

Where the population of Europe is growing – and where it’s declining - mxfh
http://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/europakarte/#5/48.415/11.294/en

======
protothomas
A lovely map, but the scale could be calibrated slightly better - 5% growth is
coloured the same as 25% growth, it would have been interesting to see areas
of extremely high growth highlighted as well.

------
ddeck
Prior discussion of same data (statically presented) from last week:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9771997](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9771997)

------
vacri
The Prime Meridian looks very popular.

~~~
gonvaled
It is a growth map, not a density map

~~~
vacri
growth = population increasing = popular.

~~~
gonvaled
Not really: growth -> becoming _more_ popular, but _not necessarily_ popular,
in the absolute sense, which is based on density comparissons, of course:
going from 10 to 15 inhabitants is a 50% growth, but it is not more popular
than a city with 2 million habitants, even it that city is having a population
loss of 1%.

~~~
vacri
> _in the absolute sense_

Well, don't move the goalposts like this. I never said 'absolute'. You're also
arguing from extremes, which isn't appropriate, given that the map is a mostly
closed system - population comes from the blue and goes to the orange, with
some outside immigration. For the most part, the amount of orange and blue in
the map will balance, none of this "orange areas have a population you can
count on your fingers, blue areas are jam-packed metropoles" imbalance.
Particularly since most of the areas in the map have a four-figure population
- they're mostly in the same order of magnitude, not the five orders of
magnitude difference that you're suggesting. Run your pointer over the map and
check out the populations.

You're also conflating "populous" with "popular". For example, slums are jam-
packed with people (= populous), but that doesn't mean that they all want to
be there (= popular).

