264 replies to this topic

[brightness]

What makes you think Italy was not a farming center? The volcano soil made Italy very fertile.

Because it was importing vast amount of farm products, especially grain, from Egypt and Scicily. I have very rich potting soil mix in my backyard; that doesn't make my house a farming center. The flow of trade is what decides and qualifies specializations. As far as food trade flow is concerned, my household specializes in food consumption not production :-)

Yes, Rome relied very much on importing grain from Egypt. It was the reason of the war between Octavian and Antonio. It still didn't change that the more grain export to Rome, the less grain available to local Egyptians.

Sure, likewise, the more grain is shipped from Iowa, the less grain is available to local Iowans, theorectically . . . however, the same amount of grain would support far more people with far more sophisticated economies in, say, Chicago or New York, than say in the plains of Iowa, whose population would be limited for reasons other than the absolute amount of grain the land could turn out, and the same amount of grain would be left to rot or not grown to begin with in the absence of the export demand. On top of that, due to the geographic limitations along the Nile valley, narrow strip of fertile soil in the flood zone, then hostile desert immediately outside, building residential houses along the Nile to accommodate more grain eating mouths would automaticly cut into acreage available for farming . . . a situation similar to the land use problem in East China. The magic of trade is that it can solve many of these problems and elevate the production to a higher level of equilibrium in the grain production area, meanwhile allowing the emergence of a far more sophisticated commerce center where the export grain is consumed.

The Egyptian plough was like Greek ploughs. It barely disturbed the surface of the soil and pushed stones aside. Hoes and digging sticks were still needed.

Whatever it was, it apparently used draft animals according to the vast numbers of wall paintings. Because these farms were for profit, not latter day communist "model farms," it can be safely assumed that the draft animals were productive in what they were doing for their owners.

BTW, it's not my idea that Aztec was at the same integration level with early Roman republic. Sanders & Price mentioned the civilization in Mesoamerica resembled a certain civilization in Europe but never gave out the name. I believe I have every reason to assume what they had in mind was early Roman republic. In a way, I'm just speaking out what they had in mind but didn't speak out for various reasons.

Early Roman Republic can be 500BC, and no one is claiming Rome had 50 million people in 500BC. Also, in latter times, the production method of a food import zone does not reflect the state of art for grain production. For example, if we examine farming/gardening practices in Manhatten over the past 200 years, we'd be baffled at how the handicraft human labor approach to farming/gardening could possibly support a large city, much less a metropolis with over 8 million. The answer is in trade. Manhatten doesn't need to import combines; a large combine can be put to much better use in Iowa, with only the resulting corn (or even corn fed beef from somewhere else) imported into Manhatten. Likewise, if plough pulling draft cattles were expensive in Roman times, I'd imagine the Roman banks would be financing such a cattle-plough "combine" in Egypt intead of in the suburbs of Rome. The bankers in Rome would be earning their food by collecting interest on financing that cattle-plough "combine" in Egypt, and the Egyptian farmer who took out the loan would be producing more food than would be the case without the trade/commerce link to Rome.

[Jaak]

Sure, likewise, the more grain is shipped from Iowa, the less grain is available to local Iowans, theorectically . . . however, the same amount of grain would support far more people with far more sophisticated economies in, say, Chicago or New York, than say in the plains of Iowa, whose population would be limited for reasons other than the absolute amount of grain the land could turn out, and the same amount of grain would be left to rot or not grown to begin with in the absence of the export demand.

Not really. Iowa is not very different from, say, Shanxi - semiarid tablelands, cold winters but warm and mostly rainy enough summers, naturally supporting prairies and sparse forests. Iowa, like Shanxi, might support large numbers of subsistence farmers farming small plots of land, applying intense manual labour for it, having little other useful occupation to apply themselves and, after eating their large amount of grain, little to export.

For historical reasons, Iowa instead supports a small number of farmers who farm big farms with machines, produce much more than what they themselves can eat and export the bulk to Chicago and New Work, where a lot of city dwellers produce a lot of different things.

China and USA have a similar area, both have a big western area of mountains and deserts, and large eastern part of sufficient rain and hot summers. China feeds 1 milliard 200 million people, USA only a quarter of it, at 300 million mouths. But the relatively small population of USA includes more people than China can have producing things like nuclear warheads, stealth bombers or submarines.

On top of that, due to the geographic limitations along the Nile valley, narrow strip of fertile soil in the flood zone, then hostile desert immediately outside, building residential houses along the Nile to accommodate more grain eating mouths would automaticly cut into acreage available for farming . . . a situation similar to the land use problem in East China.

Less serious. The desert is not hostile for houses.

And residential houses do not actually take up so much land if they are small huts packed together with little gardens, or multistorey apartments.

But at the end of the day, the main export of Rome was violence, actually applied or an implicit threat. Egypt had been an independent country, controlling other areas like Cyrenaica, Cyprus and Palestine. Rome became a city fed by taxes of Egypt because Italy of Octavian was better at exporting violence than Egypt of Cleopatra.

[brightness]

Not really. Iowa is not very different from, say, Shanxi - semiarid tablelands, cold winters but warm and mostly rainy enough summers, naturally supporting prairies and sparse forests. Iowa, like Shanxi, might support large numbers of subsistence farmers farming small plots of land, applying intense manual labour for it, having little other useful occupation to apply themselves and, after eating their large amount of grain, little to export.

For historical reasons, Iowa instead supports a small number of farmers who farm big farms with machines, produce much more than what they themselves can eat and export the bulk to Chicago and New Work, where a lot of city dwellers produce a lot of different things.

We are actually more or less in agreement. Iowa was farmed long before the petroleum-powered machinery came along. The soil in Iowa would have been depleted just like that of Shanxi/Shaanxi if not for chemical fertilizers. Trade was what enabled the food export from Iowa to feed the craftsman, scientists, manufacturers and bankers living in densely packed areas far away from Iowa, who in turn have provided the Iowan farmer with: horse breeds and manual farm tools since farming began in Iowa, steel wind mills of the late 19th century for pumping water out of deep wells to irrigate the arid fields, first steam-powered then petroleum powered farm machinery at the turn of last century, chemical fertilizers in the early 20th century, new breeds of higher yielding and disease-resistant crops . . . giving the Iowan farmer far greater per labor-year productivity every step of the way. The corn field productivity in the late 19th century was just over 20 bushels/acre; nowadays, it's over 200! There's farming, then there's real farming in a competitive market place with the support of all the specialists making it much more productive.

Yes, without trade to bring food out Iowa to be consumed in some other place where higher degree of interaction and specialization among the densely packed pre-automobile and pre-internet cities could spark new innovations and finance capital improvements back in Iowa in return (market based trade is a two-way profit generating event, so those consuming grain somwhere else had to come up with something to pay Iowans), Iowa may well have gone down the road of lower-level equilibrium of local farmers saturating the land limited by the periodicity of locl crop failures . . . a state of affair that was more or less the case in China in the latter dynasties.

China and USA have a similar area, both have a big western area of mountains and deserts, and large eastern part of sufficient rain and hot summers. China feeds 1 milliard 200 million people, USA only a quarter of it, at 300 million mouths. But the relatively small population of USA includes more people than China can have producing things like nuclear warheads, stealth bombers or submarines.

90+% of US corn production is not for human consumption. US economy is not subsistence grain farming (nor is that of China today, for the most part). The dietary structures are very different between the two countries. It takes about 10lbs of feed to produce 1lb of beef.

What made the US economy great was not the building of nuclear warheads, stealth bombers or submarines. The Soviets could do all of that (and even a poverty strucken desolate place like North Korea can do some of it, proportionally far more; LOL), yet their economies fell apart. Unfettered or relatively less government-meddled markets and trade were what enabled all sorts of specializations that not only brought forth new goods and services but also made existing professions more efficient.

Less serious. The desert is not hostile for houses.

Only if you don't have to drink water every day ;-) Having to fetch water everyday from a long distance away is no trivial task.

And residential houses do not actually take up so much land if they are small huts packed together with little gardens, or multistorey apartments.

A single family house, with the shadows that it casts in day light, takes up about 1/4 acre of productive land that could be used up for plant photosynthesis. Dotting landscape with houses like that also makes it hard to use larger scale farm tools, not just modern combines, but also draft animal driven machineries. As for multi-story buidings, What would these people be doing in those multi-story apartments? As some kind of government projects to maximize head count? Multi-story apartment buildings showed up at the peak of Rome because the occupants were located in places at the nexus of trade routes that connected to enough consumers all around the Roman world to justify the capital investments made in those specialized workshops and trade/exchange markets. That, and the indoor plumbing made the occupation of upper stories feasible. the banks of the Nile up the river certainly wasn't such a well situated place for commerce.

But at the end of the day, the main export of Rome was violence, actually applied or an implicit threat. Egypt had been an independent country, controlling other areas like Cyrenaica, Cyprus and Palestine. Rome became a city fed by taxes of Egypt because Italy of Octavian was better at exporting violence than Egypt of Cleopatra.

Egypt was not a peaceful place of tranquility even before the Romans arrived (nor was Qing before the arrival of Europeans). The place was already ruled by a foreign military aristocracy, the Ptolamic Greeks (and Manchu in the case of Qing). The Cleopatras were already in internecine power struggles with their brother-husbands for generations. Egypt was known for despotism and arbitrary government violence against the population before Roman arrival (or even Greek arrival 200+ years earlier). The pharohs lived like gods because they had beaten the population into submission, and they had to reinforce that absolute rule very generation or so. Likewise, the Manchus ruled subjects with an iron hand. Yes, the newcomers were racist and all that, however, their insistance on a new set of laws that gave individual rights (Roman laws in the case of Egypt, and modern legal structure in the case of Europeans demanding extraterritoriality) had a rational basis besides racism. Ultimately, the locals embraced those new laws for themselves despite the local ruling elits' attempt at conflating modernization with foreign invasion, realizing that the "rule of law" wasn't just about forceful application of the law by the rulers to the ruled, but also laws protecting the rights of the ruled and check the powers of the rulers.

Ironically, the newcomers who brought those rational ways of organizing society also got contaminated with "oriental despotism" in that contact. Late Republica Romans were wary of Egyption imperial cultural infuences; British adventures in the east eventually brought back the invention of "Empress of India," which had imperial pomp and circumstances that was more akin to Chinese emperor in scale than anything Brits saw in India. Those imperial granduers eventually brought down both the Romans and the Brits. Hey, trade is a two-way street :-) Methinks Romans and Brits got the short end of that cultural/social structure exchange.

[moobie]

Plenty of water in Central and Northern Europe, yes, but that does not necessarily mean it is the most fertile. I am no agriculturalist, but Shandong and generally North China seemed to me even more fertile, mainly because higher temperatures allow plants to have a quicker life cyclus.

And anyway, rice yield higher calories per acre than almost any other staple, that's why China was on average more populous even when it was less developed.

They aren't. The area stretching from the Balkans towards Ukraine to Southern Russia and to France is the most fertile tract of land in the planet. The area around North China is equally fertile, but much less productive as it's prone to flooding, plagues and quakes (and even more so because it's impossible to defend).

As for rice, it is the South Chinese who first started rice cultivation. And if it it yields more calories per acre, then it's due to one of many Chinese agricultural innovations.

Note that while it produces more calories per unit of land, it produces fewer calories per time unit of labor. It's extremely cost intensive.

Edited by moobie, 23 July 2009 - 01:19 PM.

[Tibet Libre]

Note that while it produces more calories per unit of land, it produces fewer calories per time unit of labor. It's extremely cost intensive.

That's correct. The rest of your assertions, though, lack as usually the support of any evidence.

[moobie]

That's correct. The rest of your assertions, though, lack as usually the support of any evidence.

I wanted to try playing your game for a change. You know how to google, right? Take a look at these beauties here:

http://soils.usda.go...soils/mapindex/

Assuming you are not color blind from your heritage, you should be able to infer the basics. As if it wasn't obvious enough that temperate, warm lands on rich soil produce more food than other areas...

Edited by moobie, 23 July 2009 - 04:17 PM.

[Tibet Libre]

http://soils.usda.go...soils/mapindex/

Go ahead, great agriculturalist, and interpret the data for us, it is only 20 factors from which I am sure you can make sense in no time.

I have been to Shandong and the tomatoes I saw are larger - easily fist-size - and much tastier than even those of the Netherlands. And the diversity of agricultural plants is greater, they even grow tea there, unthinkable in Europe. The alluvial land there and in the neighbouring provinces, hundred of thousands of square kilometers, is as fertile as the most fertile places in Europe.

That's why Shandong, although less than half of the size of Germany, the most populous EU country, can support a population just as large (ca. 80 million) and even did so in Mao times when it was piss poor. Certainly a blessed land for the plough.

[moobie]

Go ahead, great agriculturalist, and interpret the data for us, it is only 20 factors from which I am sure you can make sense in no time.

There's more or less a simplified version called "inherent land quality", they give a number from 1-9 based on how fertile (productive) the land is vs how resilient (i.e not going to flood/dry up on you) it is.

http://soils.usda.go...x/landqual.html

Next time I will be more obvious.

I have been to Shandong and the tomatoes I saw are larger - easily fist-size - and much tastier than even those of the Netherlands. And the diversity of agricultural plants is greater, they even grow tea there, unthinkable in Europe. The alluvial land there and in the neighbouring provinces, hundred of thousands of square kilometers, is as fertile as the most fertile places in Europe.

And Chinese produce more patents per dollar of R&D spent than Americans, amazing what human capital can produce, no? The aeroponic greenhouses in Tibet are quite amazing too, make a visit there sometime.

That's why Shandong, although less than half of the size of Germany, the most populous EU country, can support a population just as large (ca. 80 million) and even did so in Mao times when it was piss poor. Certainly a blessed land for the plough

Shandong has 97 mil, iirc. Germany 87. Germans eat more, throw away more food and a lot of their land goes unused. Bangladesh is more or less the same size as Shandong but "supports" 147 million people.

Edited by moobie, 23 July 2009 - 04:51 PM.

[Jaak]

A single family house, with the shadows that it casts in day light, takes up about 1/4 acre of productive land that could be used up for plant photosynthesis. Dotting landscape with houses like that also makes it hard to use larger scale farm tools, not just modern combines, but also draft animal driven machineries. As for multi-story buidings, What would these people be doing in those multi-story apartments? As some kind of government projects to maximize head count?

Er, have a look at a Hakka roundhouse. It is multistorey, 3 or more stories - and houses many families. What are these people doing? Why, farming their lands at walking distance of the roundhouse.

Consider, say, Jiangsu. 100 000 square km. Mostly plain, with few hills. Wet and warm climate, good for rice.

75 million inhabitants, mostly supported locally. The major urban area, Shanghai, is excluded along with its population.

How much land do 75 million people actually need?

Manhattan Island, 58 square km, has over 1 million 600 000 souls. Not all built up - Central park and other features included. Average 28 000 souls per square km.

The central Hong Kong, north coast of the Island and Kowloon combined, are over 3 million souls on under 90 square km. Average 35 000 souls per square km.

Now you see that the whole 75 million souls of Jiangsu might be accommodated in cities or villages covering less than 3000 square km. 97 % of the territory would be still free for farming.

For example, let us suppose that 1 hour commute is acceptable. At a brisk walk, it means that 5 km from village is quite reachable.

A circle 5 km radius (from a single point) covers about 78 square km. A square whose farthest points (corners) are 5 km from centre has about 7 km edges, and covers 50 square km. A hexagon whose corners are 5 km from centre has 5 km edges and covers about 65 square km.

Suppose we assign for one village a square 6x6 km - the size of Beijing Inner City within walls, easily walkable because the corners are 4 km from centre. That 36 square km should, at the population densities of Jiangsu, hold about 27 000 souls, And at the population densities of Kowloon, those could quite reasonably be packed in 70 ha - the size of Forbidden City, leaving the rest of Imperial and Inner City as farm fields to feed the 27 000 people in Forbidden City.

Now, the ancient Mediterranean was not quite so densely settled - the climate was dryer, soil less fertile. Although the irrigated farmlands of Nile Valley and Mesopotamia were rather denser settled. Still, the 90 square km or so of Kea Island would quite reasonably feed 4000 or 5000 souls - all of whom lived in one of four cities, of about a thousand citizens each. But a city of a few thousand farmers, living in a compact settlement and daily commuting on foot to their farmed fields, was very typical of the ancient Mediterranean.

[Tibet Libre]

There's more or less a simplified version called "inherent land quality", they give a number from 1-9 based on how fertile (productive) the land is vs how resilient (i.e not going to flood/dry up on you) it is.

And? In what way is this map relevant to your thesis? It actually only says something about the soil quality. That way they can even equate the unproductive perma-frost soil of northern Scandinavia and Russia (red) with the fertile and agriculturally valuable alluvial land in the Netherlands and the northern German plain (red as well).

But I said all along that longer sun hours and more air humidity make large parts of northern China effectively more fertile, even though there is on average probably more water available in western and central Europe.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 23 July 2009 - 05:12 PM.

[brightness]

Er, have a look at a Hakka roundhouse. It is multistorey, 3 or more stories - and houses many families. What are these people doing? Why, farming their lands at walking distance of the roundhouse.

The Hakka roundhouses were earthen fortresses, built for defensive purpose, in addition to living.

Consider, say, Jiangsu. 100 000 square km. Mostly plain, with few hills. Wet and warm climate, good for rice.

75 million inhabitants, mostly supported locally. The major urban area, Shanghai, is excluded along with its population.

How much land do 75 million people actually need?

Manhattan Island, 58 square km, has over 1 million 600 000 souls. Not all built up - Central park and other features included. Average 28 000 souls per square km.

The central Hong Kong, north coast of the Island and Kowloon combined, are over 3 million souls on under 90 square km. Average 35 000 souls per square km.

Now you see that the whole 75 million souls of Jiangsu might be accommodated in cities or villages covering less than 3000 square km. 97 % of the territory would be still free for farming.

In such a stasis nirvana that you are proposing, where would the building material and capital equipment come from to build the 55 Manhattens or 33 HongKong Central? It seems to me that the entire economy of Eastern United States can only support a handful of Manhattens, and the entire economy of southern China can only support 2 or 3 Hongkongs, at the most.

For example, let us suppose that 1 hour commute is acceptable. At a brisk walk, it means that 5 km from village is quite reachable.

A circle 5 km radius (from a single point) covers about 78 square km. A square whose farthest points (corners) are 5 km from centre has about 7 km edges, and covers 50 square km. A hexagon whose corners are 5 km from centre has 5 km edges and covers about 65 square km.

Suppose we assign for one village a square 6x6 km - the size of Beijing Inner City within walls, easily walkable because the corners are 4 km from centre. That 36 square km should, at the population densities of Jiangsu, hold about 27 000 souls, And at the population densities of Kowloon, those could quite reasonably be packed in 70 ha - the size of Forbidden City, leaving the rest of Imperial and Inner City as farm fields to feed the 27 000 people in Forbidden City.

Except they would never have accummulated the economic capcity to build up to the density of Kowloon to begin with. Even if one of us is the god and give them the resources to build up as such, the very first crop disease would wipe out such an artificially engineered commune, never to be rebuilt again.

Now, the ancient Mediterranean was not quite so densely settled - the climate was dryer, soil less fertile. Although the irrigated farmlands of Nile Valley and Mesopotamia were rather denser settled. Still, the 90 square km or so of Kea Island would quite reasonably feed 4000 or 5000 souls - all of whom lived in one of four cities, of about a thousand citizens each. But a city of a few thousand farmers, living in a compact settlement and daily commuting on foot to their farmed fields, was very typical of the ancient Mediterranean.

Yes, a few thousand. It's unrealistic to scale up linearly from there to millions of people. Not all lands are equal. Some lands are better suited for farming, and others are better located for sea harbors, yet others have specialty minerals, such as silver, gold, tin (for bronz age tools), charcoal, etc.. Some land is better for grain production, some others are better for wine and olive oil. Trade is what enable each region to produce what it's best at.

BTW, the limiting factor on population in regions isolated from trade is not the absolute maximum food production capacity, but the periodic crop failures. Crop yield could vary by 3-5 times from bumper years to lean years in pre-industrial agriculture; that's just normal fluctuation, the real disaster years would have no harvest. Even the population of Jiansu is possible today only because it can import food when there is severe crop failure, or at least import fertilizers to counteract unfavorable conditions, or at least import electricity to run the local fertilizer factories; that, and the manufacturing income to trade for important types of food such as dairy products and beef that represent 10 times of their weight in grain feed or 100 times their weight if fed on pasture like in inner Mongolia . . . as well as seafood catches . . . all of which are important if the tightly packed communes are not to fall victim to massive contaigeous disease outbreaks.

If only human beings were as simple as needing only 2000 calaries a day in half a dozen bowels of rice while residing in pigeon holes stacked on top of each other. The Soviet, or even Cambodian, experiments would have been great successes instead of the engineered massive failures that they were. The problem with such "designed communities" is that it works like a time capsule on whatever prevailing technology there was at the time of the design/construciton . . . and gets left behind in time when the rest of the world moves on as people of the world shift resources from one place to another in accordance with new technology breakthroughs and new discoveries. Manhattan and Hongkong Central are so built up precise because of their being nexii of trade networks. It's not realistic to think that the rest of the entire economies can pile on top of themselves like that.

[moobie]

And? In what way is this map relevant to your thesis? It actually only says something about the soil quality. That way they can even equate the unproductive perma-frost soil of northern Scandinavia and Russia (red) with the fertile and agriculturally valuable alluvial land in the Netherlands and the northern German plain (red as well).

None of the areas in red are permafrost. Europe really is not that cold. There isn't a single inch of Europe as cold as Mongolia, Manchuria or Tibet.

But I said all along that longer sun hours and more air humidity make large parts of northern China effectively more fertile, even though there is on average probably more water available in western and central Europe.

Doesn't matter. The land around the Balkans and Ukraine is still better; the map takes temperatures into account. Same goes with France. That is the current state on agriculture, get over it.

Edited by moobie, 23 July 2009 - 10:02 PM.

[Howard Fu]

I think Mediterranean climate and dense population. Actually, somewhat like China. The Romans did have, and use, draft oxen and also horses for riding et cetera. But they had rather few of them. The reason was that they did not have much good pasture for oxen or horses. The lands which were too dry and stony to farm tended to be dry and scorched in summer, so the Romans tried to keep their oxen alive by feeding them tree branches and similar. Some herds were driven to mountain pastures in summer, but then they were too far away to work the fields. Horses or oxen could be fed with grain, but it was better to feed the grain to humans instead and work the humans. And the flat lands with deep soil were better used as fields or gardens - too valuable for pasture.

Chinese were somewhat similar - a few oxen and horses, but since most good land was farmed, there was not much to spare for pasture.

I have been to rural country in China. The animals lived in stalls very close to the farmers house. They fed animals anything they have, left over, grass stalk of grain etc.

Early Roman Republic can be 500BC, and no one is claiming Rome had 50 million people in 500BC.

It's not entirely impossible for Rome to have 50 million people, but that's just too much population for Rome's own good. A preindustrial society can have 1 billion people, like China and India, but it means the vast majority of population have to live in desperate poverty. By the time of late republic, the population was probably 10 to 20 million, Rome was already periled with famine and revolution. A healthy population for Rome was probably 1 - 2million, within Italy and 5 million for the whole empire. Similarly, for preindustrial China, the best population was 100 to 200 million like that from Song to Ming. It was a healthy and vibrant society. But when the population was stretched to above 400 million like late Qing, Chinese society became lifeless, stagnant and a hot bed for famines, civil wars and revolutions.

[moobie]

and yet, "Western experts" are encouraging the already densely populated regions of East Asia to open up to mass immigration. Seems like they aren't history buffs.

[Jaak]

BTW, the limiting factor on population in regions isolated from trade is not the absolute maximum food production capacity, but the periodic crop failures. Crop yield could vary by 3-5 times from bumper years to lean years in pre-industrial agriculture; that's just normal fluctuation, the real disaster years would have no harvest. Even the population of Jiansu is possible today only because it can import food when there is severe crop failure, or at least import fertilizers to counteract unfavorable conditions, or at least import electricity to run the local fertilizer factories; that, and the manufacturing income to trade for important types of food

Fine, let´s have a look at the past population of Jiangsu.

In 1949, Jiangsu held 35 millions of mouths. This was after 12 years of wars and trade disruptions. If Jiangsu needed trade or imports to sustain those people, excess people would have famished to death already as some point in those 12 years. Therefore, those 35 million souls could be and were fed locally.

At this sustainable level of 350 souls per square km, a plot of say 2 square km (1400 m sides, 1 km centre to corner) could feed 700 souls.

Except they would never have accummulated the economic capcity to build up to the density of Kowloon to begin with.

Oh, the density was easy. They had long ago accumulated that capacity.

In 1898, there was a village of 700 souls in Kowloon. Kowloon Walled City.

It took up a total of 26 000 square m. Which means average 27 000 souls per square km. Roughly the density of Manhattan.

See? The people farming a 200 ha plot of Jiangsu could easily be housed in just 2,6 ha of buildings. With 1898 building technology, without piped water or electric lighting. Over 98 % of land would still have been free for farming.

Suppose that you want to develop this 200 ha plot economically, so that it now feeds 1500 mouths (the present population density)? 300 families?

You also have modern technologies, to build multistorey houses, provide piped water to upper stories, electric lighting to lower, air conditioning et cetera. There is no reason you cannot accommodate those 1500 souls in exact same 2,6 ha plot, and provide each of them more floor area and comfort than the mostly one-story village had had. You do not have to waste the good farmland on a sprawl of single family houses and gardens.