5 ms·
100m^2 doesn't seem like so much to me at all, certainly not sobering. This would mean one acre of land would sustain about 40 people (or 100 per hectare). Ta
by justin_vanw 10y ago
100m^2 doesn't seem like so much to me at all, certainly not sobering.
This would mean one acre of land would sustain about 40 people (or 100 per hectare).
Taking wikipedia's number of 13,958,000 km^2 of arable land in the world, this would mean a maximum world population of 137,963,876,580, which is about 20x the current world population.
Of course, this assumes equal quality of land to the land in your rough calculations, and I am guessing your number is assuming far more intensive cultivation than is typical (typical numbers I've seen are 1-2 acres / person).
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoThe full calculation would also need to take in to consideration wastage / spoilage; crop failure; loss to pests; nutrient density (probably can't thrive off potatoes and corn only); animal feed (pets as well as animals for food). Having said that, I'll now go on to say: with one inhabited planet there are limits to resources, but the limits to human resourcefulness are undefined.
- rahkiin 10y agoDon't eat animals. One problem solved. Might want to have some cows for milk and using their waste as fertilizer Edit: the not eating animals is not in a vegatarian way. I love meat. But if you want to fully sustain yourself on the smallest area possible, animals do not aid your cause.
- nitrogen 10y agoHens could probably be useful, as they can turn pests into eggs.