Poll: You think the world is overpopulated
Yes. Too much of us... Just too much
Yes but not much
Meh/Not sure
No. But we are near of it
We aren't overpopulated at all (I hate you for choosing this)
[Show Results]
 
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overpopulation
#21
There is more space than you might think: The entire population of Earth could fit onto the 2 main islands of New Zealand and still be less densely populated than New York City in the United States.

I do agree that land is very expensive nowadays. Not nearly as bad price-wise in Switzerland, but there are strict regulations on development on the property in the Swiss Confederacy.
[Image: 598px-Esseseal.png]
Henry Clémens
Count of Siñbaša, Marquis of New Keutschen, former Lord of the Commonwealth
OAO SEO SAV GKIS KOP KSR CUR OIF KOC MOT KOS CSB CRL COG
Former Lord of the Essian Commonwealth, former Chair of the Grand Unified Micronational, Founder and former President of the Federated States of America

Reply
#22
(4 Jun 2015, 12:23:48)Premier Wrote: There is more space than you might think: The entire population of Earth could fit onto the 2 main islands of New Zealand and still be less densely populated than New York City in the United States.

I do agree that land is very expensive nowadays. Not nearly as bad price-wise in Switzerland, but there are strict regulations on development on the property in the Swiss Confederacy.

It's not necessarily the space required to house people, but also the land to grow food and source water and other resources.
_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*Peace, Unity, Prosperity*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_
.......... * * * * * * * * * *-----------------------* * * * * * * * * * * *..........
Reply
#23
(5 Jun 2015, 06:56:30)Covanese Republic Wrote: It's not necessarily the space required to house people, but also the land to grow food and source water and other resources.

Vertical farming.

You build a 200 acre x 30 story farm, you have 6,000 acres of totally environment-controlled farmland. I have a source that claims to be able to grow enough food for 130 people per acre; 6,000 acres x 130 people = 780,000 people per farm taking up just 200 acres, assuming you were talking about just one "shelf" of food being grown. If you went with a traditional farm, let's say the same 200 acres, you'd only be looking at 26,000 people, or 30x fewer people.

Remember; think outside the box.

As for water, well the Canadian arctic archipelago has 7% renewable freshwater (20% of all the freshwater is found in Canada, but only 7% is considered renewable), so there is that. Resources for construction, I would not be surprised if we began building structures using some kind of stronger foam concrete (I know this already exists, but I am talking about a version that is even stronger, cheaper, and dries even quicker) to be used in giant 3D printers
The Government of the Kingdom of Madrona in exile

o Nationalist o Activist o Monarchist o Royalist o Separatist o Humanist o Philanthropist o Realist o Research Scientist o Imperialist o Patriot o Progressive o
Reply
#24
I'm aware of vertical farms, but I'm not sure if what Premier was saying was the area required solely for housing or if that included other things. If 200 acres could feed 780,000 people using vertical farms, and the world's population is ~7 billion, we would need 1,794,872 acres to feed the world's population, which is not actually that much land (about 1/10 of a percent of Australia's area), but you would be hard-pressed cramming that alongside 7 billion people, manufacturing facilities, retail facilities and other infrastructure into an area the size of NZ.

Although I suppose your point is that theoretically the world could support many more people than we currently do on much less land than we currently use.
_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*Peace, Unity, Prosperity*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_
.......... * * * * * * * * * *-----------------------* * * * * * * * * * * *..........
Reply
#25
The ancient Aztecs, I think it was, managed to build floating gardens. Something the Empire of Atlantis might look into, eh? :p
 
Reply
#26
This thread is so sad... Ever so often, a self-proclaimed smart*ss brings up this topic, trying to sound intelligent and progressive. Of course there is nothing new about it, it's been something that is going around for hundreds of years and thusfar, we're still alive. People like the topic starter don't seem to understand that population growth is a natural process, and sooner or later we'll see decline in the world's population figure anyway.
Reply
#27
(6 Jun 2015, 19:09:21)Jack Wrote: This thread is so sad... Ever so often, a self-proclaimed smartass brings up this topic, trying to sound intelligent and progressive. Of course there is nothing new about it, it's been something that is going around for hundreds of years and thusfar, we're still alive. People like the topic starter don't seem to understand that population growth is a natural process, and sooner or later we'll see decline in the world's population figure anyway.

I don't think that kind of language is neccessary. This is a perfectly reasonable debate.
Reply
#28
Thank you for voicing your opinion, I'm sure that others may find it interesting.
Reply
#29
(6 Jun 2015, 21:24:36)Jack Wrote: Thank you for voicing your opinion, I'm sure that others may find it interesting.

I'm sorry, but I find that quite unpleasant. There's absolutely no need for that kind of attitude, and continuing like this will make you extremely unpopular.
Reply
#30
The idea of overpopulation is fabricated by those in charge of production. If they cannot produce enough houses and food for citizens, they blame it.
His Imperial Majesty, Lacomus I, Emperor of Panamerica,  King of Higgsbury, Baron of Sealand.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)