Not as bad a it seems. We are not as overpopulated as we think.. THE WOORLD' S POPULATION, ll the 6. 9 Lillian peepole lived In tune city. Haw large would that
x
Click to expand

Not as bad a it seems

(Enlarge)
Not as bad a it seems. We are not as overpopulated as we think.. THE WOORLD' S POPULATION, ll the 6. 9 Lillian peepole lived In tune city. Haw large would that

We are not as overpopulated as we think.

THE WOORLD' S POPULATION,
ll the 6. 9 Lillian peepole lived In tune city. Haw large
would that city he if it were as clense as...
NEW
eel
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+506
Views: 25204
Favorited: 17
Submitted: 05/18/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to usarmyexplain submit to reddit

Comments(140):

[ 140 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - usarmyexplain (05/18/2014) [+] (62 replies)
stickied by usarmyexplain
I once tried to explain this to a Texan.
Me:The entire population of the world could all live in Texas.
Texas: No, they couldn't.
Me: Yes they could, everyone could fit with room to spare.
Texas: No. They can't.
Me: There was a study done about population density, everyone could live there with X amount of square meters of personal space for a living area.
Texas: They cant live there
Me: What don't you get about what I'm saying?
Texas: [look of anger crosses his face] We would never let it happen.
#52 - anon (05/19/2014) [-]
Houston mentioned on FJ. Swell with oil
#51 - thelifelineband (05/19/2014) [-]
Paris
#102 to #51 - anon (05/19/2014) [-]
a thrid of that is our immigrant population
User avatar #130 to #102 - usarmyexplain (05/19/2014) [-]
Get your ass ready for sharia law.
User avatar #4 - herecomesjohnny (05/18/2014) [-]
Houston makes up their low habitant per square mile numbers with the size of the inhabitant.

Hah, fat jokes.
User avatar #84 to #4 - sircontagious ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
Houstonian here; don't mistake this for me being salty but... only like 15-20% of the population is fat, although many more may be overweight, it really isn't that noticeable unless you are from like Colorado or something,
#16 - anon (05/18/2014) [-]
The world is overpopulated. We can all physically fit on the planet, but that doesn't mean that we're not at a population level that the world can sustain.
#17 to #16 - anon (05/18/2014) [-]
typo. you know what i mean.
User avatar #19 to #17 - usarmyexplain (05/18/2014) [-]
We currently produce enough food to feed around double the population we currently have, and many places are not currently maximizing their use of areas that are already irrigated and farmed.

Example, farmers in the US regularly burn fields or plow under their crops to drive up their prices.
User avatar #27 to #19 - PartyPanda (05/18/2014) [-]
Humans take up more resources than just food and water.
User avatar #42 to #27 - syrenthra ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
Yes but for basic needs, the world can easily supply us. Trees need to be monitored but it can be dealt with
User avatar #113 to #19 - ieatbengay (05/19/2014) [-]
that may be true but is the food just going to come to us and climb into our mouths? no, we need transport, packaging, advertising, shops, etc, which all need huge amounts of resources which are not even fully recyclable so we are literally running out

a world like that also implies a world without morals, emotion and desire where everyone takes exactly what they need and are happy to share with everyone despite the work they put in, it just doesnt work.
User avatar #94 to #72 - playerdous (05/19/2014) [-]
They don't burn crops or plow them under. They just don't plant and the gov pays them not to.
www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers/
But there is the benefit of letting some soil replenish when not being used.
#70 to #19 - bval (05/19/2014) [-]
Maybe you should back up your claims with evidence. Here's just one thing you might benefit from by reading: wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/2012_lpr/

Perhaps, but it is impossible for the world to sustain the needs of even the current world population (ca. 7 billion) with the standard of living that the developed world expects. These aren't really extravagant things, even. At Western consumption levels, there isn't enough of the following to be distributed to the entire world population: electricity, clean water, oil (incl. plastics), fish, meat, waste management, sewage management, rare earth metals, etc.
Perhaps the most important consequence of overpopulation is the irreversible destruction of natural ecosystems due to human activities. Just look at Brazil for god's sake. Not only is this disgraceful and selfish (we are depriving future generations of natural resources), it is actively harmful for future generations. Extinction of species is high and accelerating; these species may be useful for medicine, etc., but if they are lost, they are lost forever.

**** you and your ignorance. Read a book on ecology, extinction, conservation biology, or something.
User avatar #60 to #16 - ryderjbudde (05/19/2014) [-]
Overpopulation is a fake issue asserted by edgy faggots who want to solve things by assuming the only solution is something controversial because they think it makes them look smart. **** you, you don't know **** . If the world couldn't sustain us, it wouldn't. They are other solutions to pollution, starvation, and every other problem you can think of that don't involve population control.
#67 - alexwinning ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
To all the people saying that the Earth isn't overpopulated:
You are correct, but think about it the way I am for a second. Sure, there's enough food and water to allow around 14 billion people to survive, but I don't want to just survive. I want to thrive. As the number of people increases, the resources available to each person decreases, especially with luxuries. Plus, the reason we produce almost double the food we need is because much of it is wasted. Similar case with water; not all of it is used for drinking, and the more that needs to be purified is the more energy that needs to be used. And speaking of energy, think about how much more fuel we would need to burn to support the extra people in electricity; all the gas needed for twice the amount of cars. Add that to the carbon dioxide produced by all of these fossil fuels burning, as well as the forests that will inevitably be cleared for extra space (whether urban or agricultural), and you've got yourself a nice case of accelerated global climate change on your hands.
tl;dr: more people = less preferable (at this point), regardless of whether we're technically overpopulated or not.
#71 to #67 - anon (05/19/2014) [-]
Hoarders gonna hoard -> the entire argument is void.
#76 to #67 - repostsrepost (05/19/2014) [-]
The Malthusian economic theory of population growth has been dead for a long time. People have been fearing that resources are depleting for centuries. But we keep finding new resources and with technology, they can be used more efficiently. Like food for example, sure you'd expect that an increase in the population would diminish the food supply but then you realize an increase in technology allows you to make more food in a smaller space a lot faster. And its hard to sell global warming when we've been having increasingly colder winters.
#79 to #76 - alexwinning ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
1) You are correct: Better technology makes it far easier to obtain more food, water, and luxuries. Question is, will our technology improve fast enough? The answer is probably, but you never know.
2) Global Warming =/= Global climate change. For more information, just google, tons of articles and things.
#108 - mayoroftownsville (05/19/2014) [-]
Just because you can physically fit people in areas that small, doesn't mean we could survive if you did. The New York Metro Area at its current size already suffers from serious logistical problems when it comes to importing goods, which is one of the reasons it's so expensive to live here. Texas already has trouble getting drinking water to everyone there, so if we decided to do this, it wouldn't even be a year before most of the population died off from terminal dehydration or disease.

Additionally, there are only 12 million square miles of arable land in the world. That's one for every 575 people. That's 1.25 acres per person, which is slightly below even the lowest estimates of how much farmland is needed to feed a single person a nutritious diet (1.5 is usually the number I see).

This content betrays a cringe-inducingly simple idea of how the world works. Yes, it is as bad as it seems, and it could get much worse very quickly. Of course, none of you are likely to feel the effects. Europe is no longer reproducing at the rate of replacement, so it is as dense as it will ever be. America only reproduces slightly above the rate of replacement, and has one of the highest abilities of any country in the world to feed and house more people. People in India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria, on the other hand, are in for mass starvation and homelessness over the next century.
#124 to #108 - usarmyexplain (05/19/2014) [-]
"arable land" is a pretty interesting concept to me as I can tell it is for you. Even non-arable land produces non-edible plants, deserts are not arable but thanks to horticulture we have domesticated animals that can survive in harsh climates subsisting off of food and nutrients that are not edible for us. We can eat those animals.

In the words of the Frenchman Jacques Cousteau, "Hear the ocean is teaming with life." There are more things to take into account in global food production than you have represented.

Your retort to my assertion is shamefully pretentious.

pic related, arable land percent of the world by country
#134 to #124 - mayoroftownsville (05/19/2014) [-]
Did you know that one of the main limits on how high we can build is the increasing amount of space that must be dedicated to elevators in extremely tall buildings? Take that concept and apply it to livestock in extreme condition. People need to raise those livestock, and those people need to eat and drink. Ideally they should also have electricity and other utilities, as well as roads which must be maintained. So we have to ask, to what extent can we actually farm these areas before the cost of sustaining the local population surpasses their agricultural output? My guess is, not very far.

As for fishing, what do we do when we permanently exhaust the fish population, as we seem to have done with the Atlantic Cod? We can only have so many fisheries. The point is, the issue is far more complex than your content makes it out to be, and we have reached a point where we are at least rapidly approaching a point where we no longer have the capacity to feed everyone, if we haven't reached it already.
User avatar #136 to #134 - usarmyexplain (05/19/2014) [-]
That's why we, we Americans, actually have hatcheries along all our major, and most minor, rivers.

As far as the concept of diminishing return for horticulture efforts in non-arable regions, you don't really need huge infrastructure to raise cattle in their natural environment. Cattle do not need roads, cattlemen don't need electricity to maintain herds. Sure they need food and water, but those costs are factored into the cost of the meat. It's been done that way for thousands of years all around the world, and it is still very profitable.
#105 - Dember ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
And now imagine about 95% of them get infected and turn into zombies...
User avatar #125 to #105 - usarmyexplain (05/19/2014) [-]
I like where you are going with this.
#98 - firesky (05/19/2014) [-]
What about a density of Kowloon Walled City?
User avatar #128 to #98 - usarmyexplain (05/19/2014) [-]
Yeah, I know. I can imagine it would be about 1/4 the size of the smallest estimate.
#96 - fristiprinses (05/19/2014) [-]
If you did this with Edmonton, it would take up 6.315.781 km squared, this map would not have been sufficient. That's enough math for today.

As I do not have a relevant picture, have this irrelephant.
#88 - veneficium (05/19/2014) [-]
Best part is: Paris isn't even the city with highest population density. Manila's population density is double of Paris, around 22k per square km.
User avatar #89 to #88 - veneficium (05/19/2014) [-]
42k I meant
User avatar #91 to #88 - TheHutchie (05/19/2014) [-]
With the possible exception of Singapore, this post only covers first-world cities, which are less densely populated and more "livable" than their third-world or even second-world equivalents.
#99 to #91 - thorseph (05/19/2014) [-]
what about china, their population density is pretty high in certain areas i'm sure.
User avatar #116 to #99 - TheHutchie (05/19/2014) [-]
China is considered first-world by some and second-world by others. Let's not forget that their country is coated in smog and only 20 years ago everyone was dirt poor.
#117 to #116 - thorseph (05/19/2014) [-]
only 20 years ago, but yes i see your point
User avatar #118 to #117 - TheHutchie (05/19/2014) [-]
Also, they have an absolutely appalling human rights record. Just awful.

But it won't matter in another 20 years when half the planet's population are Chinese and they control the economy and the moral compass of the world and everything is painted in red and gold propaganda and white people are used as slave labour.

They'll be a first-world country then alright.
User avatar #92 to #91 - veneficium (05/19/2014) [-]
I see your point, tried checking whether Singapore is a first-world country/city because I'm pretty sure it is but **** I can't find a damn list.
User avatar #87 - temporalguardian (05/19/2014) [-]
I dont understand any of this. Anyone care to explain? all i'm seeing is random names of cities over randomly colored in states.
#97 to #87 - flapz (05/19/2014) [-]
If the worlds population of 6.9 billion people lived as close as the people in Paris we would in the area showed on the first picture.
User avatar #85 - marsupilami (05/19/2014) [-]
I'd be interested to see Tokyo. Crazy dense there.
User avatar #58 - perform (05/19/2014) [-]
If we stood shoulder to shoulder and chest to back, we'd fit in Los Angeles.
User avatar #2 - askafj (05/18/2014) [-]
Look at the size of china, now look at the size of America. There is room lol.

Besides, who ever said that the world is over populated?
User avatar #3 to #2 - usarmyexplain (05/18/2014) [-]
Lots of people think the world is overpopulated. It's a pretty common misconception.
User avatar #22 to #3 - economyexplain (05/18/2014) [-]
>large amounts of land are required to grow steady stream of food
>much of the world is using decades old and decaying infrastructure
>population booms amongst poorer and less educated people while more educated peoples tend to have less children

It's not that it isn't possible to have more people, it's that the global economy can't properly sustain such a population right now.
#25 to #22 - usarmyexplain (05/18/2014) [-]
I don't live in one of the parts of the world that does not produce enough food for its population.    
    
   
If you live some place with no access to water it does not take a lot of education to understand that your kids will also not have access to water. Not really my problem. I can't give them water
I don't live in one of the parts of the world that does not produce enough food for its population.


If you live some place with no access to water it does not take a lot of education to understand that your kids will also not have access to water. Not really my problem. I can't give them water
User avatar #68 to #25 - economyexplain (05/19/2014) [-]
Thankfully, the US produces enough food for us as is; hell, we're one of the major food exporters. You still gotta take into account a whole array of other global factors, but we're talking about people who believe (sometimes rightfully so) that the world is overpopulated, not just certain countries and regions.
User avatar #109 to #22 - anonymoose ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
We produce more than enough food to sustain the population. It's just not distributed fairly among the people.
User avatar #38 to #2 - olinerocks ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
I don't think the world is overpopulated, but our intelligent to unintelligent ratio could use some work.
#55 - anon (05/19/2014) [-]
Literally retarded. 100% troll image. Over population is not about population density.
#33 - anon (05/19/2014) [-]
another U.S. post and U.S. comments, feels like we live in there country..........
User avatar #36 to #33 - OsamaBinLadenz (05/19/2014) [-]
Considering your misspelling of what was supposed to be "their", I'm pretty glad you don't live here.
User avatar #114 - ieatbengay (05/19/2014) [-]
as if space is the issue with overpopulation, it doesn't even come into it

if everyone lived in an area the size of a jail cell we would still be running out of resources
#123 to #114 - usarmyexplain (05/19/2014) [-]
Are we running out of resources? Are we really?
Are we running out of resources? Are we really?
#107 - MrOblivious (05/19/2014) [-]
This doesn't make it practical, but then again, not sure if it's meant to be.

Yes we can live in those areas with room to spare, but it wouldn't be practical.

We need to work remember. I doubt there's enough jobs in the area close enough for everyone. Some of us would have to drive across the country to get to work.
User avatar #106 - rockmanfan ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
-implying anyone would WANT to live in texas.
[ 140 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)