Originally posted by Mindship
If there's no death by natural causes, and colonizing other worlds is not happening fast enough, and we're still spreading like a cancer on this one, it will become necessary to kill people, for example, anyone over 29.On the other hand, there'll be plenty of soylent green.
That's sick. Rather mandate abortion. Or kill everyone under 2. That stops new influx.
Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiasome facts:
29% of Earth's land, 60% of population
a whopping 89 people per square KM
so, comepare this to Toronto, a city nobody would claim is overpopulated (with any credibility). Its population density is: 866 people per square KM.
Toronto has 10 times the population density of Asia
Problems with poverty and lack of economic development in Asia are certainly made worse by large population centres, however, it is certainly not the case that Asia is "overpopulated"
I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you actually making the argument that population density 89 people/sq km in Asia means that there cannot possibly be overpopulation?
Originally posted by Mindship
If there's no death by natural causes, and colonizing other worlds is not happening fast enough, and we're still spreading like a cancer on this one, it will become necessary to kill people, for example, anyone over 29.On the other hand, there'll be plenty of soylent green.
He made everyone invincible. Killing excess population isn't an option.
So what he wants to know is how long it would take with current birth rates, and no deaths, to cover every inch of exposed land.
That's just some silly calculation that depends on a few values I don't know, and it is really incredibly dull, much duller than what we were talking about....I am not amused.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you actually making the argument that population density 89 people/sq km in Asia means that there cannot possibly be overpopulation?
I agree with you here. inimalist is using the word overpopulation incorrectly. It's not a matter of population density its one of how much population the planet can sustain. Because the economics of farming are insane, apparently burning excess food is better than selling it cheaply to starving people, there's no good way to resolve the problem of feeding increasing numbers of people.
Anyways, dadudemon and I talked about the silly question the thread starter posted, and he was going to do the maths, but apparently didn't yet, so imma go do it and you guys may tell me where I went wrong.
So, first we are going to take the land mass of the earth from wikipedia....that's a nice and small 148,940,000 km².
Now, we'd rather have it in m² cause that's less hard on the old brain. So we add 6 zeros, cause 1 km² is 1,000,000m², aight?
Awesome, so earth's land mass is 148,940,000,000,000m²
We agreed that a person standing up needs about 0.2m² standing space, I think he heard on TV once someone estimating a packed gathering with 2 square feet, but that's close enough. And it makes calculating that much easier. So anyways to fill the whole land mass of earth we'd need 5 people per m² so
148,940,000,000,000 * 5 = 744,700,000,000,000 people. Everyone with me?
Now dadudemon figured this to be a easily solvable equation which would pretty closely show the population increase per year. and I do agree that it is sufficient:
Final Population = Current Population * (1+birth rate)^time in years.
So we solve for the power
Final Population/Current Population = (1+Birth Rate)^time in years
(ln(Final Population/Current Population))/ln(1+Birthrate)=time in years
Birth rate is around 2% I believe. Death rate won't matter. This assumes that the immortal beings all can have children forever and want them...at the same rate we want them now. If that was not the case I believe the model would be very similar to what it is now in real life, since "death" would be exchanged for "infertility due to age" so I suppose you can look that up and make some calculations based on current numbers, I won't though.
Anyways, the calculation is
(ln(744,700,000,000,000/7,000,000,000)/ln(1+0,02) = t
ln(106386)/ln(1.02)=t
11,57/0.02=t
578,5 = t
So it would take 578.5 years! Sounds plausible? Any problem with the calculation? Played too fast and loose with the decimals?
Originally posted by Bardock42no. that was just a question that came up.
So what he wants to know is how long it would take with current birth rates, and no deaths, to cover every inch of exposed land.That's just some silly calculation that depends on a few values I don't know, and it is really incredibly dull, much duller than what we were talking about....I am not amused.
what im asking is how would they world be and what measure would we try to take?