The entire world population if standing shoulder to shoulder & front to back.....could fit into.....

Rhode Island.
If every one needed an average of 4 square feet (2'x2') we could all fit in Rhode Islands 1200 square miles easily. Rounding up to 28 million sq. ft. Per sq. mile, dividing then by the 4 sq. ft. Per person, you get 7 million people per sq mile, so with Rhode Islands roughly 1200 sq miles, then 8,400,000,000 (8 billion) people could stand shoulder to shoulder in Rhode Island. The entire world population could stand like this, in 4 square foot blocks, into Americas smallest state. I find that shocking, but was curious what a mob of 300 million Americans would look like say from space, and crunched the numbers.

reply to post by AlchemistSwami


I don't want anybody trying to squeeze into my behind so I'll stand on the edge facing in if that's okay with you.

That's a rather pointless piece of mathematics really. All it proves is that if you crush us in like cattle we dont take up that much space.

We are not going to live like that, so again, what is the point of it?

The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.

Originally posted by markosity1973
That's a rather pointless piece of mathematics really. All it proves is that if you crush us in like cattle we dont take up that much space.

We are not going to live like that, so again, what is the point of it?

Good if your planning on building the matrix. toss all humans into a honeycomb structure that just fits them, hook em up to the machine, done.

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.

Yes

Well, until you realize that all those people need to eat something...how much grassland does a single cow need to graze on? before its steaks (do the math, its out there).

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.

So, where are all the people going to eat, what happens when one of them needs the toilet?

It's a totally useless fact in the real world. More relevant is the area of land required to feed people

Since the area of production needed is most sensitive to meat and fat consumption, we can see which of the model diets in the Cornell study is closest to the typical American diet to estimate the per capita area given current habits. To gauge the average, look at the middle of the chart above the 190 grams of meat per day and you’ll see that this converts to about 0.45 hectares, which is just a bit over one acre.

Source

Then there is the issue of how much land people take up for cities (usually historically prime farming land)

It clearly proves the earth is not over populated.

Overpopulation, dare I say it is a ....conspiracy

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.

If physical space was the only barrier to population growth then it would demonstrate that.

Since other factors such as accessibility to fresh food and drinkable water, distribution and allocation of necessary living materials and essential support services are significant considerations, the OP has not made the point you claim.

reply to post by borntowatch


Interesting view points. I was simply trying to visualize an angry and fed up American population arm to arm marching on say Washington DC and in my minds eye I guess I assumed we would barely fit into Rhode Island, but was surprised to see the entire human race could squeeze ( standing) into that space of twelve hundred square miles. I would love to see a computer generated image of what that would look like too.

All the worlds leaders, armies, police etc. shoulder to shoulder by comparison to a mob of 8 billion, would be beyond tiny.

Wow and think about all those problems and damage those people do to earth !!! Their efficiency is catastrophic !

reply to post by KBadger


and you are high in mount Olympus... How can someone in 2013 say that overpopulation is a myth with a strait face is beyond me, well we aren't yet into a Soy-lent Green situation be we are getting there...

In any case I would like the same dude that calculated the are to calculate the space required to support each individual...

Do you also think that people like to live in cities ? Had there be the near the same commodities in the boondocks (especially jobs and the same ease to get social uplift) most people would move out of cities.

The number of people on the planet isn't the problem it's our lifestyles that make it a problem. If we all grew our own food and didn't want material things (basically live as nature intended) the population could double in size and still be comfortable. Instead we allocate land to industry, entertainment and greed instead of using it for raising cattle or growing crops.

There is no turning back now until the population is wiped out by either a natural disaster or some kind of pandemic. There will most likely be survivors to begin the cycle over again. A strange species we are!

reply to post by AlchemistSwami


So who stands in the Grand Canyon and who stands in the swamps? When you use arbitrary numbers like this, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish? We have lots of land? It doesn't mean anything in context.



It's like saying, there's tons and tons of water, enough to drown everyone a billion times over. Why do people go thirsty? Oh that's right, 97% of water is salt water and would kill you if you tried to live off it...

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.

Yes

Well, until you realize that all those people need to eat something...how much grassland does a single cow need to graze on? before its steaks (do the math, its out there).

Not a lot, really, unless you happen to be one of those into 'free range' beef.

You know, it's a little more tough since it's been running around a lot so the muscles are stronger and the fat is leaner... not anything wrong with lean beef though.

Well if we in the West weren't so fat, brainwashed and greedy there'd be plenty for everyone. The fact that so many believe that overpopulation exists shows the brainwashing is indeed working.
You may now call me a socialist, commie or whatever, because capitalism and greed have worked so well for us haven't they?
As one commentator said, it's not the population, it's how we currently live.

reply to post by boncho


Im sorry I wasted your time.
I was not trying to accomplish anything.
The Grand Canyon isn't in Rhode Island.
Every drop of water on Earth would fit into 800 mile 3d ball.
As I said, sharing this thread because of what I was trying to visualize, not to solve or create a problem. Does that answer your complaint?

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.

The problem isn't the numbers of people in total, as is shown here, the overall numbers could fit, if spead out properly, into just one country (not using the OP's rhode island example, but the entire USA mainland)..there would probably be enough room to fit every person with a few acres each. (maybe someone could crunch the numbers on that, to see how much space there would be in the US, for everyone in the world)

The overpopulation 'problem' is an invented one. I say invented, but it's really a case of overpopulation by design, with profit as the motivation.

Cities and large towns.

This is where the overpopulation problems lay. Not in rural areas, but in ultra-urban areas.

Too many people, squeezed into small boxes they euphermistically call 'homes', all connected to overworked and overburdened sewer systems, electrical grids, water supplies and other utilities.

Yes, there is overppopulation in the cities...but not on the planet. When teleworking takes off, and reliable remote communications is put in place, people will no longer be required to be all in the same area to do their work, apart from large scale manufacturing, most people, especially in service sectors of business, can migrate back into the countrysides the burden will be lifted from cities.

As others are stating here, you're confusing overpopulation with overcrowding. You are correct in the fact that the world is not overcrowded, but that is not to say its not overpopulated.

To calculate the sustainable population you have to compare the resources required to maintain each of those people vs the resources available on the planet. Energy, food, water, building materials, even the air we breath.

If everyone in the world lived with the eco footprint that average American has, it would take 12 Earths worth of resources to provide that standard of living for everyone per year.

As an example, lets say that we live in a space station that has exactly enough air to sustain 10 people for exactly 6 months, and that is when we get re-supplied. Now lets say we pick up a surviver from another spacecraft who is stuck there with us until the supply ship arrives. While you can still cram all those people into a very small area of the station, and adding one more really doesn't make it any more cramped quarters for anyone, the station is still overpopulated because that one extra set of lungs will now deplete the oxygen supply in fewer than the required six months.

That's overpopulation...

reply to post by AlchemistSwami

I find that shocking, but was curious what a mob of 300 million Americans would look like say from space, and crunched the numbers.

Seems like many missed that tidbit lol. It doesn't seem OP did that exercise to try and disprove overpopulation like some people often do.