Anissimov, Michael. "Overpopulation? Not a
Problem!" ]Accelerating Future
Transhumanism, AI, Nanotechnology, the Singularity, and Extinction Risk. Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
Many scientists believe that out climbing population of
seven billion is threatening our stability as a species because the Earth’s
carrying capacity is unknown. According to the article “Overpopulation? Not a
Problem!” the Earth is nowhere near carrying capacity. They have found creative
and unique ways to maximize the space on Earth. The United States has
10,000,000 km squared of land and the Earth has total area, including water, of
500,000,000 km squared. Population
density by region varies, and that is why they say that in order to get the
most out of what we have, we have to place people in the most beneficial
places.
 |
| This shows the population density in each country |
 |
| This shows how condensed the world population could get and how much room we have to grow. |
Just looking at the United States alone, if 5% was
converted to an urban area, 45% was made suburban, and the other half of the
United States was left rural, the population of the U.S.A alone could hold 12
billion people. If this method was spread to every country the world population
could easily reach 100 billion. To reach the goal of 100 billion, we would have
to overcome the main obstacles of colonizing deserts, living in highlands and
mountains, providing energy and food, and disposing of waste.
In
the deserts, air conditioning, heating and water sources would be the biggest
challenges. The article proposed, using solar-powered airships to hold giant
shades to keep temperature low during the day, also at night heaters
underground would provide sufficient heat for living. Water in the desert can
be found by drilling deep into the water table or using plants that are able to
produce water.
To
live in the highlands and mountain tops we would get around by personal flying
machines, which should be affordable in the mid 10’s . High altitudes would also
be survivable with the injection of artificial red blood cells that store enough
oxygen for us to live off of.
Finding
energy for 100 billion people would be costly and would need the newest
technology. Nuclear fusion and Helium-3 are possible sources, but little
research has been done and we will have answers soon.
To
provide food to the whole population we would have to use all of the fertile
land. Vertical farming is an efficient way to grow lots of food using little
space. If we build oceanic cities to manufacture seafood and algae into
different forms, then the seafood industry would boom, there is another place
for people to live, and there would be plenty of food.
Getting
rid of all the waste the humans would produce would be taken care of by specially
engineered bacteria that can break down anything organic. For things like
plastic we would incinerate them in giant sealed autoclaves. Chemists would
oversee the removal of waste of a regular basis.
Opinion: I personally
think that this plan would be amazing if it could work out, but it sounds a
little far-fetched. I don’t know if we could live underwater or in deserts, but
if we could then, yes, the carrying capacity would increase. I like that this
scientist isn’t limiting the population and thinking efficiently.
Questions: 1. Do you
think that these ideas are realistic? If no, explain how you would change them.
If yes, explain.
2. How would these
changes affect how we live now?
3. Not using any of
these changes, how would you change the way we live to reach such a high
carrying capacity?
.jpg)
