3 ms·
That's 150m^2 per person. If everyone lives in skyscrapers then living space isn't much of that, and 150m^2 is (in the best case) enough for one person's food.
by OscarCunningham 9y ago
That's 150m^2 per person. If everyone lives in skyscrapers then living space isn't much of that, and 150m^2 is (in the best case) enough for one person's food. So it might be that this scenario is impossible for other reasons, but I don't think mere land area is a problem.
- goatlover 9y agoYou mean if every meter of the planet was covered with skyscrapers? Not sure how that's remotely realistic. And it sounds incredibly dystopian.
- OscarCunningham 9y agoNo, the opposite. I mean you could use skyscrapers to make people's living space take up a much smaller proportion of the land area, leaving the rest free for farming.
- fiblye 9y agoWhere exactly would the resources for enough skyscrapers to house a trillion humans come from? The world is facing a sand shortage already with not even 1% of that imagined population.
- OscarCunningham 9y agoSure whatever. I'm just saying land area isn't the problem.
- triplesec 9y agoExcept it is. At least half the world's land is unusable for agriculture, and often for habitation. And transport had to be btaen into account for area. And that leaves no space for any wilderness, forests etc. Which is impossible ecologically. Your theoretical arguments here have no practical value.
- empath75 9y agoLand usable for agriculture is a significantly smaller percentage than that.