keithl@tekcad.UUCP (09/18/83)
"Overpopulation"; an interesting word.
Per inhabitant (assumed pop. 5E9), the Earth has
30,000 square meters of land
72,000 square meters of ocean
25,000,000 watts solar irradiance
70 tons of "alive" matter (including almost 1 billion insects!)
2,000 tons of biosphere
1,000,000 tons of atmosphere
300,000,000 tons of ocean
I figure the planet COULD support about 5 TRILLION people with the
"right" technology, covering the land to Manhattan density. Some people
appear to ENJOY living that densely! I suspect overpopulation is more a
psychological problem than a technical one.
What is it that makes people feel crowded? Competition for scarce
resources, perhaps, or pollution. Personally, I don't like the social
pollution (crime, intolerance, laws, taxes, war) that "crowded" people
generate.
I find the idea of space colonization very appealing. Freedom!
Elbowroom! Virtually unlimited growth! Sure, there will be problems,
but I've gotten bored trying to solve the present set, which are mostly
between the ears of others. I would rather cope with a meteor shower than
a politician with "good intentions".
The planet might be a better place with irritants like me off it, as
well. You wouldn't have to move a very large percentage off planet to
eliminate a lot of the perceived crowding. The people remaining wouldn't
have to accommodate as much "difference".
To those who wish to stay, go ahead! When the crazies leave, you may
find the people left behind more to your liking. People who want to solve
their problems by political means, for example, I'd rather have stay on
Earth anyway. Governments are for gravity wells!
Enough spouting. Flames can be addressed to:
--
Keith Lofstrom
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet: keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relayCSvax:Pucc-H:ab3@pur-ee.UUCP (09/20/83)
Quoting here: From: keithl@tekcad Subject: Does space relieve crowding? "Overpopulation"; an interesting word. Per inhabitant (assumed pop. 5E9), the Earth has 30,000 square meters of land 72,000 square meters of ocean 25,000,000 watts solar irradiance 70 tons of "alive" matter (including almost 1 billion insects!) 2,000 tons of biosphere 1,000,000 tons of atmosphere 300,000,000 tons of ocean I wonder about these statistics; not that I disupte their validity; but I think the interpretation needs to be qualified. If I enjoy 3e4 square meters of land which happends to be on top Mount Kilamanjaro, I probably won't enjoy it very much... I see your basic point, but I think that w/o assuming great strides in terraforming and energy technology we are going to be running out of land, energy, water, etc... by and by. Darth Wombat Doing my part to combat those 1 billion insects!
condict@csd1.UUCP (Michael Condict) (09/21/83)
Anyone who thinks that 30,000 square meters of land is a lot (or even sufficient) per person should consider the following facts: 1) That is a plot of land only 180 meters on a side -- barely enough for a house and a little bit of privacy (you city slickers probably think it's big enough to have a farm). Would you want to live in a world where all the houses are 180 yards apart? Of course, you say that the density will not be uniform, being concentrated in cities, but it is sobering to think that this is all the space available to satisfy the standard American dream of a house and a little elbow room. 2) Considering that maybe half of the land surface is desert, artic or swamp, we're really talking about, say, 15000 square meters per person -- roughly 120 meters square. Anyone who disputes the unsuitability of the other half for supporting a reasonable quality of life should go live there (a fitting punishment). Notice that I'm willing to allow that jungles are livable; at least they are teeming with life forms, if not humans. But I balk at the notion of sending people to the middle of the Sahara or Gobi deserts or to the Antartic without very sophisticated and expensive technology. 3) The figure must again be reduced, if these people are to live as Americans do, because we need at least half (and probably all) of the remaining space to mine, farm, graze, manufacture and waste dispose (including auto junkyards and garbage dumps). In fact it is widely agreed that it would be impossible, even in the short run, to support the entire world population at the level of consumption that takes place in the U.S. There is simply not enough energy, grazing land (for beef cattle), farm land, and residential living space. Thus anyone who thinks that there are not too many people in the world either believes that it is okay for the major cause of death in underdeveloped countries to be malnutrition, or they have a very naive view of the limits of current life support technology. It is extremely unfeeling, if not arrogant, to sit down in front of your electronic wonder in your energy-intensive office building with an automobile parked outside that cost more in dollars and in consumption of resources than a worker in some countries can hope to earn in a lifetime, and claim that everything is hunk-dory, let's have billions of more people (as long as they don't move in to share my apartment). In my opinion, the only reason this tired planet has a chance of survival is because one of the two impending causes of its demise -- nuclear holocaust -- is likely to provide a horrible cure for the other -- overpopulation (assuming it doesn't terminate all life). Michael Condict
wls@astrovax.UUCP (09/21/83)
I, for one don't believe that 70 tons of alive matter figure. A simple
astronomer's kind of order-of-magnitude calculation:
4 billion people (roughly)
x
1/20 th of a ton (100 lbs a bit small but right order of magnitude)
yields 200 million tons for the human "alive matter" alone.
William L. Sebok {allegra,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno}!astrovax!wlsokie@ihuxs.UUCP (09/23/83)
Anybody partaking in this discussion read Ben Bova's novel "Colony?" Might make a good counterpoint to all of this speculation. B.K. Cobb
davies@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/24/83)
#R:tekcad:-4400:uiuccsb:15700003:000:72 uiuccsb!davies Sep 23 14:36:00 1983 That was 70 tons of "alive matter" PER PERSON, not total for the Earth.
mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/26/83)
Anybody partaking in this discussion read Ben Bova's novel "Colony?"
Might make a good counterpoint to all of this speculation.
Right. Bova isn't just speculating, of course.
--
spoken: mark weiser
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs
ARPA: mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay