• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your Math Problem for the Day (Population Growth)

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Considering the way the population growth of the earth is falling, if current trends continue the population growth will reach zero when the population is 10 billion.

If those 10 billion were all put in family houses, 4 to a house, each house on a half acre of land which includes a share of the roadway, how much land is needed to house them all?

The answer:

1e10 people / 8 people per acre = 1.25e9 acres
1.25e9 acres / 640 acres per sq. mi. = 1.953125e6 sq. mi., or about the size of the country of India.

If instead those people are housed in 20 story apartment buildings each of which is half the size of a city block with roadways and has 20 apartments per floor, how much land then? Assume a city block that's 2.5 acres.

20 apartments * 20 floors * 4 people per apartment = 1600 people per building and 3200 per block.
1e10 / 3200 = 3.125e6 blocks or 7812500 acres or ~12,200 sq. mi.
A bit less than the size of Estonia.
Each apartment is about 2000 sq. ft.
The area is about 111 miles square.
 
LowDown said:
Considering the way the population growth of the earth is falling, if current trends continue the population growth will reach zero when the population is 10 billion.

If those 10 billion were all put in family houses, 4 to a house, each house on a half acre of land which includes a share of the roadway, how much land is needed to house them all?

The answer:

1e10 people / 8 people per acre = 1.25e9 acres
1.25e9 acres / 640 acres per sq. mi. = 1.953125e6 sq. mi., or about the size of the country of India.

If instead those people are housed in 20 story apartment buildings each of which is half the size of a city block with roadways and has 20 apartments per floor, how much land then? Assume a city block that's 2.5 acres.

20 apartments * 20 floors * 4 people per apartment = 1600 people per building and 3200 per block.
1e10 / 3200 = 3.125e6 blocks or 7812500 acres or ~12,200 sq. mi.
A bit less than the size of Estonia.
Each apartment is about 2000 sq. ft.
The area is about 111 miles square.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't know the growth rate was decreasing. interesting stuff you've posted here, although I am admittedly far too lazy to check the math :)
 
Alex I'll take useless math for $1000.
 
LowDown said:
Considering the way the population growth of the earth is falling, if current trends continue the population growth will reach zero when the population is 10 billion.

If those 10 billion were all put in family houses, 4 to a house, each house on a half acre of land which includes a share of the roadway, how much land is needed to house them all?

The answer:

1e10 people / 8 people per acre = 1.25e9 acres
1.25e9 acres / 640 acres per sq. mi. = 1.953125e6 sq. mi., or about the size of the country of India.

If instead those people are housed in 20 story apartment buildings each of which is half the size of a city block with roadways and has 20 apartments per floor, how much land then? Assume a city block that's 2.5 acres.

20 apartments * 20 floors * 4 people per apartment = 1600 people per building and 3200 per block.
1e10 / 3200 = 3.125e6 blocks or 7812500 acres or ~12,200 sq. mi.
A bit less than the size of Estonia.
Each apartment is about 2000 sq. ft.
The area is about 111 miles square.
Click to expand...

I haven't read anybody else's responses before replying but I am going to guess that the state of Texas or maybe Texas and New Mexico combined could probably handle that.
 
LowDown said:
Considering the way the population growth of the earth is falling, if current trends continue the population growth will reach zero when the population is 10 billion.

If those 10 billion were all put in family houses, 4 to a house, each house on a half acre of land which includes a share of the roadway, how much land is needed to house them all?

The answer:

1e10 people / 8 people per acre = 1.25e9 acres
1.25e9 acres / 640 acres per sq. mi. = 1.953125e6 sq. mi., or about the size of the country of India.

If instead those people are housed in 20 story apartment buildings each of which is half the size of a city block with roadways and has 20 apartments per floor, how much land then? Assume a city block that's 2.5 acres.

20 apartments * 20 floors * 4 people per apartment = 1600 people per building and 3200 per block.
1e10 / 3200 = 3.125e6 blocks or 7812500 acres or ~12,200 sq. mi.
A bit less than the size of Estonia.
Each apartment is about 2000 sq. ft.
The area is about 111 miles square.
Click to expand...

Care to show a link that shows population growth is falling?
 
Okay, but what about supplies?

What then?

How do you feed and clothe and bathroom all those people?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I haven't read anybody else's responses before replying but I am going to guess that the state of Texas or maybe Texas and New Mexico combined could probably handle that.
Click to expand...

With a combination of suburban houses and urban high rise, yes. Texas alone would be enough if 13% of the land was urban and the balance suburban.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Okay, but what about supplies?

What then?

How do you feed and clothe and bathroom all those people?
Click to expand...

With a capitalist market system plus a smattering of government.
 
bg85 said:
I actually didn't know the growth rate was decreasing....
Click to expand...

Note that the growth rate decreasing is not the same as the population level decreasing. Population levels are continuing to increase.
 
LowDown said:
With a combination of suburban houses and urban high rise, yes. Texas alone would be enough if 13% of the land was urban and the balance suburban.
Click to expand...

The reason I would add some extra territory is the folks need room to conduct business and some open space for quality of life. But it really would require a very small percentage of the planet to accomplish that.
 
LowDown said:
With a capitalist market system plus a smattering of government.
Click to expand...

N o thank you to either.

The only purpose of any government is to take away freedom and individualism, no matter what the system.

And the only purpose of capitalism, is to take away your money to fat greedy mother floggers who are making income that is hundreds of times greater than the ordinary American.

Don't mistake this to mean I am in support of Communism or Socialism either. There's jsut a lot fo crap that happens in both of those, and I'm beyond frustrated and angry with both of them.
 
Ancient Herald said:
N o thank you to either.

The only purpose of any government is to take away freedom and individualism, no matter what the system.

And the only purpose of capitalism, is to take away your money to fat greedy mother floggers who are making income that is hundreds of times greater than the ordinary American.

Don't mistake this to mean I am in support of Communism or Socialism either. There's jsut a lot fo crap that happens in both of those, and I'm beyond frustrated and angry with both of them.
Click to expand...
Government is at it's best a necessary evil!
It only goes down hill from there.
 
LowDown said:
Considering the way the population growth of the earth is falling, if current trends continue the population growth will reach zero when the population is 10 billion.

If those 10 billion were all put in family houses, 4 to a house, each house on a half acre of land which includes a share of the roadway, how much land is needed to house them all?

The answer:

1e10 people / 8 people per acre = 1.25e9 acres
1.25e9 acres / 640 acres per sq. mi. = 1.953125e6 sq. mi., or about the size of the country of India.

If instead those people are housed in 20 story apartment buildings each of which is half the size of a city block with roadways and has 20 apartments per floor, how much land then? Assume a city block that's 2.5 acres.

20 apartments * 20 floors * 4 people per apartment = 1600 people per building and 3200 per block.
1e10 / 3200 = 3.125e6 blocks or 7812500 acres or ~12,200 sq. mi.
A bit less than the size of Estonia.
Each apartment is about 2000 sq. ft.
The area is about 111 miles square.
Click to expand...

The concern of having 10 billion people is not "where are you going to put them".

The concern is will they have a clean water supply for that number? How much land will be needed for farming to sustain those numbers? How much pollution will 10 billion people create? Enough resources for that amount of people?

So other than just the interesting fact that it seems like people themselves take up less land than you would think for just living, these numbers tell us next to nothing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The reason I would add some extra territory is the folks need room to conduct business and some open space for quality of life. But it really would require a very small percentage of the planet to accomplish that.
Click to expand...

I think people underestimate just how much land is needed for factories, chemical plants, farms, businesses etc.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I think people underestimate just how much land is needed for factories, chemical plants, farms, businesses etc.
Click to expand...

If you look at any city map you will see that the business sector, roads, streets, utility easements etc. take up about 1/5 or less of the area required by the residential sector. Even adding in the farmland, provided the best farmland was set aside for that purpose, I am pretty sure Texas and New Mexico could accommodate everybody. It would be at a population density that would be displeasing to most of us, but it would be doable.
 
longview said:
Government is at it's best a necessary evil!
It only goes down hill from there.
Click to expand...

Greetings, longview. :2wave:

Is that where Soylent Green enters the picture for the masses? :shock:
 
roughdraft274 said:
The concern of having 10 billion people is not "where are you going to put them".

The concern is will they have a clean water supply for that number? How much land will be needed for farming to sustain those numbers? How much pollution will 10 billion people create? Enough resources for that amount of people?

So other than just the interesting fact that it seems like people themselves take up less land than you would think for just living, these numbers tell us next to nothing.
Click to expand...
In the 1/4 acre per family plan, If each home were built to the best standards, and covered in solar panels,
It should produce more energy than the family consumes, supplying fuel for farming, and transport.
Energy storage is the key. Hydrocarbon energy storage, is the near term answer.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Even adding in the farmland, provided the best farmland was set aside for that purpose, I am pretty sure Texas and New Mexico could accommodate everybody. It would be at a population density that would be displeasing to most of us, but it would be doable.
Click to expand...

As of the latest numbers (In 2007) half, meaning 50%, of the land of the United States is being used for agriculture. And that is with just the current population numbers. And that's only for agricultural use.

You could not stick the current population (even in tiny apartments), all of the worlds farms, industrial spaces like plants, stores, businesses etc in the entire continent, much less Texas.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, longview. :2wave:

Is that where Soylent Green enters the picture for the masses? :shock:
Click to expand...
Thankfully potatoes are easier to grow than people.
 
LowDown said:
Considering the way the population growth of the earth is falling, if current trends continue the population growth will reach zero when the population is 10 billion.

If those 10 billion were all put in family houses, 4 to a house, each house on a half acre of land which includes a share of the roadway, how much land is needed to house them all?

The answer:

1e10 people / 8 people per acre = 1.25e9 acres
1.25e9 acres / 640 acres per sq. mi. = 1.953125e6 sq. mi., or about the size of the country of India.

If instead those people are housed in 20 story apartment buildings each of which is half the size of a city block with roadways and has 20 apartments per floor, how much land then? Assume a city block that's 2.5 acres.

20 apartments * 20 floors * 4 people per apartment = 1600 people per building and 3200 per block.
1e10 / 3200 = 3.125e6 blocks or 7812500 acres or ~12,200 sq. mi.
A bit less than the size of Estonia.
Each apartment is about 2000 sq. ft.
The area is about 111 miles square.
Click to expand...

...And?

Each of those people require several miles of land to procure all of their survival needs., and a lot more than that for people in the developed world to maintain their lifestyle.

It is not just about how many square miles you can fit all the people into. It's also about all the resources each of those people use from the surrounding environment.
 
You could store all the energy you want. That's not the main concern. You have to supply food to these peoples. You need to make medicine for these people. You need to make supplies, chemicals, clean water, building materials etc. etc. etc.

This all takes land and resources.

I'm not saying that the world is going to be destroyed if we hit 10 billion people.

What I'm saying is that it's incredibly stupid to think "well it can't be a big deal if they only take up x amount of space". There are dozens of other factors that are much more important to consider.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Wow, from the evidence in the chart, Pakistan and Nigeria need to find another hobby for their men and women... just sayin'. 55.3% and 62.4% respectively. And they aren't even Catholic.
Click to expand...

Poverty nearly always increases birth rates and affluence reduces them. In simple agricultural communities more children helping with the family's workload are an asset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom