4 ms·
To me, fears of overpopulation have less to do with how much of the earth serves as living space, but how much human activity currently impacts nearly every cor
by acjohnson55 9y ago
To me, fears of overpopulation have less to do with how much of the earth serves as living space, but how much human activity currently impacts nearly every corner of the planet. I think it's plausible that we can lessen human impact without actually decreasing population. Not sure it's likely, though.
- mirimir 9y agoI recall a letter to Science from the mid 70s, rebutting The Limits to Growth. I have tried to find it more-or-less lately, with no luck. As I recall, its author argued that the Earth could support well over 10^8 people in Trantor style. He assumed unlimited energy from fusion, and substantial food synthesis. Only humans, pets, crops, livestock, and requisite insects and microorganisms would survive. The planetary surface would support a building ~16 km high. At that height, the surface would be in thermal equilibrium at ~1500°C. But hey, if that were doable, why not just build space habitat's?
- PoachedSausage 9y agoBecause it is cheaper and easier to build stuff down here. Space habitats require thinking in terms of systems, dealing with inputs and outputs. Humans haven't mastered systems thinking yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- mirimir 9y agoI guess. I've been reading Banks' Culture series ;)
- landryraccoon 9y ago10^8 is a hundred million people, so yeah, it's safe to say the Earth can support well over that many humans.
- mirimir 9y agoOops, I was brain dead there. I meant 10^11. Or maybe even 10^12.
- credit_guy 9y agoIn other words 100 billion to 1 trillion. The world’s land area, excluding Antarctica, is about 50 million sq. miles. With a comfortable population density of 1000 ppl/sqm (like in South Korea, Holland, Israel, or the state of New Jersey) you would get to 50 billion (same as Trantor). The population density of Singapore is close to 20k ppl/sqm, that would give you 1 trillion. If you are willing to pad the Earth with buildings 16 km high, you could pack at least 1000 times more people, more likely 1 million times more. Maybe that letter to Science mentioned 10^18?
- mirimir 9y agoI don't remember the number. What I recall is just that it was an absurdly huge estimate. And I'd love to have a copy of that ~1975 letter, if anyone has access to requisite tools. And, in case it's not obvious, it's not a world that I'd care to live in.