.

In theory, this should cause prices in the US to fall to meet the point where it would be equally profitable to sell in Ethiopia. In practice, however, prices in Ethiopia are deflated by economic considerations--the issue isn't that flour is valued less in Ethiopia (it's probably valued less in the US, where there are more alternatives and a greater supply), but that Ethiopians simply cannot pay the economic value of flour in their country. This limiting factor is not at work in the US, where people can afford $1.00/lb for flour easily, so the US price and the Ethiopian price will not converge.

Sure, there are some nasty governments that screw things up for people in places like Zimbabwe or Burma or North Korea. But most starvation happens because food producers are unwilling to take the losses/lower profits that would result from shipping to and selling in developing countries, not because they're not being allowed in.*


*All of this assumes no food aid, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

[Tender Branson]

As mentioned before, the final count has increased the population by more than 5 Mio. people:

The 2010 Census now shows 190.732.694 people in Brazil.

That is up by 20.933.524 people compared with the 2000 Census, or 12.3%.

Annual growth was therefore 1.17%

[quote]
After about four months of collection and supervision activities, throughout which 230 thousand persons – 191 enumerators have worked – the result of the 2010 Census presents a Brazilian population of 190,732,694 persons on the date of reference, August 01st. Compared to the 2000 Census, there has been increase by 20,933,524 persons. This figure indicates that population growth in Brazil in the period was 12.3%, below the figure recorded in the previous decade (15.6% between 1991 and 2000). The 2010 Census also shows that the population is more urban than 10 years ago. In 2000, 81% of the Brazilians lived in urban areas, versus 84% at present.

The Southeast remains as the most populated Major Region in Brazil, with 80,353,724 persons.  Between 2000 and 2010, there was decrease of participation of the Southeast Region (from 42.8% to 42.1%), Northeast Region (from 28.2% to 27.8%) and South Region (from 14.8% to 14.4%). On the contrary, there was increase of percentage in the Brazilian population in  the North (from 7.6% to 8.3%) and Central West (from 6.9% to 7.4%).

Among the Federation Units, São Paulo is the leader, with 41,252,160 persons.  On the other hand, Roraima is the least populated state, with 451,227 persons.  There have been changes in the ranking of major municipalities in the country, with changes in the position of Brasília (from 6th to 4th) and Manaus (from 9th to 7th). The opposite happened in Belo Horizonte (from 4th to 6thº), Curitiba (from 7th to 8th) and Recife (from 8th to 9th).

These results show that there are 95.9 men per 100 women, that is, there are 3.9 million more women than men in Brazil. In 2000, for each 100 women, there were 96.6 men.  The Brazilian population is formed by 97,342,162 women and 93,390,532 men.

http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=1766&id_pagina=1

[Tender Branson]

Here is a cool map where you can sort states and cities by population and growth and so on:

http://www.censo2010.ibge.gov.br/primeiros_dados_divulgados/index.php

[Tender Branson]

Another result out:

Bahrain's population more than doubles in 9 years

Bahrain’s population topped 1,234,596, with 568,424 Bahrainis and 666,172 expatriates, according to preliminary results of Census 2010.

This is an increase of 650,604, or 89.9 per cent, compared to 2001 census.

The ratio of Bahrainis decreased to 46 per cent, from 62 per cent in 2001 and non-Bahrain population jumped to 54 per cent, from 38 per cent.

Bahraini children (below 15 years), stood at 31.8 per cent, compared to 36.5 per cent. Elderly (65 years and above) were at 4.2 per cent, compared to 3.7 per cent. Those eligible for work (15-64) constituted 64 per cent, compared to 59.8 per cent, said a report in our sister paper Akhbar Al Khaleej.

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/ECO_189632.html

[Tender Branson]

Meh, Iraq is just as bad as Pakistan:

Iraq delays nationwide census yet again

BAGHDAD – Iraq's government Tuesday once again pushed back a nationwide census that has been stalled in a years long dispute over how to count the ethnic breakdown between Arabs and Kurds in the nation's north.

The census will be Iraq's first nationwide count in more than two decades.

Planning Ministry official Mahdi al-Alaq said no new date has been set for the population count that was supposed to take place Dec. 5.

Political leaders have been unable to resolve a disagreement over whether Iraq's central government or the semiautonomous Kurdish region should carry out the census in disputed lands that are ethnically mixed.

Officials will meet again on Thursday to try to settle the matter.

"The reason behind the delays in holding the census is the deep mistrust among political groups regarding the disputed areas," said Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.

A 1997 census that put Iraq's population at more than 26 million excluded the three northern provinces that comprise the semiautonomous Kurdish region. Officials have agreed to count the three provinces in the new census.

The count has been put off numerous times because of disputes over who should be legally counted as a resident in squatter-plagued areas in Iraq's north that Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Turkomen each claim as their own.

Leaders recently agreed to ask the residents to identify their ethnicity as part of the census questionnaire — which had been one of the last big sticking points in the debate.

Ultimately, the census will help decide which group has a majority and, potentially, ruling authority, over a swath of disputed land in Diyala, Tamim and Ninevah provinces.

The ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk, which sits on top of one-third of Iraq's estimated $11 trillion in oil reserves, is the part of the disputed swath.

Iraq's Planning Ministry says it has hired 250,000 workers to go door-to-door across the country for the count. Officials want to try to wrap up the census in one day to prevent people from moving from one area to another in an attempt to register twice — and therefore boost their ethnic population tally.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

[Tender Branson]

Well, this got me to search a bit and yes, Argentina is also at around 1% annually.
It's estimated a population growth of about 10% in the past 10 years. Between 1991 and 2001 it was about 11%. Before that it was 17% in the 80's and almost 20% in the 70's. The last time we had a decade with population growth of more than 20% was between 1947 and 1960 (well, it was a bit more than a decade) were it was 25%

Argentina also released their Census 2010 data yesterday:

40.091.359

That is up from 36.260.130 people in the 2001 Census.

Annual growth was 1.12%, or 426.000 people per year.

Buenos Aires has 2.891.082 people, Buenos Aires province has 15.594.428 people.

http://www.censo2010.indec.gov.ar/preliminares/cuadro_totalpais.asp

[Edu]

Well, it's about what it was expected considering our population growth rate for the past 20 years.

Between the City of Buenos Aires and the provinces of Buenos Aires, Santa Fe and Cordoba we have almost 25 million people. The other 20 provinces have 15 million between them.

A growth of 10,6% since the last census. Not surprisingly, the City of Buenos Aires was the place that grew the least with just 4,1%. Also, not really that surprising Chubut (22,6%), Tierra del Fuego (24,8%) and Santa Cruz (38,4%) are the provinces that grew the most. All in the Patagonia region by the way. These provinces were pretty empty anyway, Santa Cruz is larger than the United Kingdom and it had only 197.000 people (now it has 272.000).
Also, these 3 provinces are the only ones that have more men than women in them.

The biggest district in the Buenos Aires province continues to be La Matanza to the surprise of no one. It has 1.772.130 people.

The second most populous province continues to be Cordoba with about 3.300.000 people with Santa Fe coming next with 3.200.000. Also the city of Cordoba continues to beat the city of Rosario in their rivalry to be the second biggest city.

Provisional data obviously, but it gives a good snapshot