Google Search Results
Somewhere along the line somebody who believed the world was not overpopulated pointed out that the entire population of the world could be comfortably placed within the confines of the state of Texas. Countless online debates have occurred centering on whether or not this is a sensible comparison, with environmentalists often pointing to this claim as an example of the sort of absurdities that their opponents are willing to entertain.
Now, however, the Sierra Club has gotten into the act by implicitly endorsing urbanization levels that make the whole-world-in-Texas argument look positively spacious. They’ve temporarily taken down the page, but in June the Sierra Club put a page up at http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/enviroimpacts.asp which contained a calculator applet to measure the impact of various population densities. The page was constructed to promote the Sierra Club’s anti-sprawl initiative. But it contained some very curious results.
The applet compared the environmental impacts of what it called “efficient urban density” versus “sprawl density,” with the sprawl density, of course, coming out the loser. But the Sierra Club’s definition of efficient urban density might surprise some people. Initially, when the page went live, the Sierra Club defined efficient urban density as 500 households per acre. Given the average number of people per household in the United Stats, that works out to more than 750,000 people per square mile.
Folks ridiculed people for suggesting that the entire world population could fit in Texas, but at the density level the Sierra Club was advocating, all 6 billion people in the world today would be able to fit in an area just 2 percent as large as Texas. The state could hold upwards of 300 billion people at that level of density.
Responding to criticism, the Sierra Club quickly took the page down and retooled it, defining efficient urban density as only 100 households per acre. But that’s still a population density of 153,600 people per square mile, or a density high enough to put every single man, woman and child in Texas almost 7 times. Forget Texas, the entire world population could fit in Virginia!
It is almost beyond belief to see a mainstream environmental organization actually advocating population densities that exceed those proposed by the Texas thought experiment. At least the critics of overpopulation claims never actually advocated such an absurdity.
Source:
The Could the Entire World Live in Texas, Part II by Brian Carnell, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
What do you mean “live”? I’m not talking about creature comforts…like the ability to sit more than 20 feet away from someone. I’m talking about actual survival. There would be no space for farming, drilling, water treatment, sewer systems, landfills etc. So could you actually live? Yes, I suppose you could. If you did not eat, drink or have human waste. So yes, everyone could live there for about 3 days. Hardly impressive.
Ok, regardless of the exact numbers. The point is that the world is not anywhere near being over populated. If you could fit the population of the world in an area the size of two Texas‘, that would still be a fraction of the habitable space on the planet. The numbers that were being used in the original argument were not even considering building up, as in skyscrapers. The fact that anyone can think that the number of people that we have on this planet is having any significant effect what so ever on the climate or ecosystem in general is mind boggling to me. If anyone is interested in checking some real science and not just listening to Kerry, who stands to make a hell of allot of money with his cap and trade bill, check out this site. http://www.co2science.com
I may not be venerable enough to possess a website but I must agree with Jeremy. I have done the math and a population of 12 billion could fit packed into Texas with the space of 608 feet square. Now imagine if we could stack this, I refer to sky scrapers every floor we go up on a building reducing the demand on the land. Two stories half as much land four a fourth and so on. Our buildings reach grand heights do they not? Then couldn’t we use the space of an entire country say the size of the U.S to feed their huger? Or perhaps two countries… The world is very far from being over populated and certain natural factors which people loath and do oft protest successfully keep the population “in check” (flood, famine, plague, etc.). The world looks crowded because the public is fed snapshots of 50 crowded into the space less than a living room pardon the hyperbole. On ward to global warming I have not nor will i ever be such a pitiful specimen as an evolutionist hehe the very idea. But if people assume the Earth from molten toxic origins (which i also do not believe) even if the entire blasted human race is damned won’t life find a way? The environment will always bounce back surely the origins of the Earth’s destruction cannot come fromt the earth itself. Climate, temperature, the seasons they cycle, they flow humans think way to highly of themselves if they assume they can stop it all on their whim. I have ladies and gentlemen no fear of what deeds humans may perform on the Earth surely they will only grow increasingly wicked and terrible so stop what we can and fight where can. I fear no end other than the promised one that is the difference between myself and the atheist he frets I do not. We did not shape the world in our hands nor will the world in our hand perish. If you are concerned about the population insight war. Stop washing your hands stop eating for Christ sake and I assure you there will be one less and the human populace will greatly rise in IQ. If Global warming is your issue dispose of your computer and your electrical and gas consuming devices and go live in the jungle with the apes who would not want someone as foolish as you in their midst. Be a good martyr for you own cause you hypocrites. I have no illusions about the goodness of human being or the existence of a perfect world. Rubbish! Hehe, it appears I flew off the proverbial handle. I will stop…
Nobody ever said that projected population totals couldn’t fit within a given geographical area or that the amount of available land on earth is inadequate to contain projected population numbers. Overpopulation simply means that there are or are projected to be more people on the planet than the planet’s resources can sustain, as those resources are currently being used. Somewhat apart from the question of sustainability is the question of life quality and whether people would even want to live in a world with multiple times the current population and the kind of competition for ever-scarcer resources that would necessarily involve. The Chinese and Indians aren’t riding bicycles anymore. They want to live like Americans, and so do millions of other people in developing countries. Increasingly, they are doing so.
Finally, being a martyr is not the only option. By framing the possible responses to problems in extreme, either/or ways, people justify doing nothing. There’s such a thing as being aware of the effects our lifestyles have and trying to minimize the impact as best we can.
Although the Sierra club is being perhaps too wishful, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to reduce the world population and then concentrate people into sustainable, well-planned arcologies. That would leave enough nature and farmland unspoiled for people to enjoy.
The people who usually quote that Texas stat, I find, are those who rejoice in the idea of a sprawling hell-slum growing from the cities and engulfing once peaceful rural areas and natural preserves alike. Food and water issues are dealt with later I suppose. This they envision to support their madman’s dream of 40 billion people living on Earth, presumably all of them religious zealots of their preferred “faith”.
Your post hmm ? Blog Archive ? Hello world! was very interesting when I found it over google on Friday by my search for hmm. I have your blog now in my bookmarks and I visit your blog again, soon. Take care.
It’s amazing to see how some people still don’t believe in overpopulation, climate changes and everything else. These replies really opened my eyes to it.
Overpopulation does not mean that there is no space for people anymore. It means there is not enough space to produce the things these people need. Every person needs, above all, to breathe. There needs to be enough space to regen that air. Every person needs food that has to grow somewhere. Every person needs a chair, a table… All that stuff needs to be produced somewhere and all the trash you produce every day of your life needs to go somewhere.
If you think the world is no overpopulated keep your trash for 3 months in your home. I’d love to see you say “hey, this is not to bad, we could all live like this forever”. And then, all that trash needs more time to decompose then you spend living. This means you need X space for Y times your lifespan. This means that (in a not growing population) we need space for every person plus the space that is still decomposing the trash from people that already died making us need more space for trash from dead people then for actual living people today.
You sound like a guy that says “hey there is allot of space in my home, why don’t I invite 30 people to live with me?” and doesn’t think about the space he needs for his clothes, his car, his TV, the space to sit at the table and eat, to store his food, the plate he is eating out off, the space for the table itself and the space he needs to sit on the can, that also needs space, while he is taking a dump.
“What holds the world together is stupidity, not gravity”
good good good stuff. It was a cool read and a great way to kill time lol. But I be fond of your article though.