Ideal number of humans

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Of course, that was addressed in the parapgraph. But let's do the math:

Currently the world gains 220K people a DAY. Every 4th person is Chinese, so that is app. 50K Chinese. There are 86400 secs in a day, so currently it would be about 3/4 Chinese per second. But wait! First we have to march all those Chinese who are living (about 1.5 billions) through the gate.

At this point I will let you do the rest how many years is 1.5 billion secs and how many Chinese can go in a line, although the article ALREADY said 4....

220,000 people were born a day in 1970,
378,000 people are born a day now,

According to the Population Reference Bureau world birth rates currently average 23 births per 1,000 people a year and world death rates average 9 deaths per 1,000 people each year.

We can do some maths on these figures to find out how many people are born and how many die each day. If we take into account that the world’s population is currently 6 billion (6,000,000,000) we can multiply 9 and 23 by this figure and then divide it by 1,000. The result is that 138 million people are born each year and that 54 million die.


bear in mind this is a 2/3 years old so the figure's are larger

It also means assimov was notfar wrong with his estimation of growth rate, 220,000 people in 1970 378,000 in 2005 his estimation that there would be adouble in 35 yrs it won't be long till it's 440,000 a day doubling the growth rate

 

[Syzygys]

The result is that 138 million people are born each year and that 54 million die.

You went into all this trouble just to justify MY numbers. I said the world grows by 220K per day (not born, but born minus died) and if you subtract 54 from 138 million and divide it by 365 you get 230K!!!

So thanks for the help, but the answer was already given in the 2 posts of mine above...

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

You went into all this trouble just to justify MY numbers. I said the world grows by 220K per day (not born, but born minus died) and if you subtract 54 from 138 million and divide it by 365 you get 230K!!!

So thanks for the help, but the answer was already given in the 2 posts of mine above...

I am not in disagreement, you said gains 220k a day. but your approx right with deduction of deaths, It is 230k.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I wonder what the science magazine writer thought we would do for food. I was imagining reliance on photosynthesis as the limiting factor.

Yes, I too would call cracking photosynthesis an "extraordinary assumption" and so did the essayist. Nonetheless he took it for granted that we'd be able to build enough hydroponic tanks to feed everybody. All it requires is bringing in sunlight, extracting the energy through the miracle of photosynthesis, and emitting lower-frequency waste heat, the same process that is already assumed to be the limiting factor. The O2 - CO2 coupling may need to be examined to see if there's a limit there. Something that wasn't mentioned was that water is used as a catalyst by all these biological reactions, including the water that is locked into the organic tissues of the humans and their food plants. Will there be enough water to support that infrastructure?

What is their definition of "Postulating only advances in technology that are scientifically realistic"? I suppose anything is realistic if given enough time.

They were pretty liberal because they didn't want anybody to complain. They stuck with the immutability of the basic laws of the natural universe, like thermodynamics, which sticks us with a maximum rate of waste heat dissipation, and relativity, which sticks us with a practically useless rate of population dispersal to other parts of the galaxy. As various posters have mentioned, there are weaknesses in the glib hypotheses of mile-deep warrens and such, but the authors didn't want their findings to be controversial so they just assumed for the sake of argument that those predictions were viable. They really wanted to come up against something that was incontrovertible, so nobody could say their favorite technology could solve the problem if only people would just work together to give it a chance.

I am having a hard time finding a carrying capacity of a quadrillion people on Earth believable using only realistic advances in technology.

Remember, they were not trying to prove that limiting factors would bring us to a maximum soon.They were trying to find the absolute longest limiting factor that no one would argue with, and see how much time we had at the outside. So their point is that even if we assume for the sake of argument that this is possible, we can still go no farther. The sobering aspect of their conclusion is that the limit could be reached so quickly: merely the time that has elapsed since the Norman Invasion. Up until then a lot of people casually assumed it would take millions of years.

 

[temur]

Of course, that was addressed in the parapgraph. But let's do the math:

Currently the world gains 220K people a DAY. Every 4th person is Chinese, so that is app. 50K Chinese. There are 86400 secs in a day, so currently it would be about 3/4 Chinese per second. But wait! First we have to march all those Chinese who are living (about 1.5 billions) through the gate.

At this point I will let you do the rest how many years is 1.5 billion secs and how many Chinese can go in a line, although the article ALREADY said 4....

But I think you cannot do directly proportion like this since in China there is a birth control law. Can you find how many people should be born in a sec in order no to interrupt the flow if the people to be running through the gate at the speed of light.

 

[Pronatalist]

Why such a globalist, power-mad, manipulative outlook? Why not respect the natural growth of our own kind?​

Isaac Asimov covered this in one of his essays.

Suppose we ask, then, how many years it will take for mankind to increase in numbers to the point where the mass of humanity is equal to the present mass of all animal life? Remember, that when that happens there will be no other life left -no elephants or lions, no cattle or horses, no cats or dogs, no rats or mice, no trout or crabs, no flies of fleas.

Furthermore, to feed that mass of humanity, all the present mass of plant life must be in a form edible to man; which means no shade trees, no grass, no roses. We couldn't afford fruits or nuts because the rest of the tree would be inedible. Even grain would be uneconomic, for what would we do with the stalks? We would most likely be forced to feed on the only plants that are totally nutritious and that require only sunlight and inorganic matter for rapid growth- the one celled plants called algae.

Well then, if the total mass of animal life is two million million tons, log y equals 12.30 and x works out to 466. This means by AD 2436 the last animal (other than man) will have died, and the last plant (other than algae) will also have died.

By AD 2436 the number of human beings on Earth will be forty trillion or over eight thousand times the present number.The total surface of the Earth is equal to about 200,000,000 square miles, which means by AD 2436 the average density of the human population will be 200,000 per square mile.

Compare this with the present density of Manhattan at noon - which is 100,000 per square mile. By AD 2436, even if mankind is spread out evenly over every part of the Earth - Greenland, the Himalayas, the Sahara, the Antarctic -the density of the population will be twice as high everywhere as it is in Manhattan now.

We might imagine a huge, world girdling complex of highrise apartments (over both land and sea) for housing, for offices, for industry. The roof of this complex will be given over entirely to algae tanks containing an ocean of water, literally, and twenty million million tons of algae. At periodic intervals there will be conduits down which the water and algae would pour, to be separated, with the algae dried, treated, and prepared for food, while the water is returned to the tanks above. Other conduits, leading upward, will bring up the raw minerals needed for algae growth, consisting of (what else?) human wastes and finely chopped up human corpses.

Even this is quite modest compared to the earlier suggestions of allowing the human race to multiply till its mass equaled that of the Universe or merely that of the Earth, is quite unbearable. Where would we find any optimist so dead to reality as to actually believe that in a space of four and a half centuries, we can build a planetary city twice as densely populated as Manhattan. - Isaac Asimov

This was supposed to be a cautionary tale. No one was supposed to think that a world completely given over to supporting the maximum number of humans possible was a desirable goal. Only someone hopelessly insane could envision such a goal as being worthy of achieving.

If Isaac Asimov is supposedly so smart, why does he paint this picture with such a glaring, obvious flaw? Did he not even see it, or omit it on purpose?

It's the old pessimistic "fixed pie" argument, without proof. Why would man be limited to the total mass of animals? What is "organic" matter anyway? Based upon carbon and water? The oceans are so full of water. Carbon can be found in oil and coal and plants and animals. As I read somewhere, humans are making life upon the planet more abundant. Not just human life, but also life in general. They are converting non-life matter to life, in the form of oil-byproducts and fertilizer, being converted into food and plants and animals and people. Now we can't "create" life, but we can feed life, and help it grow and expand. We can "procreate" our own offspring.

But the increase of humanity, does not necessarily always "displace" other forms of life, as often other forms, occupy different, perhaps overlapping niches. If we don't eat them, other forms of life may not even be all that much affected. If we do eat them, often they become more abundant, as a result of their increased, albeit, food value. Look at what animals tend to be rather abundant. Cows and chickens. Why? Because we eat them.

BTW, I do like Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics. Getting them in the proper order helps guard against robotic software "malfunctions." As I recall, they go something like this.

1. A robot must never harm a human.
2. A robot must follow orders.
3. Robotic self-preservation.

Note that #2 insures that robots will willing deactivate themselves or must allow deactivation. #1 is a safe-guard against bad or careless programming. K.I.T.T. the computer-controlled car in "Knight Rider," could not turboboost out of being buried in the ground or whatever, because it would consume the oxygen Michael Knight would need to breath, if unsucessful, so Michael had to push the button. Computers aren't quite trustworthy to make "life and death" decisions, apparently. In another episode, KITT said to Michael "Forgive me," as he eject-seated Michael out of the car, just before getting hit by a missile. Like a loyal dog or a modern car with air bags, KITT was quite willing to "give its life" to save its human occupant. Just what any good, artificially-intelligent machine or computer should do.

 

[Repo Man]

Only you could consider a projection of forty trillion humans on Earth pessimistic.

 

[draqon]

if I was alone for the whole world and nothing but me, wouldn't that be ideal?

If I was alone for the whole world and me, wouldn't that be ideal?

If I was alone and the whole world of me, wouldn't that be ideal?

If I was the whole world of me, wouldn't that be ideal?

If I was the whole world, wouldn't that be ideal?

If I was everything, wouldn't that be ideal?

If I was, wouldn't that be ideal?

If I am, wouldn't that be ideal?

...Wouldn't than everything be ideal?

 

[draqon]

Only you could consider a projection of forty trillion humans on Earth pessimistic.

is that optimism than? :bugeye::bugeye:

 

[Pronatalist]

Overpopulation: Just enough of me. Way too much of you?​

I think one billion people on Earth would be the most pleasant number. Plenty of culture but still easy to get some space around you when you don't feel like being around people. Land prices would not cause much hardship with one billion people on Earth.

If we just wanted to fill the Earth with as many people as the Earth can support, the Earth can probably support more than 600 Billion people. We might have to farm the ocean and drive other species extinct. Maybe the Earth could support six trillion if we bio-engineered more efficient food sources. I have a lot of faith in technology.

Getting people to cooperate and not destroy everything with wars, pollution, and other types of anti-social behavior is trickier. With a huge population managing plagues would become more difficult. The Bacterias and Viruses would keep evolving as fast as our science could devise methods of controlling them.

Why do people think we can just "pick and choose?" 1 billion people would be most pleasant? Ha! I don't think so. Let's just take a peek at a world with 1 billion people, not so long ago. No electricity, no video games, few books beyond just maybe a family Bible, no computers, no internet, no refrigerators, no air conditioning. The stove was a big wood stove, if you could afford one. You had to have children, unless you wanted to chop all the wood, yourself? Homes were small, people had less stuff. We could live that way today. But how many people with the means not to have to, are choosing to live "technology impaired" like the Amish?

Without the crowds, you can't have amusement parks. Without the traffic, freeways would cost way too much per capita to build. Without all the morons? with iPod headphones in their ears, there would be no iPods, because those things simply can't be engineered and built at affordable costs, on a small scale. They must be mass-produced, to make them affordable. Same thing with computer chips.

Why didn't we get all these nifty inventions, when there was just 1 billion people in the world? People were around for thousands of years prior, so what were they doing, that they didn't get around to inventing all this stuff? Well quite a lot of the inventions are really small incremental improvements. With the burgeoning of overall human population size, the pace of such increments naturally sped up. Actually, I see quite a lot of inventions, not really so much about personal comfort, as more technically natural intelligence-driven population accumodations. Is the refrigerator really for convenience, or for feeding lots more people more efficiently. Well you get the idea? Enough for this posting?

 

[draqon]

KITT was quite willing to "give its life" to save its human occupant. Just what any good, artificially-intelligent machine or computer should do.

a machine like KITT does not have a "life" to begin with.

 

[Pronatalist]

What are you talking about? What's a few more zeros at the end?​

Only you could consider a projection of forty trillion humans on Earth pessimistic.

Such a projection should be considered optimistic, as probably world population could conceivable grow so large, if God allowed sufficient time left on earth for it to happen.

The world could hold so many more people, than there ever likely will be. That's pretty good "room for growth."

I see it as humans having wondrouse options, to contemplate that we maybe really could get so numerous, were we inclined to go on loving and nurturing our children as we should.

Also consider as optimistic, we won't even have to deal with it in our lifetimes, nor that of our children, and that future people would be better prepared and be conditioned for it, already having been born into a world so much more populous than today's.

 

[Pronatalist]

If man is made in God's image, then machines made in our faded image, have no life anymore.​

a machine like KITT does not have a "life" to begin with.

Maybe that's why a couple of robots, help come up with a new "Adam & Eve" to repopulate the planet, and help them to deactivate the robots that had taken over and eliminated the humans, having concluded that humans were the problem and the source of wars. According to an episode of "The Outer Limits." Why would a couple of robots, end the "life" of all the robots, and show the humans how to shut down the robot grid, including their robotic themselves? Because such intelligent machines, would know that their "life" was but a farce, a clever illusion, that wasn't real at all, and that humans are strangely different, having feelings and a soul.

Yeah, I know all that. KITT is little more than a fancy calculator. All his thinking and personality, is but a clever set of computerized calculations, seeking to mimic something of complex human behavior. A clever illusion. No "life" or soul.

Funny how in sci-fi, the "perfect" human emulations, are quickly found to be terrible flawed. The earlier prototype of "Data," turned out to be his evil brother, who seemed to conspire against the colonists with the destructive Crystaline Entity. We find that KITT has an evil twin KARR. Knight Automated Roving Robot, that was actually an earlier prototype, supposedly deactivated, but not quite? Data's evil brother, seemed to have all the nasty personality flaws of humans. Deceit, jealousy, whatever. Data was deliberately made imperfect, so as to not scare the colonists. KARR was more concerned about self-preservation, than serving humans or following orders. KARR was selfish. KARR was primitive and childish.

Even KITT is a facade. I saw an arm, on a freeze-frame of the DVD, closing the door from within the car, a door that supposedly KITT closed by himself. They had a guy to drive the car, hiding under a blanket, or so they claim. It's amazing how real phony scenes can be made to look, by movie magic, such as merely the juxtaposition of various shots, to create the illusion of a natural story flow. In the Bourne Ultimatum, he drives the car off the roof. Funny for a brief second, of slow-mo or freeze-frame replay, there's nobody in the car as it blasts off the roof. Then another shot, shows him jostling around as the car (supposedly) hits the cars below. Then he crawls out of the landed car. Strangely, no shots of him crawling in first, as that obviously would spoil the illusion.

 

[draqon]

Then he crawls out of the landed car. Strangely, no shots of him crawling in first, as that obviously would spoil the illusion.

no you're just being funny

 

[Repo Man]

is that optimism than? :bugeye::bugeye:

Not really, at least not to me. Asimov also wrote a dystopian sci fi story based on his projection. The main character was a caretaker of the last "zoo" on Earth. He had a few plants, and a few small mammals. He was forced to exterminate them because it had been determined that a few more humans could be brought on board in the space that they took, and calories they consumed. So he did, and that was that. An entire planet of nothing but humans occupying a global city. Truly a vision of hell.

 

[nirakar]

All it requires is bringing in sunlight, extracting the energy through the miracle of photosynthesis, and emitting lower-frequency waste heat,

The sunlight would be so precious that you would not want to waste any of it. How to distribute the sunlight to all the hydroponic tanks on the lower levels without letting sunlight be absorbed by anything other than your intended food sources?

How to move the Waste heat to the poles where it might be useful?

Huge population doesn't sound very appealing to me. I would rather that we have a strict two children per family rule.

Even as I write my upstairs neighbor is bothering me by walking /thumping on my ceiling. I bought 40 acres of mixed Redwood forest 2& 1/2 hours from where I live but I rarely get to my land and the CDF is going to make me spend $50,000 on roadwork before I am legally allowed to build a house on my land.

A trillion people sounds like a nightmare. A quadrillion people and I think I would kill myself. The true limit on how many people could live on Earth might be when people start killing themselves because they can't cope with the population densities.

 

[Pronatalist]

A world of 600 billion could have its "Amish," but somehow I suspect the "Amish" of then, would differ from that of today.​

... I like your 1 billion idea but where the hell do you pull these 600 billion carrying capacity? Of course without describing the LEVEL of society it is meaningless to throw out numbers like this, but I doubt that even on the level of Amish 100 billion could be supported...Imagine how much land they need...

That's one reason, while I admire some of the traits likely to come with the Amish lifestyle, I don't recommend it for a very large portion of the huge world population. "Modern" adaptations to human population growth, such as maybe many big cities, seem so much more in keeping with the necessary population accomodation. Obviously, people could live in lots of closely spaced small towns, but that just isn't the pattern that huge populations and lots of people would naturally choose. There's not only the huge numbers, but certain perceived advantages of such big city clustering, that draws the people inwards more so, than repelling them outwards.

A global society of 600 billion, would likely be so much more "fine" with having humans living densely together, than even people would think they would be, today. It's not like there would be any alternative, or any memory of a world any different?

I already can sleep "in a crowd," if there be little if any perceived threat. Had I been born into a world of 600 billion, it would be even all the easier. Babies sleep "in a crowd," all the time, as they sleep so much more, than we let them be alone. You take them to Church or shopping, and they are asleep in their stroller or baby seat.

 

[pjdude1219]

none

 

[draqon]

none

but me.

 

[nirakar]

A global society of 600 billion, would likely be so much more "fine" with having humans living densely together, than even people would think they would be, today. It's not like there would be any alternative, or any memory of a world any different?

I already can sleep "in a crowd," if there be little if any perceived threat. Had I been born into a world of 600 billion, it would be even all the easier. Babies sleep "in a crowd," all the time, as they sleep so much more, than we let them be alone. You take them to Church or shopping, and they are asleep in their stroller or baby seat.​

I think living in a 50 person tribe/ extended family a mile away from the next 50 person tribe / extended family is the most natural and satisfactory way for humans to live.

It was not safe for babies to sleep alone. A animal might sneak in, run off into the woods with them and eat them.​