A
abcdefg
Guest
0.027 acres per person doesn’t count multi-storey buildings. if all buildings have 2 floors then each person can have 0.054 acres etc
- Status
P
PLAL
Guest
LEGEND
1 Acre = 43,560 Square Feet
1 Square Mile = 640 Acres or 27,878,400 Square Feet (640 x 43,560)
World Population = 6,276,000,000 people
State of Texas = 268,601 Square Miles or 171,904,640 Acres (268,601 x 640) or 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet (268,601 x 640 x 43,560)
Average Size 2-Story Home with 3-4 Bedrooms = 1,500 to 2,400 Square Feet (Thus 750 - 1,200 Square Feet is Needed on the Ground Floor).
This home would fit 5-6 people per house comfortably!
Therefore 150-240 (750 to 1,200/ 5 people per household) Square Feet of Ground Space Per Person is needed to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas.
State of Texas = 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet/ 6,276,000,000 people in the world = 1,193 Square Feet Per Person is available for the entire world’s population to live in the state of Texas.
As noted above only 150-240 Square Feet of Ground Space is needed per person to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas!!!
You can double check my math!
1 Acre = 43,560 Square Feet
1 Square Mile = 640 Acres or 27,878,400 Square Feet (640 x 43,560)
World Population = 6,276,000,000 people
State of Texas = 268,601 Square Miles or 171,904,640 Acres (268,601 x 640) or 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet (268,601 x 640 x 43,560)
Average Size 2-Story Home with 3-4 Bedrooms = 1,500 to 2,400 Square Feet (Thus 750 - 1,200 Square Feet is Needed on the Ground Floor).
This home would fit 5-6 people per house comfortably!
Therefore 150-240 (750 to 1,200/ 5 people per household) Square Feet of Ground Space Per Person is needed to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas.
State of Texas = 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet/ 6,276,000,000 people in the world = 1,193 Square Feet Per Person is available for the entire world’s population to live in the state of Texas.
As noted above only 150-240 Square Feet of Ground Space is needed per person to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas!!!
You can double check my math!
P
pnewton
Guest
Why Texas? Why this continued attempt to fit the whole world into Texas? At least wipe your feet before y’all come in. We just vacuumed.
Seriously, I notice the following statement in a post earlier today:
Seriously, I notice the following statement in a post earlier today:
Notice that it is the increase that is slowing, meaning that there is still an increase in crop yields. That is an amazing fact that after milleniea of agricultural science, we are still getting more bang for the acre. As far as major advances on the horizon, we are just starting to understand new applications for genetic science. Since this field must be approached cautiously, results may not come for a while. But the possible applications to agriculture may prove to be the biggest boon ever.
S
spiritblows
Guest
Dear Newton,
Our increases in production are entirely dependant on:
A) Water resources, which are limited
B) Fossil fuels for fertilizer, which are running out
C) Land, which is being swallowed up by development
D) Topsoil, which is decreasing as we speak.
P
pnewton
Guest
Where did this list come from and what is its authority?
I question some of the points because I know them false on some level. Water is one of the most abundant resources on the planet. Strictly speaking, topsoil is not needed. Plants are also grown hydroponically. Land, as the initial post pointed out, is plentiful. Obviously I have no reason to trust B if the others don’t hold water.
S
spiritblows
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
pnewton
Guest
This doesn’t really address anything. If your list was, in fact, made up off the top of your head, I was right to question it’s validity.
S
spiritblows
Guest
Dear Newton,
Nice try, but your answer is entirely unresearched…
“Water Wars” in the Middle East
You need to get out of raindrenched Texas, and see the world, my man…
T
thistle
Guest
Actually fresh water is in short supply. This is from a government study: "Water appears to occur in such abundance that it seems we have an unlimited supply available for human use. However, the amount of available fresh water is comparatively tiny at only 1% of the world’s water."
Full study can be found at website:
www.epa.gov/ORD/WEBPubs/fresh/fresh.pdf
S
spiritblows
Guest
Eating Fossil Fuels
*"In the 1950s and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic transformation commonly referred to as the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution resulted in the industrialization of agriculture. Part of the advance resulted from new hybrid food plants, leading to more productive food crops. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%.4 That is a tremendous increase in the amount of food energy available for human consumption. This additional energy did not come from an increase in incipient sunlight, nor did it result from introducing agriculture to new vistas of land. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.
The Green Revolution increased the energy flow to agriculture by an average of 50 times the energy (name removed by moderator)ut of traditional agriculture.5 In the most extreme cases, energy consumption by agriculture has increased 100 fold or more.6
In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:*
Read the article, Newton. We are facing the collapse of our civilisation in this century, my friend. This is a reality. Read Revelation. Christ will return, keep the faith…
*"In the 1950s and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic transformation commonly referred to as the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution resulted in the industrialization of agriculture. Part of the advance resulted from new hybrid food plants, leading to more productive food crops. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%.4 That is a tremendous increase in the amount of food energy available for human consumption. This additional energy did not come from an increase in incipient sunlight, nor did it result from introducing agriculture to new vistas of land. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.
The Green Revolution increased the energy flow to agriculture by an average of 50 times the energy (name removed by moderator)ut of traditional agriculture.5 In the most extreme cases, energy consumption by agriculture has increased 100 fold or more.6
In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:*
Read the article, Newton. We are facing the collapse of our civilisation in this century, my friend. This is a reality. Read Revelation. Christ will return, keep the faith…
P
pnewton
Guest
Thanks for the link. I understand that fresh water in liquid form is in short supply in some parts of the world, though. My initial post tonight was about being open to possibilities that the future can hold. There is more water than needed locked in the ice caps and Saudi Arabia is doing cutting edge technology in de-salinization.
It may take a while for economics to drive this research, but the water is available.
P
pnewton
Guest
I’ll pass. I just spent fifteen minutes going over that website and it’s rather extreme slant. The put the “wack” in leftist wacko. When an agenda is presented so blatantly, credibility is lost even when legitimate points are made. Your other link (
“Water Wars” in the Middle East) is a good one and brings up some good issues. From the article:
S
spiritblows
Guest
Ah, you deny, Newton, that modern agriculture is utterly dependent on fossil fuels for every aspect of it’s production on a modern farm, from running the combine to manufacturing the fertilizer? I must say, you do discredit your brilliant namesake…
Dear Newton, this country is particularly vulnerable, you do realize? Of course you do. In particular, the United States relies on high tech, technologies. Of course we’ve done away with inconvenient genetic diversity, except for a few quaint seed banks run by those wild-eyed leftists. Hah!, what do they know, they’re just a bunch of hippies, right?
There’s no scientific evidence to support the concept of genetic diversity, you know best. Better to put the stewardship of our futures in the hands of Monsanto, I say!
P
pnewton
Guest
A clarification. I do not deny that modern agriculture is dependant on fossil fuels. I am sceptical. I know that not all fertilizer is fossil fuel based, but I am open to the possibility fossil fuels are critical. But I would need to read someone knowledgeable without a point to prove or a paycheck to make.
If you think I do not trust environmentalist bloggers, you have no concept of the depth of scepticism for oil companies.
I would think you were being offensive with the ostrich and a few coments, but I realize when someone is yanking my chain. I may be slow, but I catch on eventually.
Peace.
S
spiritblows
Guest
My point, pnewton, is that eventually the human population on this planet will reach a critical mass and society as we know it will collapse. This is a politically neutral statement on my part. I am not a leftist, and I have a large family, am pro-life and never practised birth control (except for a few exceptions) I don’t have an agenda in my statement at all. I also don’t think liberal policies of abortion, birth control, etc, will do anything to prevent this occurance.
I’m just a realist. I also think that this utter collapse will be of Biblical proportions and will probably herald the return of our Lord.
I’m just a realist. I also think that this utter collapse will be of Biblical proportions and will probably herald the return of our Lord.
T
thistle
Guest
This is an extract from the nature.com website but I’m having trouble accessing it. Maybe others will have more success.
Interesting article as not everyone sees our imminent doom!
World Population set to decline
The past century’s world population surge has led many to wonder how the globe will sustain the ever-growing horde of humanity. A new study suggests that it may not have to: the world’s population may peak as soon as 2070, then start to decline.
There is an 85% chance that the population will stop growing before 2100, the model says. Unlike most, it does not produce just one prediction, but a range of possible futures, each with a certain probability of occurring.
The main message is that the population could rise from its present level of 6 billion to about 9 billion in 2070, then sink to 8.4 billion in 2100. This is one billion fewer than a United Nations estimate.
Such a prospect should cheer those worrying about food supplies and the human impact on the environment, says Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, who led the study. His model does, however, raise the spectre of an increasingly elderly society.
The United Nations estimate assumes that fertility rates will eventually stabilize at the replacement level of two children per mother. But most countries with declining populations have dipped well below that level, Lutz says. “We assume that as a society modernizes, the fertility rate goes down to between 1.5 and 2 children per woman.”
The model predicts a huge geographic redistribution of the population. Europe’s share is expected to dwindle from its present 10% to 6% by 2100; Africa’s will soar from 13% to 22%.
“The world is becoming less European, less white, less North American,” agrees John Bongaarts, of the Population Council, a charitable research organization in New York. “The voice of the southern countries will grow, because they will represent more and more of humanity.”
The model depicts a greying population, as fewer babies are born and life-expectancy increases. By 2100, the proportion of people over the age of 60 will have leapt from today’s 10% to 34%, the model predicts.
Caring for this elderly population will be a challenge, says Nico Keilman, a demographer at the University of Oslo. “China is already facing an enormous pension problem,” he says.
But many societies may have what Lutz describes as a “window of opportunity” before this ageing occurs, when both the elderly and child populations will be relatively small. During this time, countries could experience an economic boom, with many women in the workforce and few children to support.
“Some say the miracle of the Asian tiger economies of South Korea, Singapore and Thailand is being caused by this window of opportunity,” Lutz says. Europe is already well past this period, he adds.
It can be risky to make too many bets about what will happen 100 years from now, Bongaarts warns. “The theory that the population will reach a peak by 2100 is quite plausible, but the future is very uncertain,” he says.
Lutz’s model tries to deal with this uncertainty by considering two thousand different simulations of future fertility and mortality rates, and looking at the distribution of results.
This kind of forecast could be invaluable to policy-makers, Keilman says, providing them with possible futures and the probability of each.
Interesting article as not everyone sees our imminent doom!
World Population set to decline
The past century’s world population surge has led many to wonder how the globe will sustain the ever-growing horde of humanity. A new study suggests that it may not have to: the world’s population may peak as soon as 2070, then start to decline.
There is an 85% chance that the population will stop growing before 2100, the model says. Unlike most, it does not produce just one prediction, but a range of possible futures, each with a certain probability of occurring.
The main message is that the population could rise from its present level of 6 billion to about 9 billion in 2070, then sink to 8.4 billion in 2100. This is one billion fewer than a United Nations estimate.
Such a prospect should cheer those worrying about food supplies and the human impact on the environment, says Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, who led the study. His model does, however, raise the spectre of an increasingly elderly society.
The United Nations estimate assumes that fertility rates will eventually stabilize at the replacement level of two children per mother. But most countries with declining populations have dipped well below that level, Lutz says. “We assume that as a society modernizes, the fertility rate goes down to between 1.5 and 2 children per woman.”
The model predicts a huge geographic redistribution of the population. Europe’s share is expected to dwindle from its present 10% to 6% by 2100; Africa’s will soar from 13% to 22%.
“The world is becoming less European, less white, less North American,” agrees John Bongaarts, of the Population Council, a charitable research organization in New York. “The voice of the southern countries will grow, because they will represent more and more of humanity.”
The model depicts a greying population, as fewer babies are born and life-expectancy increases. By 2100, the proportion of people over the age of 60 will have leapt from today’s 10% to 34%, the model predicts.
Caring for this elderly population will be a challenge, says Nico Keilman, a demographer at the University of Oslo. “China is already facing an enormous pension problem,” he says.
But many societies may have what Lutz describes as a “window of opportunity” before this ageing occurs, when both the elderly and child populations will be relatively small. During this time, countries could experience an economic boom, with many women in the workforce and few children to support.
“Some say the miracle of the Asian tiger economies of South Korea, Singapore and Thailand is being caused by this window of opportunity,” Lutz says. Europe is already well past this period, he adds.
It can be risky to make too many bets about what will happen 100 years from now, Bongaarts warns. “The theory that the population will reach a peak by 2100 is quite plausible, but the future is very uncertain,” he says.
Lutz’s model tries to deal with this uncertainty by considering two thousand different simulations of future fertility and mortality rates, and looking at the distribution of results.
This kind of forecast could be invaluable to policy-makers, Keilman says, providing them with possible futures and the probability of each.
S
spiritblows
Guest
Dear Thistle,
I think that’s hogwash myself. Yes, people from the colder countries are successfully using birth control and the Islamic world, and black Africa is demographically growing. But subsahara Africa is sucumbing to diseases such as AIDS, and the Middle East will run out of oil, and is a timebomb, and is increasing going to be clashing with the West. Look at what happened in France. That’s probably just a taste of what’s to come.
What’s going to happen when there’s no more oil for fertilizer and fuel? That’s my point. We’re headed for utter disaster. I’m certainly not trying to yank anyone’s chain by pointing out that to ignore this fact is to stick one’s head in the sand.
When the population shrinks, it’s not going to be from everyone in the third world suddenly discovering the wonders of small families, it’ll be from war, famine and disease.
I think that’s hogwash myself. Yes, people from the colder countries are successfully using birth control and the Islamic world, and black Africa is demographically growing. But subsahara Africa is sucumbing to diseases such as AIDS, and the Middle East will run out of oil, and is a timebomb, and is increasing going to be clashing with the West. Look at what happened in France. That’s probably just a taste of what’s to come.
What’s going to happen when there’s no more oil for fertilizer and fuel? That’s my point. We’re headed for utter disaster. I’m certainly not trying to yank anyone’s chain by pointing out that to ignore this fact is to stick one’s head in the sand.
When the population shrinks, it’s not going to be from everyone in the third world suddenly discovering the wonders of small families, it’ll be from war, famine and disease.
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
**I would think people would **
A.) do what was done for centuries before those fuels became so plentiful. There was life before what we now know. Fertilizer is made from poo and other degraded materials. It isn’t neccessary to use fossil fuels and several countries are already moving away from fuel use, such as Brazil (using corn based materials).
or
B. do what people do best under harsh conditions - innovate! There’s wind energy which is growing by leaps and bounds. The new goals for water is not desalination (although that is continuing), but cleaner uses for steam so water can be reused rather than changed/broken down beyond use. Inventing new and better ways as yet unknown.
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
That would be: People…who allow God to work through them.
By the Grace of God:
People developed new sources of energy
People developed innovative ways to farm WITHOUT fossil fuels
People developed, and are developing - potable water resources
People developed technology to use what resources we have for every conceivable situation/crisis we have or could run into…EXCEPT sinful human nature - that is Gods domain.
What is needed is not world population density control - that too is Gods domain. What is needed is general control of the poulation by dying to self, yeilding to God, and living the consecrated life.
Gods Planet - not ours
‘Seek first the Kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you’
The world will never be able to say to God: “We can now live without you, see ya” yet that is what the world is trying to do, IMO. We’ve booted God out of everything but the Catholic Church in an effort to be ‘self-sustaining’ and all that has happened, really, is societal implosion.
Gods world, not ours.
Peace
John
W
WorBlux
Guest
Rob’s Wife said:
Modern Agriculture is dependent completly on foosil fuels.
It takes foosils fuels to…
Run the plow acorss the feild
Run the planter across the feild
Tranport the seed to the feild
Apply the ferliter
Pump irrigation water from the ground
Harvest and dry the grain
Tranport the grain to a processing facility
As for Ethanol and biodeisel? it would take a loarge majority of the arable land in the world to replace current fule use, and fuel use continues to grow.
Wind power? It would take a windfarm the size of south dakota, and tha might not even be enough.
Nuclear Power? Feasible, but there are safety and public opinion issues not to mention proliferation issues?
Hydroelecric? Some countries use 75% too 100% hydroelctric power but not all counties have the rivers of neccessary size and there are issues with sedimentation, dam failure and ecosystem balances.
Hydrogen? Nice try, but current prices are at $400 per killowatt of energy, And plus hydrogen needs split off of other elements, a process that take more energy than it produces.
Tidal energy reserves/ dams. Expensive and ultimatly not enough.
OTEC? untested and unproven?
Geotherma.? Great if you live on top of a hot spot on earth like the great rift valley or around yellowstone, otherwise it cost a pretty penny.
- Status