Discussion
There was a program on BBC2 a while ago that said something like if we all lived like aboriginal Australians then 30-40Bn, and if we all lived like North Americans 2Bn.
Although these things never take into account the fact that by the time we reach 30-40 Bn people we would hope that technology has progressed sufficiently to sustain that number of people comfortably.
Although these things never take into account the fact that by the time we reach 30-40 Bn people we would hope that technology has progressed sufficiently to sustain that number of people comfortably.
blinkythefish said:
There was a program on BBC2 a while ago that said something like if we all lived like aboriginal Australians then 30-40Bn, and if we all lived like North Americans 2Bn.
Although these things never take into account the fact that by the time we reach 30-40 Bn people we would hope that technology has progressed sufficiently to sustain that number of people comfortably.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAReFb-UkYYAlthough these things never take into account the fact that by the time we reach 30-40 Bn people we would hope that technology has progressed sufficiently to sustain that number of people comfortably.
blinkythefish said:
There was a program on BBC2 a while ago that said something like if we all lived like aboriginal Australians then 30-40Bn, and if we all lived like North Americans 2Bn.
Although these things never take into account the fact that by the time we reach 30-40 Bn people we would hope that technology has progressed sufficiently to sustain that number of people comfortably.
And it's bAlthough these things never take into account the fact that by the time we reach 30-40 Bn people we would hope that technology has progressed sufficiently to sustain that number of people comfortably.
ks.The amount of land you need to support a single hunter-gatherer is vast. If you farm the same area you can support many times the number of people. If you farm it intensively with mechanisation you can support even more - and only need a few workers to do it.
Eventually, and if you had to, you could build vast tower blocks in the heart of the city and farm inside them hydroponically increasing food production per acre yet again.
I'm not saying we shouldn't keep the population down a bit. Just that argument that North Americans require a vast acreage each is flawed - just you say.
What would happen if you built a massive big shell around the earth, with farms and stuff inside, and cows and pigs and such, and humans living on the top/surface.
Basically it would be the same as a single building, like a skyscraper, only millions or billions of skyscrapers all joined up together to form a sort of "shell" around the earth.
Then the earth would be made bigger, so there would be more room.
Cows could live underground, but you could install lighting so they can see where they are going.
I suppose certain sorts of workers would need to stay underground too. Like farmers who would become like modernday "umpalumpas".
I'm not sure what would happen to the atmosphere though. Would it "move up", so it sits on top of the "earth shell"?
Would it be windier than usual? Gustiness could be harnessed to power windfarms/windmills providing electricty to the undergroundcows.
We could also keep dirty dogs underneath the underground area too, keep the place nice and clean.
It would be like a new begining, and plants would grow in pots.
Basically it would be the same as a single building, like a skyscraper, only millions or billions of skyscrapers all joined up together to form a sort of "shell" around the earth.
Then the earth would be made bigger, so there would be more room.
Cows could live underground, but you could install lighting so they can see where they are going.
I suppose certain sorts of workers would need to stay underground too. Like farmers who would become like modernday "umpalumpas".
I'm not sure what would happen to the atmosphere though. Would it "move up", so it sits on top of the "earth shell"?
Would it be windier than usual? Gustiness could be harnessed to power windfarms/windmills providing electricty to the undergroundcows.
We could also keep dirty dogs underneath the underground area too, keep the place nice and clean.
It would be like a new begining, and plants would grow in pots.
ProfessorPeach said:
What would happen if you built a massive big shell around the earth, with farms and stuff inside, and cows and pigs and such, and humans living on the top/surface.
Basically it would be the same as a single building, like a skyscraper, only millions or billions of skyscrapers all joined up together to form a sort of "shell" around the earth.
Then the earth would be made bigger, so there would be more room.
Cows could live underground, but you could install lighting so they can see where they are going.
I suppose certain sorts of workers would need to stay underground too. Like farmers who would become like modernday "umpalumpas".
I'm not sure what would happen to the atmosphere though. Would it "move up", so it sits on top of the "earth shell"?
Would it be windier than usual? Gustiness could be harnessed to power windfarms/windmills providing electricty to the undergroundcows.
We could also keep dirty dogs underneath the underground area too, keep the place nice and clean.
It would be like a new begining, and plants would grow in pots.
That is just fantastic, although you had me at 'What would happen'. Please draw a picture of what you just described, I suspect they only let you have one crayon.Basically it would be the same as a single building, like a skyscraper, only millions or billions of skyscrapers all joined up together to form a sort of "shell" around the earth.
Then the earth would be made bigger, so there would be more room.
Cows could live underground, but you could install lighting so they can see where they are going.
I suppose certain sorts of workers would need to stay underground too. Like farmers who would become like modernday "umpalumpas".
I'm not sure what would happen to the atmosphere though. Would it "move up", so it sits on top of the "earth shell"?
Would it be windier than usual? Gustiness could be harnessed to power windfarms/windmills providing electricty to the undergroundcows.
We could also keep dirty dogs underneath the underground area too, keep the place nice and clean.
It would be like a new begining, and plants would grow in pots.
I've heard mention that modern farming methods could support up to 9Bn people globally but modern farming methods are hugely reliant upon carbon-based fuels which won't last more than 50 years.
If we can resolve the power issue, it looks good that the earth could support about 50% more people than are currently on the planet, but the problem is that there is currently no poliltical will to even talk about population maximums, and the conversation about power-for-the-future is still in its infancy (in political circles).
9Bn will be achieved in the next 30 years (at current growth rates) and yet to arrest that growth requires action now.
If we can resolve the power issue, it looks good that the earth could support about 50% more people than are currently on the planet, but the problem is that there is currently no poliltical will to even talk about population maximums, and the conversation about power-for-the-future is still in its infancy (in political circles).
9Bn will be achieved in the next 30 years (at current growth rates) and yet to arrest that growth requires action now.
ProfessorPeach said:
sneijder said:
That is just fantastic, although you had me at 'What would happen'. Please draw a picture of what you just described, I suspect they only let you have one crayon.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff