Is Earth Overpopulated?

There are too many people in the world.

This is a common statement I see on forums and comment pages, hear in conversions and pseudo-debates in bars and with friends. When I actually ask them to explain their position their logic reveals itself to be circular. That is, ‘it’s just obvious, isn’t it?’

Now I happen to know the majority of people do not actually think. They react to stimuli, like lab rats. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the majority of the position’s the unwashed masses have are actually imprinted by the State and Corporate Media, and at no point actually reflect conclusions brought by their own investigation and research.

Again, excuses spill forth. ‘I don’t have time for that’, ‘I’ve got better things to do’, ‘I’m not interested’.

(And people wonder why I am a misanthropist.)

So, in this little article I want to touch briefly on the subject of ‘overpopulation’. I’ve seen this come up on articles talking about the biofuels scam contributing to mass starvation in developing countries, and increasing wealth stripping from developed ones. But no matter, reducing C02 (that pesky gas responsible for enabling photosynthesis, and which constitutes about 35 parts in 100,000 of the atmosphere) is more important than millions of lives. Why? Because that box in your living room said so.

‘Yeah well there are too many people in the world anyway’.

The conversations I’ve experienced regarding population are generally based on emotions and imprinted statements, not logic, research and critical thinking. But television use destroys critical thinking, so I expect nothing less.

Why do people subscribe to the overpopulation position so easily? Apart from the issue of imprinting, there is the issue of location. Increasingly, more and more people are living in urban centres, which by definition are built up, densely populated areas.

These people look out of their windows and see nothing but flats, houses and more people. So they assume they are too many people. Because right in front of them, are a lot of people. Just look at this map of London.

Again, it shows lack of thinking. If they lived here, their initial opinion may be a bit different.

The final issue is based on the television again, and the images of poverty stricken third world nations. No food, no clean water, abject desolation. Somehow people assume that it is because of population. Third world birthrates are the highest in the world, but there is a reason for that I’ll get to later (and Neo-Malthusians ignore.)

Anyway, let’s look at the statement ‘the world is overpopulated’. First we need to get some numbers.

The current population is approx. 6.5 billion. The Earth’s land mass is approx. 148,940,000 sq km of which an estimate of one eighth is comfortably habitable, according to Wikipedia. I think that is a bit conservative, but whatever, lets go with it.

This leaves 18,617,500 sq km (148,940,000 / 8) that us horrible peasants can burden Gaia with.

We now need to come up with a general area which is comfortable, per home. We can start with average areas for urban living. That would be, in flats. Not quite like these, let’s pick something bigger. How about this place? Two bedrooms, two bathrooms. (£660,000 by the way) and about 896 sq ft (let’s say 900 sq ft, I’m feeling generous.) No garden or anything, so no growing your own produce. Leave that to the centralised corporations. Can’t have people independent of the Corporate State now can we.

Current avg. living space = 900 sq ft (for two people.) We should reduce it for an individual. So let’s say 650 sq ft per serf.

Now let’s look at an acre and connect it to a square kilometer. (You’ll see why in a minute.)

1 sq km = 247 acres.
1 acre = 43, 560 sq ft.

43, 650 / 650 = approx. 66 people per acre. We of course, are not considering multi-level complexes. In which case 650 sq ft could accommodate more. Two floors would of course, double the number of people per plot. But let’s keep this simple for now.

But seeing as I’m a nice Master of the World, let’s give people more space. 66 per acre is stingy. Let’s say 16 homes per acre. No, let’s make it 12. (More room to grow food, have cute little streets and the like.)

1 acre = 43, 560 sq ft / 12 = 3, 630 sq ft per person. Pretty generous I’d say. Less would enable more other spaces, parks, communal fields and whatnot.

So, 12 people per acre. 247 acres per sq km. 12 * 247 = 2,964 homes per sq km.

With 18,617,500 sq km of habitable area on this beautiful planet, multiplied by 2,964 (homes per square kilometer) = 55,182,270,000

What’s that? 55.1 billion homes? 55.1 billion big homes that is, not dingy little flats that the elites like to give us serfs in the panopticons urban centres. If we were going to use those hive holes, the capacity would be more like:

50 flats per acre * 247 = 16,302 per sq km. * (again by lets say, 5 floors) = 81,510 flats. Let’s reduce that to 70,000 flats because I’m a nice guy.

We then multiply 70,000 by 18,617,500 to get the max capacity of flats on Earth.

That number is 1,303,225,000,000 flats. 1.3 trillion. Approximately 200 times the current level.

In reality of course, that would be impossible to sustain (or even reach). So let’s go back to the much lower capacity of 55.1 billion homes.

Remember, 55.1 billion plots of land at approx 3,000 sq ft each. Quite nice. Building smaller, (and upwards) results in more land to cultivate. It can also increase the capacity of people per household, something to be expected, considering the majority of homes are occupied by families. To say 70% of homes contain families is fair I think, considering data from UK National Statistics. Family would be three or four people. Let’s say three.

While we are at it, let’s reduce the number of available homes 75%. More space for the children to play in, play football, have picnics and stuff.)

55,100,000,000 – 41,325,000,000 = 13,775,000,000 homes.

Still twice the current population. Now let’s factor in families. 70% of the homes would contain families of three or four, as birthrates in developed nations drop as they industrialise, hence the current replacement of Western populations with immigrants by the State.

Underestimating again, we’ll stick with families of three. 70% of 13,7 billion is 9,642,500,000. Multiply that by three people per home and you arrive at 28,927,500,000 people in 70%. Add the singles (mostly feminists, probably) in;

28,927,500,000 + 4,132,500,000 = 33,060,000,000 people.

You can halve that again and still be at about twice current levels. Another way of looking at it is;

Thus, only about one eighth of each imaginary plot of land distributed to each person is land which is under cultivation. In effect, each person has a piece of land about 26,000 square feet (a square 161 feet on each side or just a bit more than ½ an acre) at his or her disposal on which to grow all that he or she needs. – Surface Area of the Earth

Overpopulated?

The reality is that there is plenty of space and the biosphere is more than capable of providing food for the world’s current population. The distribution of the world’s wealth and power is the real problem.

The report found the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total of global assets. Half the world’s adult population, however, owned barely 1% of global wealth. – The Guardian

It is in the interests of the global elite to keep the third world destitute. Allowing them to develop (to industrialise) would present competition to their global hegemony. Wiping out the ‘negro race’ is also part of their eugenics agenda, as stated by the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger;

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people – Quotes from Margaret Sanger.

While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others. – The Truth About Margaret Sanger.

Planned Parenthood of both Idaho and Ohio accepts money from a donor who openly shares his racist agenda to “lower the number of Blacks in America.”

Henry Kissingers’ NSSM 200 (1974) also had a fair bit to say about population control, the threat of developing nations and the need to control them;

NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 “key countries” in which the United States had a “special political and strategic interest”: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.

A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targetted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: “There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.” NSSM 200 – SCHILLER INSTITUTE

Neo-Malthusians are an adjunct, a limb of the elites’ agenda for control over the human race. Population, like any chaotic system cannot be accurately modelled without using differential equations (as far as I know.) There are a huge number of variables that affect the outcome. As the initial values change (as a sum of the previous iteration of equations) all of the variables change again. That is why they use simplified computer models. (Difference equations, which use a quantised input.) These models which can be distorted with the greatest of ease.

Still, they churn out graphs and pie charts to convince the masses of whatever they want them to believe.

The myth of overpopulation represents merely another Dialectical Framework to convince the masses of greater State control over their lives, another myth would be anthropogenic global warming. In fact the two tie together quite nicely. The overpopulation scam being a foundational position for the C02 scam.

Carbon Cult sickos are under fire for an interactive website that tells children they should die because they emit CO2 – The Register.

Two birds with one stone, as they say. Remember, this article is not some peer-reviewed masterpiece, just a bit of simple maths exploring the subject of population.

For more information regarding the elites’ depopulation agenda (too big a subject for this article) I suggest watching Alex Jones’ Endgame. You can view it here.

About these ads

35 thoughts on “Is Earth Overpopulated?

  1. So there is enough for 55 billion say and some other land can be used for energy I suppose. Still, if the climate situation is that dire if we could really have another 68 billion people? Assuming they all require electricity and clean water. Over populated is the wrong word I suppose but to actually implement these homes and so on there has to be a more sensible approach to wealth distribution. Although there are rich people that are too rich they don’t eat money. Usually this money is invested in creating more wealth for someone. I’d say people’s attitude that creating life is a sacred right should not necessarily be taken for granted.

    I know for a fact China had to reduce their population or there would be civil war there by now. Some people at my school had a baby when they were a teenager just to be given a house but this is small scale at the moment, its unfair to bring too many children in to an environment where there are problems. I’m open to debate here, how much wealth is wasted by rich people? *Money is wasted when people buy a marble statue of themselves as the man hours could be used for something more constructive like building a hospital or something.

  2. Pingback: [INTP] Dehumanizing?

  3. Oh my!…All this math is making me sick…OUR EARTH IS BEING RUINED BY US!…PERIOD. Theres only one(for now) Have respect!It dosent get ant bigger. we will realize it one day..Hopefully its not to late.

  4. what about our forests and resources. Have you calculated the outcome of that? You think your a fortune teller. Nobody knows. Not even you. Your math means nothing!

  5. Mathematic calculations (what u’ve done basically) has nothing to do with reality, you can put a lot of houses everywhere, but you forget about consumption, trash, etc.

  6. It is obvious that the author did not do his homework. Read section on skeptics of overpopulation in book 1 of the free e-book series “And Gulliver Returns” at http://andgulliverreturns.info.
    There is not enough arable land or water to support the people we have. That is one reason for the famines in South Somalia. There is so much more. If you are really interested, you must read the section suggested above.

  7. What it basically boils down to:

    If one understands the ecological principles of food web tropic levels, then one should understand that a consequence of our ever increasing population, relative to the essential biodiversity of higher life form conducive natural ecosystems, is that we’re causing the extinction of an alarming number of other life forms daily just to support our own biomass. We’re systematically shifting the biomass of the many life forms we’re not smart enough to care about, into the biomass of a lesser number of life forms we use to maintain our own biomass (e.g. cows, chickens, corn, beans, tomatoes, …). That is, we’re systematically diminishing the biodiversity of the natural biological communities, and in so doing are destabilizing nature’s infrastructure that is keeping us alive.

    The key factors of healthy ecosystems (in the sense of being conducive to human existence) are sustainable long term productivity through extensive biodiversity to exploit all the ecological niches (in time, space, and kind), and relative stability through the overall balance of ecological processes in minimizing ecosystem state shifts. This more complete utilization of limiting resources at higher diversity increases resource retention through more thorough and efficient recycling increasing productivity, and the balance of inherently more intricate ecological processes promote stabilization.

    For a better understanding of how we are jeopardizing the shorter term state of human existence on Earth, see the article Natural World Consciousness at achinook.com

    Will objective understanding or subjective beliefs prevail?

    Lee C

    • blabadydoobadyda…Only 10 percent of the earth can even understand that…Have you ever talked to the so called “average: human? They would say,..Come again/excuse me? Guess where I got my math?…Life skills 101:[)

  8. Pingback: Is Earth Overpopulated? Let’s Look at Facts Instead Of Recycled Green Propaganda! | Sovereign Independent

  9. Pingback: Culling the Herd – How Women are Being Targeted in Eugenics Abortion Fraud! | Sovereign Independent

  10. I think you have to put some extra in your calculations… The ecological footprint.
    How much place is needed per person to make this person live the “European way”, “the American way”, “the Chinese way” or “the African way” on confortable habitalbe solid earth ground. It’s not just place for housing and agriculture, but also streets, highways, railroads, industry, amusement, production of energy, place needed for growing trees for wood and oxigan, place for raw materials to be able to sustain our way of living (not for 1 generation but for centuries), water purification or desalinisation, etc…

    This gives totally different figures.
    An average European needs about 0,06 square km of space to sustain him-or herself in the confortable way he or she lives.

    For American people it’s more, for Chinese people the ecological footprint is less and for African people it’s very small.
    This means that a European person needs 20 times the space of an African person on that same confortable habitable earth ground.

    As a scientist I must admit that calculating an ecological footprint is not easy and gives an error band of about 20%, but still.

    If everyone would live like a European, you would need 6.5 billion x 0.06 square km.
    This makes 390 billion square km. For an American it would be even wourse.

    Not only the amount of people per given surface is important, but also the way they live and spend energy and resources.

    So yes, it’s possible to have a country that is much more crowded but being less CO2 consuming and being “less overcrowded” then elsewhere because their ecological footprint is less important.

    Conclusion: Yes, earth is overpopulated if you incorporate the way the “civilised” world spends resources.
    We have 2 hypotetic solutions:
    1. Considerably decrease the amount of people if we want to live in our current resource consuming way.
    2. Considerably decrease our ecological footprint.

    So, it’s more then just some simple math calculations I’m afraid.

  11. Well the lower birthrates in the west are not only down to industrialisation, but also ‘planned parenthood’ clinics, taxpayer funded abortions (with digustingly high limits), vaccines, environmental poisoning, chemicals, additives etc.

    It is part of cultural Marxism, destroying the western world, creating chaos in order to shape a new world order, which just so happens to be a global communist/ socialist technological dictatorship. It also serves to destroy national identity, with massive amounts of immigration, straining and eventually collapsing sovereign institutions, the police, health, finance, social housing etc.

    It is like a bottle in water. When the amount of water inside exceeds a certain amount, it can no longer be sustained.

    And it sinks.

  12. I definitely agree with you about the World having plenty of resources to deal with the increasing population. what worries me is that the population in the West and particularly Europe is not increasing at all. This will mean more immigration of peoples that are alien to our way of life, our western culture and our notions of freedom and liberty. That’s what really worries me. And these worries are compounded by the fascists worship of political correctness, multiculturalism and ‘equality’.

  13. Hmmm overpopulation. That’s a thorny subject. I think African countries are becoming overpopualted and they quite clearly don’t have the resources to deal with that. For instance in Ethopia alone the population has increased from 33.5 to 78 million over a 25 year period. Ethopia image!

    • Well consider that in Ethiopia, 80 million people are living in 1,104,300 km2. In Britain, 80 million are living in 209,331 km2.

      Earth can sustain billions more. The issue is the control of resources by the elite and their financial corporations, like the World Bank, IMF etc. Take note that Africa is the most resource-rich area on Earth, by far. It is poor because of corruption (some of it encouraged by our governments) installed ‘leaders’ etc, poor because of payments to international monetary systems (which attach conditions which essentially give these agencies political control of these countries), protectionism from outside (such as the GAP of the EU, whereby the EU dumps produce on Africa soil at a loss, undercutting local farmers, thus preventing them from making a living, so Brussels can throw money at the French farmers etc.)

      This isn’t ‘the people of the West enslaving the poor people’. Relatively speaking, most of us are poor relative to the cost of living here. It is a tiny minority of fascist bastards who believe the world and everything in it should belong to them.

      Also, third world countries have a much higher birth rate, much higher than in the Western world. Industrialisation has the effect of reducing the birthrate, as people find other pursuits to enjoy other than just having children. So technically, allowing Africa to develop would reduce population growth, but would also present massive competition to the western elites desire for a world government. So obviously that isn’t going to happen.

      They would much rather control African population by dodgy vaccines, wars, food control and other such means as outlined by many government documents like Kissengers’ NSSM 200. The world has plenty of space and resources, it is just that, through corporate-state fascism, a tiny group have acquired control of most of it.

  14. I didn’t read throuigh all your numbers, Rainman because they got boring real quick. You made a point of available space, but you fail to take into consideration that Overpoplation isn’t only about space, its about resources and the affect it has on the planet. I could jam a 20 gallon fish tank with many many fish, no problem, but no way could they sustain life without a tremendous amount of intervention from outside the tank. I.E. constand water changes. constand feeding, constant removel of waste. Basically I would have to pump in the “resources” from a different tank”world” to sustain life in that tank”world” = overpopulation.

  15. Right on Gary,
    Everyone take a look about your town.
    See all the pretty trees?
    If you live in a winter zone, think, how long would they last if technology were to fail.
    No, earth can not sustain this many people without technology.
    Want another example?
    Think of that clear babbling brook in the park in town…. filled with poop….thousands crowding the banks doing laundry…cooking….bathing….

  16. Overpopulation is based on resources used, not living space. As the human population grows, we use up more and more land to feed ourselves, destroying ecosystems and species in the process, and leaving less land for all the nonhumans of the earth. Our ever-growing demand for resources also causes widespread pollution, massive “dead zones” in the ocean, horrific factory farms, and exploitation of indigenous people.

    This is not an elitist view; it is an anti-elitist view. The culprits are us in the West, not the populace in poor countries. If we can reduce our per capita environmental impact by half, that would be great, but if we double our population, the gains are negated. A more humble, less dominionistic, less entitlement-oriented mindset would help on both counts.

    We can’t grow forever. Due to our technology, we can use up limited resources faster than they can be regenerated, but that’s not sustainable.

    So two factors – number of people and resource usage per person – have to be considered.

  17. Pingback: Young Folks and Intersectionality « Vegans of Color

  18. I agree that population control does not automatically equate to a healthier environment. It does provide a good excuse for Marxists to impose their will on the human race however.

    The Malthusian model of population growth is what these Enviro-fascists were brainwashed with. It is widely known to anyone with a brain that it is complete rubbish. There is no species that exhibits the kind of growth he postulated.

    The fact is that population controls itself. As nations industrialise, their lives open up with more options, people become busier and the birthrate falls as a response. You will see in such nations the birthrate is hovering or is below the replacement rate. In third world nations/ cultures, the birthrate is alot higher.

    If they really cared about slowing global population (which is happening anyway) they would allow the third world nations to industrialise. But then that would be competition to the NWO hegemony.

    By the way, it shocks me that a subject is actually spoken about with a straight face, as it is literally eugenics. There are plenty of documentaries that record and show the rampant eugenics programs done in the public eye, with the intention of ‘breeding a superior race’.

    But that is the power of media for you. Which is why I never watch it.

  19. I’ll say that while I’m not a scientist who has studied this and thus knows him or herself I’m going to go with my odds guess and stick with that it probably is real.

    That said (and not actually being at the core of my point or question either), what do you think of my point that population control is not a boon to the environment and its ability to be such should be questioned.

  20. Nathaniel. There is no global warming. Temperatures have been dropping since 1998. Human CO2 has an insignificant effect on climate.

    There is a big difference between the obvious logic of reducing waste and having more energy efficient systems and having global environmental fascism dictating to the human race how they should live (and how much they should pay the global governments for doing so.)

    It was never about the planet, it was always about control of the resources most important to the human race. Energy, water, food.

  21. There were a few typos in this so sorry for any that I missed.

    I’m not a scientist, math guru, and so on. I do, making an educated guess because it seems more and more of the actual scientists that study things like the climate and weather say Global Warming is happing, suspect that Global Warming is not a scam and is a issue to be dealt with.

    I wanted to point that out. I do have large doubts about overpopulation theories. In Environmental Physics classes in some colleges students are sometimes introduced to a simple formula that says something like: population * pollution per person = overall pollution. This equation is then used to argue for having less people to reduce pollution. If I counted the number of trees on the planet and used that number instead of human population then I could try to make a foolish and weak argument for cutting back on the number of trees as a method of reducing pollution. Thus I think this equation is junk. It simply divides the amount of one thing by another (pollution by humans) and then says that less humans must mean less pollution because they figured out a ratio of the 2. As I could do the same with trees which don’t pollute we understand the problem here.

    As I’m guessing you’re a smart and resourceful person (the youtube clip on Planned Parenthood is great) I wanted you to think this over (despite the fact that we may disagree on if Global Warming is a scam).

    Here is a point I’ve tried to make to others.:

    Global Warming is an important subject that needs to be handled for a better future for both the human race and ecologies worldwide.

    However, I’ll argue lowering population (in either a “hands off” or “hands on” fashion for governments) is not likely to help deal with this issue.

    First of all, there is not a correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases and people in a nation. (possible response: What? I thought people contribute to global warming? More people more warming, right?) If having more people was key to increasing global warming gases than China and India would not have produced less greenhouse gases than the USA throughout the 20th century. Each of them had a much greater population than the US and polluted less. Now when China is finally overtaking the USA in terms of emissions. Ask why is it doing so? There has not been a sudden baby boom to ramp up population (the 1 child policy has actually been effective, despite corruption and loopholes, in the overall goal of lowering China’s birthrate.) China’s emissions rise has occurred alongside a birthrate drop because China is industrializing. China is building 1 new coal power plant per week because new factories are being built and a Chinese consumer class is rising that purchases electronic devices (as well as SUVs that have finally stopped selling in the USA).

    It is even possible to have a population shrinkage and an increase in global warming gases-look at Europe with shrinking population in some nations, they haven’t stopped polluting. Many are still better than the USA on an emissions per person basis but their pollution went up despite a shortage of babies in some nations.

    If you want to handle global warming I would encourage handling the direct sources of emissions. These (especially if you are talking about the carbon that has to be brought up from underground and then put in the air) are the devices we use.

    This is why highly developed nations are generally much worse polluters than less developed nations-the latter have less in the way of automobiles or energy requiring devices.

    To solve Global Warming (which is going to be with us for many years due to the damage already done) deal with the devices we like to have that add more greenhouse gases to the air. Either make them effectively carbon neutral or see if you can live without them.

    The number of devices rather than humans is the real problem. You can actually lower the number of humans on the planet and see the number of devices they use rise through greater numbers per person/household. There once was a time when the average US household didn’t have 2 or more cars, more than 1 TV and so on.

    The greatest irony of all is that the nations where the birthrate is highest are also tend to be those where the emissions per person rate is low. Global Warming is mostly caused by us in the developed world who already have low birthrates and high levels of device use.

    There is absolutely no guarantee that lowering population levels will reduce global warming. With the possibility that some businesses may try to further mechanize (using devices run on energy from carbon emitting sources) to produce more with fewer workers there is even the theoretical possibility that the emissions problem will become worse.

    I would argue that saying the number humans is the problem may sometimes occur from having a bit to much Malthus in one’s intellectual diet-and don’t forget that history has frequently proven wrong those who come up with ideas based on his theories.

    The is the end of repost from earlier. I wanted to make this point because in a time when I think people and political figures are more likely to take the environment seriously (and I think it is right that they do). I don’t want the Malthus believers (or Neo-Malthusians) to take advantage of increased environmental awareness in order to further an agenda which isn’t actually about saving the environment (and will result in failure if used in an attempt to do so).

    Please mention your thoughts and, if you think my point is worth noting, pass it along.

    I don’t think population control gets questioned enough when it is brought up as a method of environmental protection. And China does make a great example of a nation with falling birthrates alongside rising pollution emissions.

  22. Joe, I thought it was the conversion that would make an error, but I was too busy being paranoid about my own calculation, plus I was curious why you were converting to imperial.

    That is why I didn’t reply straight away. I did the math again, got different numbers to you and assumed I was wrong.

    I should have looked through your calculations. Apologies.

  23. sorry faulty math on my part. However on basis of argument the fact that the premise was anti-rhetoric, the fact is no one analyzed my argument but rather spat out more rhetoric is disturbing. The error in my math was in the conversion of sq mi to sq ft, thus multiplying my result by an additional 5280 granting a much more generous account than my previous figures.

  24. 18,617,500 sq kl = 4,600,484,439.5 acres

    4,600,484,439.5 acres / 6,660,000,000 [pop] = 0.690763429 acres per person.

    Homes of 3 people = (6,660,000,000 / 3) = 2,220,000,000

    4,600,484,439.5 acres / 2,220,000,000 [pop] = 2.07229029 acres per family.

    Overpopulation Myths
    Overpopulation? — 10 Myths

    So it turns out that if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km2, and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km2, with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone.

    This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km2 of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km2 of land). – Overpopulation: Not a Problem Now, and Never Will Be

  25. even if we take your numbers 18617500 sqkm is equal to 11568379 sqmi rounding up. 11568379 sqmi is 61081041120 sqft. 61081041120 sqft divided by 6.5 billion is 9.4 sqft rounding up. That is a square 3’8″ x 3’8″. Let’s pair everyone off husband and wife with 2 kids. Thats 4 people in 37.6 sqft. Let’s build 2 level homes that’s 8 people in 75.2 sqft.

  26. Pure math:
    Human population as of 2008 6.66 billion.

    Earth’s radius at the equator 3963.14 miles.

    Water to land percentages: 70.8% water, 29.2% land.

    Surface area of a sphere: 4 x 3.14 x radius squared.

    4 x 3.14 x 3963.14 = 197273371.964576

    we’ll round up to 197273372 square miles

    197273372 x 29.2% = 57603824.624

    we’ll round up again to 57603825 square miles

    1 mile = 5280 feet

    57603825 x 5280 = 304148196000 square feet

    304148196000 / 6660000000 = 45.6678972

    yet again we’ll round up 46 square feet per person.

    that’s roughly 6’10” x 6’10” again rounding up.

    I don’t know where you went to school, but ask for a refund.

  27. You’ve studied math at a level of very people. Math is the purest study as it forces you to think in a rigid way and there is no lying to yourself. You either understand something and can prove it, or you don’t know it at all and you KNOW full good and well that you don’t ‘get it.’

    Once you have dedicated yourself to rigourous proof writing, you tend to expect others (especially leaders and academics) to follow the same standard of true and provable or false. But no one in our government or media holds themselves to such a standard. Few in the public understand the concept of absolute truth vs emotional opinion.

    They are too distracted by the flashing lights and noises blaring from the idiot box in the living room. They are accustomed to having their egos massaged with no mental effort required on their part.

  28. Pingback: MPs criticise government over CO2 « Free Britain

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s