5 ms·

Not sure how much it limits growth, people just cram into ever smaller living spaces, or commute in from towns further away.

peteretep 9y ago
It was 8.3m 100 years ago, and it's 9.1m now.
- delecti 9y ago
  There were a couple notable wars in that time though.
  - vkou 9y ago
    England was barely affected by the first World War. France, Germany, Austria, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia bore the brunt of the fighting. And compared to the other belligerents, it was barely affected by the second, too. British colonial policies during the war killed more of their own subjects in India, then the Germans ever did on the home isles. (For anyone wondering why India sought independence... Well, that was a factor.)
    - ihsw2 9y ago
      The British economy nosedived into total exhaustion of resources, with resource rationing extending to 1956. It was closely intertwined with the French economy for a century before WW2 and its assets were wholly seized/decimated. If WW2 went on for much longer then the UK would have descended into universal abject poverty and total societal collapse. Granted this universal suffering of the populace ushered in the social-welfare state Britain is so commonly known for nowadays, it was nonetheless devastating.
      - vkou 9y ago
        Most rationing in the UK ended in 1950. That total exhaustion of resources happened due to decolonization, and taking on much debt (Much of which was inflated away over the next decade.) As it turned out, the resource shortages didn't matter, either, due to free trade. 1945 to 1960 had the highest rate of economic growth that the UK has ever experienced. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Annual_U.K._GDP_Growth,_1948_to_2012.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United...
  - mbesto 9y ago
    Which would have done what? Reduce the population because of death?
    - rspeer 9y ago
      Moving out of London during the Blitz was a way to avoid death.
  - smnrchrds 9y ago
    The first world war barely registers on the graph. The second world war shows a small decrease in population. But the largest decrease is seen in the 70s and 80s. I have no idea why. But see the data for yourself: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/population-change-1939-2015 https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/population-change-1939-20...

peteretep 9y ago

It was 8.3m 100 years ago, and it's 9.1m now.

delecti 9y ago
There were a couple notable wars in that time though.
- vkou 9y ago
  England was barely affected by the first World War. France, Germany, Austria, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia bore the brunt of the fighting. And compared to the other belligerents, it was barely affected by the second, too. British colonial policies during the war killed more of their own subjects in India, then the Germans ever did on the home isles. (For anyone wondering why India sought independence... Well, that was a factor.)
  - ihsw2 9y ago
    The British economy nosedived into total exhaustion of resources, with resource rationing extending to 1956. It was closely intertwined with the French economy for a century before WW2 and its assets were wholly seized/decimated. If WW2 went on for much longer then the UK would have descended into universal abject poverty and total societal collapse. Granted this universal suffering of the populace ushered in the social-welfare state Britain is so commonly known for nowadays, it was nonetheless devastating.
    - vkou 9y ago
      Most rationing in the UK ended in 1950. That total exhaustion of resources happened due to decolonization, and taking on much debt (Much of which was inflated away over the next decade.) As it turned out, the resource shortages didn't matter, either, due to free trade. 1945 to 1960 had the highest rate of economic growth that the UK has ever experienced. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Annual_U.K._GDP_Growth,_1948_to_2012.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United...
- mbesto 9y ago
  Which would have done what? Reduce the population because of death?
  - rspeer 9y ago
    Moving out of London during the Blitz was a way to avoid death.
- smnrchrds 9y ago
  The first world war barely registers on the graph. The second world war shows a small decrease in population. But the largest decrease is seen in the 70s and 80s. I have no idea why. But see the data for yourself: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/population-change-1939-2015 https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/population-change-1939-20...