Not as bad a it seems. We are not as overpopulated as we think.. THE WOORLD' S POPULATION, ll the 6. 9 Lillian peepole lived In tune city. Haw large would that
Click to expand

Not as bad a it seems

Not as bad a it seems. We are not as overpopulated as we think.. THE WOORLD' S POPULATION, ll the 6. 9 Lillian peepole lived In tune city. Haw large would that

We are not as overpopulated as we think.

ll the 6. 9 Lillian peepole lived In tune city. Haw large
would that city he if it were as clense as...
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 25190
Favorited: 17
Submitted: 05/18/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to usarmyexplain submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - usarmyexplain (05/18/2014) [+] (62 replies)
stickied by usarmyexplain
I once tried to explain this to a Texan.
Me:The entire population of the world could all live in Texas.
Texas: No, they couldn't.
Me: Yes they could, everyone could fit with room to spare.
Texas: No. They can't.
Me: There was a study done about population density, everyone could live there with X amount of square meters of personal space for a living area.
Texas: They cant live there
Me: What don't you get about what I'm saying?
Texas: [look of anger crosses his face] We would never let it happen.
#51 - thelifelineband (05/19/2014) [+] (2 replies)
User avatar #4 - herecomesjohnny (05/18/2014) [+] (1 reply)
Houston makes up their low habitant per square mile numbers with the size of the inhabitant.

Hah, fat jokes.
User avatar #2 - askafj ONLINE (05/18/2014) [+] (6 replies)
Look at the size of china, now look at the size of America. There is room lol.

Besides, who ever said that the world is over populated?
User avatar #38 to #2 - olinerocks (05/19/2014) [-]
I don't think the world is overpopulated, but our intelligent to unintelligent ratio could use some work.
#67 - alexwinning (05/19/2014) [+] (3 replies)
To all the people saying that the Earth isn't overpopulated:
You are correct, but think about it the way I am for a second. Sure, there's enough food and water to allow around 14 billion people to survive, but I don't want to just survive. I want to thrive. As the number of people increases, the resources available to each person decreases, especially with luxuries. Plus, the reason we produce almost double the food we need is because much of it is wasted. Similar case with water; not all of it is used for drinking, and the more that needs to be purified is the more energy that needs to be used. And speaking of energy, think about how much more fuel we would need to burn to support the extra people in electricity; all the gas needed for twice the amount of cars. Add that to the carbon dioxide produced by all of these fossil fuels burning, as well as the forests that will inevitably be cleared for extra space (whether urban or agricultural), and you've got yourself a nice case of accelerated global climate change on your hands.
tl;dr: more people = less preferable (at this point), regardless of whether we're technically overpopulated or not.
#16 - anonymous (05/18/2014) [+] (9 replies)
The world is overpopulated. We can all physically fit on the planet, but that doesn't mean that we're not at a population level that the world can sustain.
User avatar #19 to #17 - usarmyexplain (05/18/2014) [-]
We currently produce enough food to feed around double the population we currently have, and many places are not currently maximizing their use of areas that are already irrigated and farmed.

Example, farmers in the US regularly burn fields or plow under their crops to drive up their prices.
User avatar #37 - monswine (05/19/2014) [+] (2 replies)
Yeah, okay, 7 billion hypothetical human beings can be packed pretty close together. Frankly there is a ton of empty space on planet earth not currently taken up by the needs of a human being but is that really what we want? Is the natural course of civilization to turn the world into Coruscant or Trantor?
User avatar #41 to #37 - syrenthra ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
We all know that if we become a space faring species, Earth will become Coruscant
#33 - anonymous (05/19/2014) [+] (1 reply)
another U.S. post and U.S. comments, feels like we live in there country..........
User avatar #36 to #33 - OsamaBinLadenz (05/19/2014) [-]
Considering your misspelling of what was supposed to be "their", I'm pretty glad you don't live here.
#108 - mayoroftownsville (05/19/2014) [+] (3 replies)
Just because you can physically fit people in areas that small, doesn't mean we could survive if you did. The New York Metro Area at its current size already suffers from serious logistical problems when it comes to importing goods, which is one of the reasons it's so expensive to live here. Texas already has trouble getting drinking water to everyone there, so if we decided to do this, it wouldn't even be a year before most of the population died off from terminal dehydration or disease.

Additionally, there are only 12 million square miles of arable land in the world. That's one for every 575 people. That's 1.25 acres per person, which is slightly below even the lowest estimates of how much farmland is needed to feed a single person a nutritious diet (1.5 is usually the number I see).

This content betrays a cringe-inducingly simple idea of how the world works. Yes, it is as bad as it seems, and it could get much worse very quickly. Of course, none of you are likely to feel the effects. Europe is no longer reproducing at the rate of replacement, so it is as dense as it will ever be. America only reproduces slightly above the rate of replacement, and has one of the highest abilities of any country in the world to feed and house more people. People in India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria, on the other hand, are in for mass starvation and homelessness over the next century.
#105 - Dember ONLINE (05/19/2014) [+] (1 reply)
And now imagine about 95% of them get infected and turn into zombies...
#98 - firesky ONLINE (05/19/2014) [+] (1 reply)
What about a density of Kowloon Walled City?
#96 - fristiprinses (05/19/2014) [-]
If you did this with Edmonton, it would take up 6.315.781 km squared, this map would not have been sufficient. That's enough math for today.

As I do not have a relevant picture, have this irrelephant.
#88 - veneficium ONLINE (05/19/2014) [+] (7 replies)
Best part is: Paris isn't even the city with highest population density. Manila's population density is double of Paris, around 22k per square km.
User avatar #87 - temporalguardian (05/19/2014) [+] (1 reply)
I dont understand any of this. Anyone care to explain? all i'm seeing is random names of cities over randomly colored in states.
User avatar #85 - marsupilami (05/19/2014) [-]
I'd be interested to see Tokyo. Crazy dense there.
User avatar #74 - flixoe (05/19/2014) [+] (3 replies)
According to my calculations, each person would have 31x31 square feet to work with?
User avatar #80 to #78 - flixoe (05/19/2014) [-]
I guess so. It's the same as (250,404 x 5,280^2)/7,000,000,000, which is about 996 square feet per person.
User avatar #58 - perform (05/19/2014) [-]
If we stood shoulder to shoulder and chest to back, we'd fit in Los Angeles.
#112 - bioderf has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #100 - nanako (05/19/2014) [+] (1 reply)
This does show, at least, the staggering immensity of the cosmos.

If space (and houses to live in) were the only requirement for life, we could capably fit a few hundred billion people on this planet.

unfortunately we need lots of other things like oxygen, food, water, and removal of pollution. Those thigns add a lot of overhead cost to start.

And then we get into "essentials" like gas and electricity (made from imported fuel, most often), smartphones and fancy gadgets (made with imported rare earth metals)

i wonder how many people the planet could really support, at the current western standard of living. most likely none at all since we're using up non renewable resources :<
#64 - xcoreyx (05/19/2014) [+] (4 replies)
How old is this? Pretty sure we passed 7 billion quite a while back
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)