The world has a surface area of 510.072 million sq km. Well clearly we can
not live any where on the surface of the world as the majority of it is
water 361.132 million sq km. The remainer is the land mass 148.94 million sq
km. So what is the population of the human race? Estimate is currently at
6,525,170,264 (July 2006 est.).
Now let us do some translations. For every 148 sq km you get 37,000 acres of
37,000 acre = 148 sq Km meaning that the world has about 3.68*10 to the 10th
Acres of land. I will be using 37,000,000,000 acres for the math below. Now
if you were to split that land up between all the people of the earth and
gave each one a share each would get 5.67 acres of land.
37,000,000,000/ 6,525,170,286 = 5.67 acres per person
That does not sound like a lot does it? Some may say "Much of the land is
unliveable" and they are right so let look at a area where we could make it
nearly totally liveable. The Great State of Texas. Texas has a surface area
of 261,797 square miles.
1 square mile = 3,097,600 square yards = 640 acres
640 * 261,797 = 167,550,080 acres in Texas
Now lets say we move all the people of the world to the state of Texas. They
would each get only .02568 acres of land.
167,550,080 / 6,525,170,286 = .02568 acres per person
That does not sound like alot. But wait how much is .02568 acres?
1 acre = 4,840 square yards
4,840 * .02568 = 124.29 square yards
1 square foot = 1/9 square yard
124.29 * 9 = 1,118.61 square feet
Thusly if we moved every living human to Texas and the split the land amoung
them they would each get 1,118.61 square feet. Now you may say that still
does not sound like alot. But consider the average square footage of a
"The average American house in the 1940s had an area of 1200 square feet".
Well that means individually each person could have almost a house worth of
space to live in. But there is more as we know most people don't live alone.
The average population of a household in the USA is 2.5. Ok then combined
the average household in this World Population Texas would have a living
space of about 2,796.5 square feet. Easily a nice sized living space. But
the "Over populated world crowd" may say "You need roads, schools and other
things then just living space", and they would be right. Let us consider New
8,143,197 People live in the area of New York City. New York City's land
area covers 321 square miles (almost 206,000 acres or nine billion square
feet). So how much land are does the average New York Citizen use?
206,000 Acres / 8,143,197 People = .02529 acres
.02529 acres per person in a working, functional, and "Safe" city. How much
land would the people get in our Total World Population in Texas? .02568
acres per person. Wow nearly exactly the same amount, and in fact it would
be a little more spaceous then New York City is.
CONCLUSION: The total world population could move to Texas and make Texas in
to a functional MEGA city that acre by acre would look much like New York
City does today. Leaving the Rest of the world with out a single person on
it. Image Russia and China devoid of people. The only humans you could find
would live in Texas. And that city would be as safe as New York City is
today, Skyscrapers and parks included.
Summery: The world ISN'T over populated and has a long way to go before
getting any where near it. The truth is that man kind is spread around and
yet even with the spread we seem to perfer to live in cities. So we group up
and naturalist get upset at seeing these groups and think that is a sign of
over population. It is all a game on their part and don't buy in to it.
* * *
Another article at -
IS THE WORLD OVER-POPULATED?
It is certain that the world is NOT over-populated. Are you shocked by that
statement? (as we all were when we realized that the "hole in the ozone
layer" and the "green-house effect" were scams). The over-population scam
follows the same sad, but horribly successful formula that these globalists
always use to get what they want: conflict - resolution - change OR create a
problem - advertise the problem - solve the problem. All with the cheers and
blessing, of course, of those who so easily trust in sinful, power-hungry
men, but cannot bring themselves to trust in God.
# You can do all the maths you like, but unless you also define what
"living" means, then maths are just sums, and that's it.
It may be true that planet Earth can sustain a few billion more humans,
but the time is fast approaching when this will peak, and a population crash
After all, Earth is finite, and has limited resources. What kind of
life-style do you envisage, or do we want more people on a purely
Global warming is only one impact of a proliferating human species on
Nature. We human locusts are devouring the planet; oil has peaked in
reserves, and is diminishing henceforth. We can't leave anything alone -
Port Phillip Bay is headed for ecological disaster, while the
terribly-clever Japanese "harvest" whales.
No, Homo Sapiens will be decimated or extinct by about 2050 AD, and if
Nature doesn't finish us off, then nuclear war probably will. Non-human
species are becoming extinct at an alarming pace; we shall follow.
This is from:
This is one of the worst excuses for overpopulation
ever invented, yet it keeps appearing in cornucopian
rhetoric. Its origin would be interesting to trace;
it couldn't have come from a demographer. Such
simplistic calculations ignore the vast amounts of
water, land and energy required for modern life. They
also ignore other species' need for shrinking
habitat. People have dissected the landscape, leaving
nature in broken pockets cut off by development.
People also gravitate to the most livable areas,
which further restricts land-use scenarios. For life
to be sustainable, ecosystems must remain quite large
in relation to densely populated zones. Calculations
vary, but the "ecological footprint" of the average
American is said to exceed 5 acres. For 300 million
people (as of late 2006) this equates to
1,500,000,000 acres (about 1,500 x 1,500 miles) or
80% of total U.S. land acreage. If you tried to fit
6.6 billion people (2006 world population) in Texas,
there would be about 25,000 per square mile over the
entire State. That's about 7 times as dense as the
Dallas metro area. Texas can't even sustain its
actual population without imports; true of most
modern nations. These "Texas Hold 'Em" fallacies are
mindless variations of the food distribution
Great article carole
many thanks , great brain food
I live in a small town and it gets better as more people come , MUCH
And no that does not mean I want everybody living in high rises ,
there is NO reason for any building over 3 stories in my observation,
there is much land available
It is possible to live in a desert and live very very very well
its all a matter of using ones brains and PLANNING
People with financial interests push their ideas , regardless of the
good of all mankind
Greed is the real problem , not population
many thanks again for a great article
# Greed is part of the problem, as is population.
The human species has proliferated world-wide, and keeps on doing so.
Capitalism, and modern technology, assists in chomping away at the
environment, eliminating biological species at an increasing rate, and
wiping out forests with logging and land clearing - and we have nothing to
But the average mug is more obsessed with wife and family, and thinks
breeding is a boon to humankind.
Nature lurks in the background, biding its time - as its defective
product, us, the Mad Ape, uses its rationalising ability to prove,
mathematically, that everything is OK.
I'm a Prophet of Doom, and make no apologies for it. The human species
will be decimated or extinct by about 2050 AD - unless it takes drastic
action to alter its ways. However, our capacity for complacency and
self-deception is infinite.
There once was a Mad Ape, called Man.
Said "I'll breed as oft as I can!"
Population went Zoom,
Until very soon,
Came Crash - Kanga rued Nature's plan.
I think that there are are inventions that would relieve reliance on fossil
fuels that are suppressed by the illuminati -- so rule that one out.
Water is another one that I think is being manipulated -- I think there
would be inventions that can produce as much water from the atmosphere that
anybody could use, if they weren't suppressed. There are rivers of water in
the atmosphere that could be harnessed -- the atmosphere is often at levels
of 25-75% humidity and that's a lot of water.
If water and energy were free and available in unlimited quantities, it
would make much uninhabitable land available.
The good areas could be left to nature and man could live in the deserts.
So I'm not going to jump on the "over-population" bandwagon at this stage. I
would rather point the finger at the illuminati who go out of their way to
create scarcity and fear mongering, all in an attempt to control and
Go and point your finger at the ones who suppress all inventions that would
give us unlimited energy and water from the atmosphere. I'm not going to
demonise the average man in the street who is being manipulated and socially
engineered by power mad meglomaniacs.
You solve the energy and water problems and then come back and we'll discuss
over-population, if it still exists.
That's already been done ...
You're not talking about living, you're simply trying to argue by
implication that you would consider the quality of such a life
unacceptable. But hey, if everyone moves to Texas and you don't like
living, you can always kill yourself.
> It may be true that planet Earth can sustain a few billion more
> but the time is fast approaching when this will peak, and a
> population crash
> will occur.
The fact is that the more affluent a society becomes, the fewer
offspring the average couple has.
There's a hump (if you'll excuse the expression) in the curve that
relates population growth to income / wealth, so that at the extreme
poverty end there is also a natural limit on population growth. The
mega-cities of the 3rd world are only possible today because they live
off the productivity of the West. Before we became affluent, these
cities were orders of magnitude smaller than they are today, if they
existed at all.
In other words, like many things, population growth is a gaussian
distribution, and your argument is a crock.
> After all, Earth is finite, and has limited resources. What kind
> life-style do you envisage, or do we want more people on a purely
> subsistence basis?
This is simply misguided at best. There is no such thing as a "natural
resource" in the way you mean it, i.e. a resource that exists without
reference to humanity. Until a human devises a use for something, it is
just a rock or a plant or a liquid etc.
E.g Prior to nuclear power, uranium was just a rock. It's valuable now,
as a resource, because people invented a use for it.
Ergo, the most valuable of resources, the primary resource on this
planet, is the human mind. And increasing population actually INCREASES
the sum total of resources on this planet, whereas people like yourself
are anti-human, probably out of some vicarious white guilt trip
bullshit you swallowed in high school social studies, or some similar
brainwashing experiment by the loony left.
> Global warming is only one impact of a proliferating human species
Whether or not the climate is actually changing as a result of human
activity (still an open question), the global warming hysteria is
merely a political ploy to justify yet another increase in centralised
power and control.
Wake up and smell the fascisti ...
> We human locusts are devouring the planet; oil has peaked in
> reserves, and is diminishing henceforth. We can't leave anything
> alone -
> Port Phillip Bay is headed for ecological disaster, while the
> terribly-clever Japanese "harvest" whales.
> No, Homo Sapiens will be decimated or extinct by about 2050 AD, and
> Nature doesn't finish us off, then nuclear war probably will.
> species are becoming extinct at an alarming pace; we shall follow.
Best you do the earth a favour now and top yourself immediately ...
don't wait to be moved to Texas ...