[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: First Trillion (was Re: Yuri receives hypocrite of the week award (was Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy)



[... continued]
In <01bbe9fd$4d60ae40$5debaec7@pro> "Rick & Bea Tarara"
<rbtarara@sprynet.com> writes: 
>jw <jwas@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><58ulqt$cdb@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>...
>> 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).

>At 1 trillion, each person has 100 square meters of dry land.  

You've got that wrong: it is 150 square meters per person.
A suburban density. If part of the
population live in cities, then the remainder will have
even more elbow-room. Also, there's the ocean to 
partially build over. 

>Based on
>that I predict that most of the population ends up in cities where you
can
>'stack' them into high-rises.  

They might - as I said, too:

>> 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 -
>> high density has been achieved in cities, and
>> has been accommodated.

>No it's both.  You still have to feed these trillion so you need
x-amount
>of food.  If they live in a city then you must be able to deliver
y-amount
>of food to that specific location. 

Urban population density makes delivery problems
easier: this is why, e.g., the postal service
has to subsidize rural delivery out of profits
from urban delivery.

>Certain resources and service must
>remain close to the city for reasons of efficiency (both economic and
>resource efficiency).  Large countries today suffer in energy
efficiency
>because of the large amounts necessary to transport materials, good,
and
>people around.

Exactly: *large* countries do: countries large in area,
as compared to their population. You are arguing
the wrong case...

Transporation inefficiencies arise in *sparsely* populated
areas; greater density makes transportation more
efficient. This is one of its economic advantages.

It has been, for example, an economic advantage of Japan,
whose population, dense even wrt its *whole*
area, is mostly concentrated in a few
percent of that area.

Economic efficiency, to be sure, is not the sum total of
life: people *may* prefer suburban over urban
life - and they will be able to afford the inefficiency.

However, urban life has other advantages, too.
E.g., I miss it, though I live in a very
nice suburb; but I feel more alive in a city.
Some people feel the same way, others do not.
Tastes differ, so do economic interests.
Therefore, in an affluent society where
people can choose, one can expect a mix of 
great cities and suburbs. A trillion people
*can* be accommodated in such a lifestyle
mixture on this planet.  I do not, however, expect 
a trillion people to inhabit this planet's
surface in a foreseeable future. They
*could* - but that does not mean they *will*.

To quote a previous posting:

||Here is one optimistic but realistic scenario of what might 
||happen [...] (physical constraints *are* taken account of,
||in phases 1 through 6, but not 7, for a reason): 

||(1) population peaks at about 9 billion by 2035; 

||(2) near mid-century, a severe shortage of workforce is felt; 

||(3) a breakthrough permitting
||mass production of babies by *in vitro* gestation
||is achieved (with perfect genetic health, too). A global
||economic boom follows - and extra-global,
||too:  space ventures get really profitable at last.

||(4) population explodes, reaching 100 billion by
||2150, three quarters of them on earth, the rest
||around the Solar System; Earth is mostly a place
||for living and brainwork now (a most pleasant place, 
||a garden planet) - much of industry and agriculture 
||has moved off-planet.

||(5) A.D. 2,250: a trillion humans live in 
||the Solar System (a quarter trillion of
||them on Earth); interstellar colonization is beginning,
||with great amounts of human genetic material shipped
||along. All people are practically immortal by now,
||except for accidents. Per capita energy
||consumption is 1,000 the present Western level.
||Perfect health, vigor and radiant happiness
||throughout the unlimited life are everyone's birthright.

||(6) A.D 2,400: a quadrillion humans inhabit
||the Solar System, quintillions exist in nearby
||parts of the Galaxy and are spreading like
||a forest fire. Mankind's immortality
||(and that of formerly terrestrial life) is guaranteed.
||But, due to genetic engineering,
||humans have split into several species by
||this time (all of them far superior to modern
||Homo semiSapiens) - and  continue to evolve.
||Their knowledge and understanding exceed ours 
||as much as ours differ from a chimp's. 

||(7) A.D. 3,000. The space-time continuum itself
||has become manipulable by post-humans. 
||They manufacture universes out of vacuum, they
||influence cosmic evolution as *we* influence
||global evolution already. Their intelligence has
||increased on a par with their powers. 
||By our standards (though
||not by theirs!) they are gods. No limits
||that we can think of apply to them.



References: