Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > Survival & Preparedness Forum > Manmade and Natural Disasters
Articles Chat Room Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files



Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-17-2010, 08:34 PM
hillsidedigger hillsidedigger is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,241
Thanks: 81
Thanked 797 Times in 428 Posts
Default How crowded is the world?



Advertise Here

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.
Old 11-17-2010, 10:09 PM
QuickTactical QuickTactical is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 85
Thanks: 9
Thanked 25 Times in 14 Posts
Default

I read somewhere that every human standing shoulder to shoulder would fit within Rhode Island.
Old 11-17-2010, 10:57 PM
SgtBooker44's Avatar
SgtBooker44 SgtBooker44 is offline
Ron Swanson 2016
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: California
Posts: 31,302
Thanks: 4,360
Thanked 25,996 Times in 13,603 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster 
Total Awards: 1
Default

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.
Old 11-17-2010, 11:52 PM
Burt&Heather's Avatar
Burt&Heather Burt&Heather is offline
Broke into the wrong GD..
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Carson City, NV
Age: 38
Posts: 365
Thanks: 266
Thanked 518 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtBooker44 View Post
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.
Old 11-18-2010, 06:40 AM
Straight Razor's Avatar
Straight Razor Straight Razor is offline
Wild Edibles Expert
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,169
Thanks: 850
Thanked 9,765 Times in 4,218 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster Top Poster Top Poster 
Total Awards: 3
Default

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?
Old 11-18-2010, 07:48 AM
hillsidedigger hillsidedigger is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,241
Thanks: 81
Thanked 797 Times in 428 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Straight Razor View Post
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.
Old 11-18-2010, 09:07 AM
hillsidedigger hillsidedigger is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,241
Thanks: 81
Thanked 797 Times in 428 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtBooker44 View Post
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?
Old 11-18-2010, 09:24 AM
Woodswalker Woodswalker is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MA.
Posts: 2,394
Thanks: 2,845
Thanked 3,726 Times in 1,306 Posts
Default

"How crowded is the world ?" - way too crowded for me .
Old 11-18-2010, 09:28 AM
Nyx's Avatar
Nyx Nyx is offline
Misplaced Appalachian
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York State, USA
Age: 29
Posts: 50
Thanks: 124
Thanked 47 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillsidedigger View Post
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.
Old 11-18-2010, 09:58 AM
hillsidedigger hillsidedigger is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,241
Thanks: 81
Thanked 797 Times in 428 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
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.
Old 11-18-2010, 10:39 AM
azurevirus azurevirus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 30 Times in 24 Posts
Default

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
Old 11-18-2010, 01:54 PM
Singular1ty's Avatar
Singular1ty Singular1ty is offline
Conformist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,745
Thanks: 57
Thanked 1,097 Times in 699 Posts
Default

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.
Old 11-18-2010, 02:51 PM
Mule Skinner Mule Skinner is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,153
Thanks: 379
Thanked 1,473 Times in 807 Posts
Default

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.
Old 11-18-2010, 07:00 PM
hillsidedigger hillsidedigger is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,241
Thanks: 81
Thanked 797 Times in 428 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singular1ty View Post
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.
Old 11-18-2010, 07:13 PM
WSierra's Avatar
WSierra WSierra is offline
RESET CONGRESS!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 9,465
Thanks: 13,489
Thanked 12,411 Times in 4,748 Posts
Default

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.
The Following User Says Thank You to WSierra For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2010, 09:17 PM
Griff's Avatar
Griff Griff is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,705
Thanks: 4,560
Thanked 1,435 Times in 750 Posts
Default

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?
The Following User Says Thank You to Griff For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2010, 09:31 PM
justin_baker's Avatar
justin_baker justin_baker is offline
Custom User Title
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New California Republic
Age: 22
Posts: 2,969
Thanks: 2,594
Thanked 2,082 Times in 1,002 Posts
Default

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.
The Following User Says Thank You to justin_baker For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2010, 09:37 PM
WSierra's Avatar
WSierra WSierra is offline
RESET CONGRESS!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 9,465
Thanks: 13,489
Thanked 12,411 Times in 4,748 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin_baker View Post
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.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WSierra For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When TSHTF the woods will become pretty damn crowded, won't they? Backwoods Bum Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 106 12-15-2008 05:30 AM
Big Reno Gun Show Ultra Crowded Denny367 Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 1 11-21-2008 07:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Kevin Felts 2006 - 2012,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net