[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
First Trillion (was Re: Yuri receives hypocrite of the week award (was Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy)
In <01bbe77a$52fd9f00$6b093593@Rick> "Richard W. Tarara"
<rtarara@saintmarys.edu> writes:
>
>This topic came up originally in trying to discuss jw's contention
that the
>solar system could support trillions of people. Assuming some of
those
>trillions (even one trillion) resided on earth, it makes sense (to me)
that
>most of this population would reside in cities.
Both assumptions look hasty to me.
First, trillions of people in the solar system does
not imply at least one trillion on earth. That would
only be a reasonable inference if all these
people lived on planet surfaces.
Second, even if a trillion did live on earth,
the resulting density would be suburban, not urban
- even discounting the surface of the oceans
(and that would be an error).
If, then, most of these people came to live in
cities, that would be a matter of preference,
not necessity. Quite possible - if the cities
are made attractive enough.
>The problem with cities is
>that they are high-density consumers of resources, those that produce
>energy, food, raw materials, etc.
If the problem is *density*, and not *quantity*,
then we have solved this problem already -
the high density has been achived in cities, and
has been accomodated.
>My particular area of concern is energy.
> Cities require high density energy production (or conversion)
>centers.
>Today these are provided in a number of ways that won't necessarily be
>available in the future.
Production or conversion? Prevailing
methods of energy *production* must
change, because more energy will be needed.
Probably solar energy or fusion or both will provide
the bulk of energy - unless something better comes up.
But why should present methods of conversion
cease to be available?
> Energy sources such as solar and wind ARE NOT
>well suited to high-density demands.
Electrical power is. Its source becomes irrelevant
at the point of consumption.
>My argument was that this is ONE
>factor that will effectively limit the size of cities and consequently
the
>sustainable population of earth
I see: you are speaking of city *size* - not
of total urban population. Size
increase *does* create new problems - soluble, IMO.
But cities needn't grow in size
at all to accomodate a trillion people - it
is enough that their *number* grows.
A trillion could even be settled in suburban
conditions.
There are advantages in greater city size
- this is why cities keep growing. This growth may
continue, but only if there are no insurmountable
obstacles. The whole problem is self-regulating.
References: