4 ms·

Most of the world is empty: https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/world-population-density-map.jpg https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads

Most of the world is empty: https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/world-population-density-map.jpg https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/world-... We just need to learn to be efficient.

pacala 7y ago
Most of the "empty" space on the map world is an inhospitable desert. Sahara, Australian Outback, Namib, the Arctic, North American West, Tibet, Kazakhstan, Antarctica, Patagonia. Granted, a few pockets of wild forests left, Amazon, parts of Central Africa, New Guinea, Siberia. Under intense development pressure. Hard to call that "most of the world".
- TomMarius 7y ago
  There certainly are ways to live there. Granted, it needs some colonization effort - still easier than colonizing Mars, and actually producing some technologies for that.
  - pacala 7y ago
    The past 200 years is the era of energy-intensive technological innovation. What is the evidence that the technology innovation pattern we've experienced so far can shift into ultra-low energy mode at scale? In inhospitable environments to boot. PS. Mars colonization is folly.
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      The need to find new places to live, perhaps combined with regulatory effort.
- Turing_Machine 7y ago
  > Most of the "empty" space on the map world is an inhospitable desert. Southern California is an inhospitable desert, but tens of millions of people live there nonetheless.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
If I look at the density map you posted: Oh look at the Amazon, it's all empty so we still have space to expand farming. Yay. The world is not empty. It's either exploited to cater for human needs or wilderness that should be protected at the point we've reached.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  Perhaps you missed the empty desserts the other commenter has pointed out. If we want to colonize Mars, we should be able to colonize desserts.
Mulpze15 7y ago
To illustrate the same point differently: if the USA had the same population density as the UK, there would be 2.5 billion people living there, instead of the current 327 million. Math: 327 million US ppl * 274 UK ppl per sq km / 35 US ppl per sq km.

pacala 7y ago

Most of the "empty" space on the map world is an inhospitable desert. Sahara, Australian Outback, Namib, the Arctic, North American West, Tibet, Kazakhstan, Antarctica, Patagonia. Granted, a few pockets of wild forests left, Amazon, parts of Central Africa, New Guinea, Siberia. Under intense development pressure. Hard to call that "most of the world".

TomMarius 7y ago
There certainly are ways to live there. Granted, it needs some colonization effort - still easier than colonizing Mars, and actually producing some technologies for that.
- pacala 7y ago
  The past 200 years is the era of energy-intensive technological innovation. What is the evidence that the technology innovation pattern we've experienced so far can shift into ultra-low energy mode at scale? In inhospitable environments to boot. PS. Mars colonization is folly.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    The need to find new places to live, perhaps combined with regulatory effort.
Turing_Machine 7y ago
> Most of the "empty" space on the map world is an inhospitable desert. Southern California is an inhospitable desert, but tens of millions of people live there nonetheless.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

If I look at the density map you posted: Oh look at the Amazon, it's all empty so we still have space to expand farming. Yay. The world is not empty. It's either exploited to cater for human needs or wilderness that should be protected at the point we've reached.

TomMarius 7y ago
Perhaps you missed the empty desserts the other commenter has pointed out. If we want to colonize Mars, we should be able to colonize desserts.

Mulpze15 7y ago

To illustrate the same point differently: if the USA had the same population density as the UK, there would be 2.5 billion people living there, instead of the current 327 million. Math: 327 million US ppl * 274 UK ppl per sq km / 35 US ppl per sq km.