How crowded is the world?

[hillsidedigger]

Evenly spaced among the habitable land of the world people in a square box would be 135 feet (at right angles) from the 4 sides of their box where the box of the next person starts.

How much smaller can that box be?

How much larger would you like your box to be?

I like it here where neighbors are a thousand feet away.

[QuickTactical]

I read somewhere that every human standing shoulder to shoulder would fit within Rhode Island.

[SgtBooker44]

I read somewhere that the State of Texas could be turned into a major suburban subdiviaion and house everyone on the planet. 5-6 houses to the acre and not disturb the oil wells.

[Burt&Heather]

Originally Posted by SgtBooker44

I read somewhere that the State of Texas could be turned into a major suburban subdiviaion and house everyone on the planet. 5-6 houses to the acre and not disturb the oil wells.

Thats assuming you don't need any land to grow the food to feed them.

[Straight Razor]

It's a rather pointless mathematical non-fact.

On 11 June 2007 the UN announced that for the first time in history more people live in urban areas than not. Urban areas are totally dependent on non-urban areas for their survival. So while folks may not be standing in that 18,000 square foot block they are dependent upon it. And when push comes to shove guess where they are going to go?

[hillsidedigger]

Originally Posted by Straight Razor

It's a rather pointless mathematical non-fact.

On 11 June 2007 the UN announced that for the first time in history more people live in urban areas than not. Urban areas are totally dependent on non-urban areas for their survival. So while folks may not be standing in that 18,000 square foot block they are dependent upon it. And when push comes to shove guess where they are going to go?

270 (135 + 135)' X 270' is actually 73,000 square feet of good land for each person in the world which some may think is a lot but it's not.

All good land is not equal. The 12 billion acres (which is decreasing signifigantly in extent each year due to overuse and conversion to urban and infrastructure land, also spreading desertification) of 'good land' in the world varies downward in productivity from prime arable land (only 4 billion acres where the food for up to 1 to 4 people might be grown on one acre) to very arid rangeland where it might take more than 100 acres to sustain a cow. The 12 billion acres of good land also includes the temperate forests.

Tropical forests, swamps and boreal forests amount to another 10 billion acres but people can only survive in those places in very sparse densities.

The remaining 16 billion acres of land in the world is icecaps, barren rock plains, rocky mountainsides, extremely high elevation plateaus, the driest of deserts and dunes, etc. where almost no one could eke out a living.

Just the facts.

[hillsidedigger]

Originally Posted by SgtBooker44

I read somewhere that the State of Texas could be turned into a major suburban subdiviaion and house everyone on the planet. 5-6 houses to the acre and not disturb the oil wells.

OK, if every acre of Texas (much of Texas is wasteland just like much of the land in the rest of the world) can support 40 people then the 38 billion acres of land on Earth should be able to handle 1.52 trillion people, right?

[Woodswalker]

"How crowded is the world ?" - way too crowded for me .

[Nyx]

Originally Posted by hillsidedigger

OK, if every acre of Texas (much of Texas is wasteland just like much of the land in the rest of the world) can support 40 people then the 38 billion acres of land on Earth should be able to handle 1.52 trillion people, right?

It said "house"...not "support".
There's a huge difference. You can easily house people in very high concentrations per area of land - look at skyscrapers. It takes quite a bit more area to FEED all those people. Not even mentioning the land area needed to produce clothing and other material items for them.

[hillsidedigger]

Originally Posted by Nyx

It said "house"...not "support".
There's a huge difference. You can easily house people in very high concentrations per area of land - look at skyscrapers. It takes quite a bit more area to FEED all those people. Not even mentioning the land area needed to produce clothing and other material items for them.

I know but some reading '7 billion can live in Texas' might not.

And then there's fresh water. Could enough fresh water be piped to Texas to supply 7 billion people? I don't think all the water of the Mississippi River would even start to be enough.

[azurevirus]

I think it was on the Disc channel where the one guy said" this planet will support 3 billion ppl well..but it now has a population of 6 billion and in 5-7 yrs the population will increase by another 50%"..the numbers may not be correct as I watched the show yrs ago and the numbers are foggy...but it gives you the general idea

[Singular1ty]

The population is expected to stall at the 8-10 billion person mark. After that it will go down and flux at around the 6-8 billion mark forever if no other outside events change it.

[Mule Skinner]

So let's have people put their houses on land not suitable for agriculture -- no more lawns -- and have all the useful land put to its highest and best use. I suppose we should do the same with factories: put them on scrubby land.

Yes, I know there are some kinks in this, but you guys are good at uncurling those.

[hillsidedigger]

Originally Posted by Singular1ty

The population is expected to stall at the 8-10 billion person mark. After that it will go down and flux at around the 6-8 billion mark forever if no other outside events change it.

No way. The world won't stabilize at 6 to 8 billion people and it certainly won't stabilize at any number forever.

The natural way is a long period of slow increase climaxing with a sudden blooming followed immediately by a nearly complete collapse and then starting over again. But even that cycle can only be repeated a limited number of times.

[WSierra]

The world is far from overpopulated.


When it does reach that point.. famine, disease, and wars will provide the needed correction.

Don't lose any sleep over it. It's self correcting.

[Griff]

Nature's beauty can be deceiving. Put too many cute, fuzzy rabbits in a cage, and they'll kill each other off in a fight for resources. Forget to feed them, and they'll eat each other rather than starve to death. People don't seem all that much different.

It would be nice to break one cycle, though. I'd like to see the rats be held responsible for the damage they do to their "free" habitats after they soil and destroy them. Maybe a little less nurture and a little more nature would be in order?

[justin_baker]

If everyone converted to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, the earth could not support it. The only reason we have 6 billion people on Earth is because of agricultural technology.

[WSierra]

Originally Posted by justin_baker

If everyone converted to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, the earth could not support it. The only reason we have 6 billion people on Earth is because of agricultural technology.

Yep, agriculture and animal management. Humans adapt and create solutions.

Well, most humans. Some just benefit from others' hard work and creativity.

Some think, build, and create... some do not.