Large scale population densities don't tell you anything, due to the fact that we have this habit of trying to fit as many of ourselves into the smallest places possible. San Francisco city, for instance, has a population density of 18,634/square mile. And while that's relatively dense it's dwarfed by places like Manila (Philippines) with a density > 111,000 per square mile. And if you want to go full on crazy there was Kowloon Walled City [1] in Hong Kong which had a population density in excess of 5,000,000 per square mile! That number's a bit misleading due to verticality, but not by much! That's probably the most densely packed area of a sizable population that there has ever been, and by a pretty wide margin.
Pakistan is a bit of a mix of both: three quarters are pretty empty, but the population is spread somewhat evenly over the rest [3]
1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/California-population-de...
2: https://i.redd.it/oz7m4lfy37b51.png
3: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8e/fb/11/8efb11c1d9cc698ddca2...
But nothing at all has changed!
Population density is only one aspect of "what it feels like to live somewhere" - local density, land usage, etc all play into it.
Ah. I live in California, population density 254 per mi², so about a third. California is also 2 times smaller than Pakistan - since a lot of California is inhabitable (contrast with Pakistan) and the surrounding areas easily accessible, it translates to a lot of "breathing room", even if you live in a densely populated county like San Francisco or Los Angeles.
> That is high compared to the USA as a whole, but 742/sq mile is low compared to ~50 other countries.
Made me look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...