Could We All Fit Inside Jacksonville?

[punkette]

Jacksonville was picked because its the largest city land wise. In my calculations I only incluced land not covered by water, hehe

[Stanley]

I believe you can fit about 56 billion people into Jacksonville if they were stuffed inside 3' x 3' phone booths.

[O Latin]

Okay, I'm not a scientist. The last science class I took was online Chemistry for Idiots. I don't know much about overpopulation other than 1) it has more to do with resources than actual numbers of people, and 2) it's more of a problem in certain areas of the world. (If I'm wrong about either of those things, someone please correct me.)

Anyway, obviously, the whole "the world population could fit in Jacksonville" thing is a load of hooey, but I have read that the entire world population could fit comfortably in a space about the size of Texas (I think, it was some big U.S. state). Now, I don't remember where I read this. For all I know it could have been a fundie website and that's a load of hooey, too. But what I'm wondering is, could the earth possibly sustain a much larger population (because it's going to keep growing) if people lived economically (i.e. no 5000 square foot home for a family of four) in densely populated areas, thus freeing up farmable land to grow food on (I know food isn't the only resource, but it's an important one)?

This makes sense to me, but like I said, I don't know any of the science behind overpopulation. Even if I'm dead wrong, I guess I'm a good example of how easily people can be won over by these theories.

[Wolfie]

Well, in order to keep the environment self sustaining, we need naturally planted areas (like forests and rainforests) that are dense. Otherwise the climate will change way too much to even think of continuing to live on this planet. Not all non-inhabited space can be used as farmland. (not to mention that not all land is suitable for food production anyway.)

[The Archivist]

I think, in order to find good information about this, you're going to have to research further afield than a message board - even a good one like FJ. I'm willing to bet there are good books and articles on this somewhere.

[FemaleScientist]

I heard the Texas explanation, too, that you could fit the entire population into Texas. But I haven't heard it in terms of people living comfortably (as in, having the resources, farmland, etc to sustain humans). It's possible I misheard/read this. Anyway...

All populations, humans and animals alike, have a carrying capacity for the area they are inhabiting. If you look at population graphs for populations out there, you'll see different types of lines indicating how their population is growing. There is a variable known as the carrying capacity which is an indicator for the peak of any population's number of individuals given the resources available, and if this threshold is reached, the population will start to inevitably decline in numbers because there isn't enough space, food, nesting grounds, etc for the population to sustain its numbers.

In my Ecology class last spring I learned that humans are beginning to reach their carrying capacity. We're not sure how soon that will be, but the carrying capacity is in reference to the whole Earth as opposed to just one area of Earth. We have an exponential growth curve and you'll normally see this curve starting to taper off before it hits the carrying capacity. Human population growth curves are starting to look like that.

Anyway, obviously, the whole "the world population could fit in Jacksonville" thing is a load of hooey, but I have read that the entire world population could fit comfortably in a space about the size of Texas (I think, it was some big U.S. state). Now, I don't remember where I read this. For all I know it could have been a fundie website and that's a load of hooey, too. But what I'm wondering is, could the earth possibly sustain a much larger population (because it's going to keep growing) if people lived economically (i.e. no 5000 square foot home for a family of four) in densely populated areas, thus freeing up farmable land to grow food on (I know food isn't the only resource, but it's an important one)?

Yes, you could theoretically place humans in closer proximity to one another and start popping up farms in appropriate areas. But think of what you're doing to the habitat and environment around you. We are not the only organisms on Earth. These issues are also prevalent in the rainforest where they are burning and chopping down trees and habitat to create homes and farms. Out of all the species out there, we are the ones most in charge of our future (we are constantly opposing natural selection) and the future of the other species and habitats on Earth. Yes, you could do this and it may help us a little before resources ultimately run out. You know, before we completely obliterate our food sources to accommodate more people.

[breaker]

One of the best (and most depressing) documentaries I've seen on this topic is the BBC's State of the Planet. Kinda of old now, but there's still some relevant stuff in it. It's more about the human impact on the natural world and biodiversity but there's also some stuff in there about declining natural resources and the human population, especially in terms of farming land and fresh water.

[QueenMother]

I have heard the Texas theory, but I don't think it was in terms of living comfortable. I think it was in terms of standing glued together and never moving.

[apple1]

I have heard the Texas theory, but I don't think it was in terms of living comfortable. I think it was in terms of standing glued together and never moving.

That.

This whole thing is a very complex issue, and understanding it requires thinking more deeply than the thickness of a sheet of paper (and I don't mean you, O Latin). I am talking about the idiots that made the original statement. It's called open mouth, insert foot.

[Deleted03]

And it's really not about having a 5,000 square feet house. It's about feeding everyone, clothing them, etc. Maybe if everyone became vegetarian (nah just a joke :P)

I guess we'll just look and see how the 20 kids are gonna fare, from an uneducated family that is not that poor. Looking at Josh and thinking it's not looking good! ;)