3 ms·

How does that work if everyone wants that? We don't have enough Earths to support 8 billion people living in sprawl.

ssl-3 2y ago
We might. If we have 54 million square kilometers of habitable land that is not used for agriculture, and we scatter 8 billion people across it, then we end up with a population density of about 148 people per square kilometer -- which is approximately what Florida is today.
- QuercusMax 2y ago
  Do we have the resources to support such a sprawly civilization? It's not just the land, it's all the infrastructure (roads, plumbing, power, etc.) which isn't free.
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    No, of course not. But the claim was about the unavailability of space, not of man-made infrastructure.
    - QuercusMax 2y ago
      I said we don't have enough earths to support everyone living in sprawl. That's talking about resources, not just land.
- jandrese 2y ago
  If that is your plan you need teleporters for everybody so you don't need to pave the world to get basic access.
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    It's not my plan. I was just evaluating one aspect of its practicality. It would be a shitty idea to propose that everyone live in exactly the same way. Diversity is generally good. It's nice to have some options available. (Even with universal teleporters, diversity is generally good.)
- throwaway22032 2y ago
  If the fair distribution is that we have 150 people per square km i.e. approx 6500sqm or 1.5 acres per person, then realistically the answer has to be that some people have a lot more than that and some people have a lot less, because 1.5 acres isn't a large amount of land at all once you get outside of the city.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwaway22032 2y ago
Does it need to? Why should everyone live the same way? I know tons of people who prefer city life, and more still who frankly don't really think about it either way. Surely we all operate this way? My mate goes fishing, if everyone went fishing it doesn't work, but we don't all go fishing.

We might. If we have 54 million square kilometers of habitable land that is not used for agriculture, and we scatter 8 billion people across it, then we end up with a population density of about 148 people per square kilometer -- which is approximately what Florida is today.

QuercusMax 2y ago
Do we have the resources to support such a sprawly civilization? It's not just the land, it's all the infrastructure (roads, plumbing, power, etc.) which isn't free.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  No, of course not. But the claim was about the unavailability of space, not of man-made infrastructure.
  - QuercusMax 2y ago
    I said we don't have enough earths to support everyone living in sprawl. That's talking about resources, not just land.
jandrese 2y ago
If that is your plan you need teleporters for everybody so you don't need to pave the world to get basic access.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  It's not my plan. I was just evaluating one aspect of its practicality. It would be a shitty idea to propose that everyone live in exactly the same way. Diversity is generally good. It's nice to have some options available. (Even with universal teleporters, diversity is generally good.)
throwaway22032 2y ago
If the fair distribution is that we have 150 people per square km i.e. approx 6500sqm or 1.5 acres per person, then realistically the answer has to be that some people have a lot more than that and some people have a lot less, because 1.5 acres isn't a large amount of land at all once you get outside of the city.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

throwaway22032 2y ago

Does it need to? Why should everyone live the same way? I know tons of people who prefer city life, and more still who frankly don't really think about it either way. Surely we all operate this way? My mate goes fishing, if everyone went fishing it doesn't work, but we don't all go fishing.