Do you think the world is overpopulated?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
What about things like roads and buildings other than houses? What about food? Fields and factories ect. It would take up 10 times that space.[QUOTE="adamosmaki"]
I believe not. The problem is the way we handle our planet resources
Link ( overpopulation is a myth )
No way everyone could fit in Texas . . .
According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be6,908,688,000.The landmass of Texas is268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).
So, divide7,494,271,488,000 sq ftby6,908,688,000 people, and you get1084.76 sq ft/person.That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.
Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.
Such an arrangement would leavethe entire rest of the worldvacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.
brandontwb
Australia is 7,686,850 sq km and the world has 6,790,062,216 people. This would allow for 884 people per square kmh, which is smaller than most over 1million people cities like toronto or Lyon or Athens so if texas is small then Austalia would allow all the world population be fitted there have each person his/her garden, roads public building and still australia wouldnt fill ( some cities have 7-8000 people population per square mile if not more )
I believe not. The problem is the way we handle our planet resourceswow, thats a really cool and interesting fact :o thanks doodLink ( overpopulation is a myth )
No way everyone could fit in Texas . . .
According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be6,908,688,000.The landmass of Texas is268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).
So, divide7,494,271,488,000 sq ftby6,908,688,000 people, and you get1084.76 sq ft/person.That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.
Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.
Such an arrangement would leavethe entire rest of the worldvacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.adamosmaki
I always have to facepalm when I read this forum.
a large percentage of this earth lives below the poverty line without even basic things like education/health care and we have people coming in here saying there's no overpopulation just because there's alot of free land.
it's about resources and sustainability.
Deano
Hey i agree with you i said that the problem is the way we handle our planets resources. There is enough land and also there is enough food
Food is a lot like money: just because some people have none doesn't mean that there isn't enough of it--it's just spread unevenly.
Back to top
What do you mean when you say we are producing more food on less land?Exactly that. Thanks to continuing increases in crop yields, the world's farmers are harvesting hundreds of millions of tonsmore graineach year on tens of millions acresless landthan they did in the 1970s and '80s. For instance, according to USDA figures, the world was producing 1.9 million metric tons of grain from 579.1 hectares of land (a hectare is 2.47 acres) in 1976. In 2004, we got 3.1 million metric tons of grain from only 517.9 hectares of land. This is quite a jump.
This is not to say that we won't possibly need to dedicate more land to farming in the future. The point is, a rise in population is not always matched by a rise in the amount of land required to feed that population.
Log in to comment