3 ms·
The population of the US in 1650 was 50k. Now it's 309 million. No surprise that energy consumption increased by a factor of about 10^5. Also, the increase in
by microarchitect 15y ago
The population of the US in 1650 was 50k. Now it's 309 million. No surprise that energy consumption increased by a factor of about 10^5.
Also, the increase in world population isn't going to go on forever. Birth rates are decreasing in most countries - including third world countries. In fact, the population of many states in India is increasing not because of birth rates but due to increasing life expectancy. I can't find a cite now, but I remember an article which expects world population to stabilize at something less than 10B. If even that number seems worrying, remember that vast swaths of land in Central Asia, Siberia, Canada, Alaska, Australia and Antartica are virtually uninhabited: we don't even need to go the moon or Mars or something to find space for humans.
We do need to get our act together but our real problems are effective policy-making and governance. Not finding endless sources of energy.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ordinary 15y agoSmall nitpick: using both k and M in the same sentence is a little confusing. [edit]Thanks!
- sampsonjs 15y ago"remember that vast swaths of land in Central Asia, Siberia, Canada, Alaska, Australia and Antartica are virtually uninhabited: we don't even need to go the moon or Mars or something to find space for humans." Uninhabited for a very good reason, with the exception of Canada and Asia, maybe. Seriously, Antartica?
- nknight 15y agoBetter to shove people into well-built structures in Antarctica and use more temperate land for food and energy generation than fill up every inch of what is traditionally considered "habitable" space and promptly starve.