5 ms·
> Our planet cannot support 10 billion people. Source needed
by Izikiel43 3y ago
> Our planet cannot support 10 billion people.
Source needed
- bagels 3y agoWould you agree that it is likely that there is some limit, regardless of if it's 10 billion?
- Tao3300 3y ago> Source [of food] needed
- bryanlarsen 3y agoIf you cover 50% of the Earth's land with nuclear powered greenhouses, and the other 50% with skyscrapers, you could house and feed a trillion people. Food is not the limiting factor for population.
- Tao3300 3y agoThat sounds awful.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoExactly. It being awful is a reason not to have a trillion people on Earth. Food isn't the limiting factor, other things are.
- gota 3y agoWell, I guess we can all agree that our planet cannot support X amount of people with a certain quality of life and sustainably for the then-on future Parent post hints that X < 10B, but I'd wager many believe X < whatever we have now It is obvious Earth could hold a very large human population - but not for very long, and not (for those people) very well
- throwaw1yyy 3y agostill could, you need a bigger imagination!
- autoexec 3y agoThis is exactly the problem. It's not about how many bodies we can stack on top of each other, it's how many people can this one specific area sustainably support, knowing that the number we come up with will fluctuate with time and circumstance and that same calculation has to be made for every "area" we care to define. It's a highly complex problem. As resources like clean drinking water get more and more scarce, and climate change and the refugees it produces cause all of us to pack into smaller and smaller areas we'll need to start paying more and more attention to this to make sure that we're not destroying what resources we still have.