4 ms·

Currently 60% of landmass is being used by humans directly (human habitat, pastures, crops). Of remaining 40% about a half is still being continuously influence

Currently 60% of landmass is being used by humans directly (human habitat, pastures, crops). Of remaining 40% about a half is still being continuously influenced by humans (residential forests, patches of land between roads, etc.). And the land is being used unsustainably and almost all unused land is beyond the polar circle. So no, the Earth can not hold 100B people with current level of consumption. And generally you don't want current consumption level, you want much higher standards, because majority of world's population is living in poverty. Which means that Earth can't hold 8B people either unless humans improve their land use efficiency significantly, which is unlikely. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/129 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/129

rsj_hn 5y ago
You know, it's possible to convert ground dedicated to cattle or agriculture and develop that into cities. That's historically how we always do it. It's not like housing developments can only happen on land that no one owns and that isn't being used for anything at all. What we do is change what the land is used for. So I don't think this argument holds any water, TBH. By the time the frontier was closed -- say late 1800s, pretty much all US land was owned by someone and ostensibly dedicated to some use. Yet we managed to increase our population quite a bit since then. All European land was spoken for by the early middle ages. Yet they managed to grow their population too.
- demosito666 5y ago
  Sorry if it wasn't clear, but the problem of land use is not legal. Indeed you can build your city whenever you have enough will to and it has never been a problem. The problem is that humans destroy the ecosystem of the place they live in. And if humans use 100% of landmass then 100% of planet ecosystems are destroyed. > it's possible to convert ground dedicated to cattle or agriculture and develop that into cities Unless you find a way to generate food out of thin air, it's not possible. People living in the cities need to eat something.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  For most of the Western United States --- points west of the 100th latitude --- the limiting factor is not land but water. The city of Los Angeles has a watershed which extends 1,500 miles eastward, to the western extent of the Rocky Mountains. The reason much of the Western US appears more as an island archipellago than a continuously inhabited terrain is because there simply isn't enough water to fill taps, flush toilets, and run showers, let alone grow food or provide range for livestock on an unirrigated "dry-land" basis. Even attempting that proved a major environmenal disaster, the Dust Bowl of the 1920s and 1930s.
holoduke 5y ago
No way 60% is used by people. Can you provide some sources on this.
- demosito666 5y ago
  the link is right in the comment

rsj_hn 5y ago

You know, it's possible to convert ground dedicated to cattle or agriculture and develop that into cities. That's historically how we always do it. It's not like housing developments can only happen on land that no one owns and that isn't being used for anything at all. What we do is change what the land is used for. So I don't think this argument holds any water, TBH. By the time the frontier was closed -- say late 1800s, pretty much all US land was owned by someone and ostensibly dedicated to some use. Yet we managed to increase our population quite a bit since then. All European land was spoken for by the early middle ages. Yet they managed to grow their population too.

demosito666 5y ago
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but the problem of land use is not legal. Indeed you can build your city whenever you have enough will to and it has never been a problem. The problem is that humans destroy the ecosystem of the place they live in. And if humans use 100% of landmass then 100% of planet ecosystems are destroyed. > it's possible to convert ground dedicated to cattle or agriculture and develop that into cities Unless you find a way to generate food out of thin air, it's not possible. People living in the cities need to eat something.
dredmorbius 5y ago
For most of the Western United States --- points west of the 100th latitude --- the limiting factor is not land but water. The city of Los Angeles has a watershed which extends 1,500 miles eastward, to the western extent of the Rocky Mountains. The reason much of the Western US appears more as an island archipellago than a continuously inhabited terrain is because there simply isn't enough water to fill taps, flush toilets, and run showers, let alone grow food or provide range for livestock on an unirrigated "dry-land" basis. Even attempting that proved a major environmenal disaster, the Dust Bowl of the 1920s and 1930s.

holoduke 5y ago

No way 60% is used by people. Can you provide some sources on this.

demosito666 5y ago
the link is right in the comment