Hi Dominic,
I understand that it's possible for the whole world to huddle in Texas, putting everyone on the space of an average house. Mathematically it works.
However, we are talking about human beings and not just numbers. People need to eat and drink. Think of the logistical nightmare of the State governor having to supply water to nearly 8 billion thirsty people! Also the biological waste products.... what a smell.
So let's look at this reasonably. We need to be spread around as we need to be able to explore natural resources. Your article mentions about two thirds of the planet being composed with water, but doesn't say, for example, how much fresh water is readily available. Towns and cities have grown in ribbon development along the coastline, along river margins, near to irrigational land, they spread out from centers of energy sources like hydro electric dams, and commercial centers etc. So we can't always class liveable land as just the State of Texas, as nice as the State is I'm sure.
You mentioned Australia as a reference, but really Australia is built around the coast and almost 8 tenths are dessert. Are you in your calculations assuming that the whole of Australia is liveable?
Imagine if the world had nearly 80 billion inhabitants all huddled together in Brazil. It could well be done mathematically, just as I could squeeze three mice into a matchbox if I put them through a blender (don't ask me how I know), but the practicality of the result of the mathematical equation would be nul.
I certainly do agree with you about energy and the possibility of alternative energy and its' use, but that's another topic.
Best regards,
Steve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
|