How can resource management address the issue of population control?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between resource management and population control, emphasizing that the current global population of approximately 6.9 billion could theoretically fit within the land area of France at a density of 26,495 people per square mile. Participants argue that the real issue lies in resource distribution rather than sheer population numbers. The conversation also touches on the feasibility of urban planning solutions, such as high-speed electric trains connecting densely populated areas to agricultural zones, which could simplify logistics and resource management.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of global population statistics and density calculations
  • Familiarity with urban planning concepts and logistics
  • Knowledge of resource management principles
  • Awareness of environmental sustainability issues
NEXT STEPS
  • Research urban planning strategies for high-density living environments
  • Explore the impact of resource distribution on population sustainability
  • Investigate the role of transportation systems in urban resource management
  • Study ecological systems and their relationship to population density
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for urban planners, environmental scientists, policymakers, and anyone interested in sustainable development and resource management strategies in relation to population growth.

e.coli
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
There are some who have a political or other agenda motivating them to make a hue & cry about population control.

The http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html" is 6,903,465,258.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France" (for example) is 260,558 sq. mi.

That means you can fit the entire population of the world into an area the size of France, at a population density of just under 26,495 people per square mile. At 640 acres per square mile, that's just over 41 people per acre (or an average family size of 4.7 people per 50'x100' lot)

That's not a population problem, that's a resource management/distribution problem.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
If everyone lived in a single (well planned) city, with high speed electric trains shuttling people out to work on farms, logistics might be simple? Perhaps this will be the formula in the future - on new planets?
 
Not this argument again... A family can't survive on a 100' x 50' lot. Even if they could, I'd imagine they'd drive each other crazy and kill themselves.

I will refer you to this page, just because I don't feel like searching for journal articles about this subject: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/density.html

To sum it up, it would take 3 Earths for everybody to live like Americans. This also does not take into account resource depletion, environmental/soil degradation, the need for stable ecological systems, etc...
 
ektrules said:
Not this argument again... A family can't survive on a 100' x 50' lot. Even if they could, I'd imagine they'd drive each other crazy and kill themselves.

I will refer you to this page, just because I don't feel like searching for journal articles about this subject: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/density.html

To sum it up, it would take 3 Earths for everybody to live like Americans. This also does not take into account resource depletion, environmental/soil degradation, the need for stable ecological systems, etc...

Aren't there families living in 100' x 50' apartments (or much smaller)?
 
WhoWee said:
Aren't there families living in 100' x 50' apartments (or much smaller)?

Yeah, but they don't live off 5000 sq. ft. They don't get their fuel, food, and building materials from 5000 sq. ft.
 
ektrules said:
Yeah, but they don't live off 5000 sq. ft. They don't get their fuel, food, and building materials from 5000 sq. ft.

Of course not - were you responding to my post originally?

"If everyone lived in a single (well planned) city, with high speed electric trains shuttling people out to work on farms, logistics might be simple? Perhaps this will be the formula in the future - on new planets? "
 
WhoWee said:
Of course not - were you responding to my post originally?

"If everyone lived in a single (well planned) city, with high speed electric trains shuttling people out to work on farms, logistics might be simple? Perhaps this will be the formula in the future - on new planets? "

Oh. No, I was responding to the OP originally. Yeah, that might be good formula on new planets (if we ever get that far) where building self-contained environments in hostile environments would be expensive. I'd think it would be uncomfortable living that close together to other families in small quarters though.
 
ektrules said:
To sum it up, it would take 3 Earths for everybody to live like Americans. This also does not take into account resource depletion, environmental/soil degradation, the need for stable ecological systems, etc...

I hardly want to live like an American.
 
StevieTNZ said:
I hardly want to live like an American.

LOL. Well, substitute just about any "first-world" country for the word American, and the results are the same.
 
  • #10
WhoWee said:
Aren't there families living in 100' x 50' apartments (or much smaller)?
You failed to consider multi-story buildings currently seems to be comprised mostly of apartments. It makes the actual amount of area accommodate a number of people quite flexible in practice.
 

Similar threads

Humanure and the Human Nutrient Cycle
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K