posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 05:58 AM
reply to post by sarra1833
one person per 1600 sq foot home instead of four people living in one farm home?
one per home?
so my proverbial newborn, my three year old, my six year old and my 12 year old and husband each get their own 1600 sq foot home?
I think not. NO family will want to have their members separated into their own homes.
It's preposterous first off.
Waste of space IMMENSELY.
why divide a family?
why divide a marriage?
one person per 1600 s/f home IS dividing families.
No, no. You misunderstood my statement. I am absolutely NOT suggesting that only 1 person lives per home. I am absolutely sorry if it sounded like
Please, allow me to elaborate:
I said 1 person per home, because it was to display the maximum spread of human population, regardless
of age and family groups. It was to show
that even under this worst case scenario (aka, an unrealistic world where each individuals
would inhabit a whole home alone, which is
thankfully not the case in the real world), all of humanity would still cover only 1.6% of Earth. If, indeed, one considers the concepts of family
groups, and that say three people would live together in the same house (a husband, a wife and their kid), then mankind would indeed take even less
space on Earth - here 0.53 %.
Whereas, the same families, on a 20 acres farm per families of 4, will take 10 Earths.
I am very sorry if it sounded as if I was suggesting that everyone lives seperately. It wasn't the case; it was only to display the extreme
difference in numbers between living in farms vs vertical homes.
P.S.: I love your signature!