Yeah here's the thing. I *hate* cities. The noise, the crowding, the traffic, the lights, the endless stretches of asphalt and concrete. I don't even like visiting for more than a few hours. Overnight stay and I am done.
No problem, I can live rurally, right?
Well assume that a sizable portion of the population, say 20%, is like me (I thin…
Yeah here's the thing. I *hate* cities. The noise, the crowding, the traffic, the lights, the endless stretches of asphalt and concrete. I don't even like visiting for more than a few hours. Overnight stay and I am done.
No problem, I can live rurally, right?
Well assume that a sizable portion of the population, say 20%, is like me (I think this is a generously low estimate given how many people choose to live rurally right now in developed countries, despite the "benefits" of cities). That's 20 billion people who want to live at a population density around 400/sqkm on average. You need 50 million sqkm to keep them comfortable and happy. Mind you most don't want to live in deserts or on glaciers.
This isn't going to happen. When it doesn't happen, you're going to get more conflict than you're expecting.
About 80% of people in advanced economies live in urban areas *today*. This goes up to 92% in Japan. These numbers keep growing.
A lot of the environment you like is defined by what you experience as a child, so it's reasonable to expect the number of children raised in cities to increase. My guess that will reach 90-95% That leaves just 5-10B people who want to live in more rural areas.
Today, there are 3.5B people living in rural areas, and most of countries like Russia, Canada, the US, Argentina, and Australia are basically empty. So you can easily get to 5B rural people, and probably 10B.
I think you're being overly optimistic. My view is it comes down to temperament, which isn't entirely environmental.
But either way population growth presumably doesn't stop at 100b in this scenario, so sooner or later you're going to run into this problem.
There is a carrying capacity beyond which it will become infeasible to host more people on earth. I've seen thermodynamic estimates of around 1-2 trillion (the point at which earth could no longer radiate away the waste heat generated by the population, assuming modest energy consumption and perfectly efficient heat loss). But long before we get there we'll have social conflicts.
You can't just say I'm too optimistic. You have to point out specifically the areas where I am being too optimistic, and why your assessment is different!
I agree there is a carrying capacity limit on Earth. My point is that it's orders of magnitude higher than what we think, and for all intents and purposes it's infinite for us. 100B or 1T or 10T is a theoretical debate. It will only become concrete in centuries, so let's let that debate to those people. They will have better tools to have it.
Well I did, I said I think it’s temperament, and that is not environmental, but I didn’t want to derail on a nature vs. nurture debate. Those are tedious. Just: this is why my POV is different.
And I agree with your general premise. Just think you’re being a little flippant about it. It will be a real challenge someday. But one of two things will happen: we will overcome it, or else we will reach the limit and nature will enforce it. Either way, fine.
At least in the US, more than twice as many “urban” residents actually live in suburbs and exurbs as live in the actual city. I technically am in an MSA. There are horses, cattle, goats, and sheep living on my road, and the smallest lots are 2 acres - largest are in the hundreds of acres. Your urban 80% includes millions of people living in similar areas.
And have absolutely no space grill food. You don't have to worry about getting to 100 billion people there's no way humans are gonna make it to 2035 hell it'll be a miracle if we make it to 2030. Your prop dribble is so pathetic, It's nothing more than tiny bit of humor. Well boatload of embarrassment and disappointment, from your mom.....
Relevantly to growing the world's population to 100B, most young children and parents of young children also hate living in cities.
Kids can't do developmentally important things like playing in dirt or running around outside with light supervision in a city. They'll get lead poisoning or get hit by a car. Most parents realize this and move to the suburbs or country where their kids can have a more human life. Some stay in the city but find raising kids there so difficult/unhappy that they stop after one or two.
Throughout history, cities have typically had a below replacement fertility rate. They're playgrounds for perpetually childfree adults, or networking hubs for young people to get established in their careers before they settle down elsewhere. Cities have always been reliant on a steady infusion of population from more vital areas. One might even argue that urbanization is the primary cause of the fertility collapse.
Whatever percentage of people would be happy living in Paris-like conditions, the number will be lower if they have the needs of a family in mind.
Suburbs and rural areas aren't perfect either, but they're better for families than Paris is. Still, there are many ways suburbs and urban areas like Paris could be made more family friendly. Primarily, there need to be larger (shared when necessary) green spaces that are fenced or in an apartment courtyard. A 4yo should be able to come and go outside without danger of cars while their parent watches them occasionally from the ground floor of their home. And those homes need to be big enough for a family of 5+ and affordable enough to live on a single income, if families are to be able to focus on having the kids and family life that most people want. Probably one of the only ways to get to 100B would be to guarantee families homes at least that appropriate.
Yeah here's the thing. I *hate* cities. The noise, the crowding, the traffic, the lights, the endless stretches of asphalt and concrete. I don't even like visiting for more than a few hours. Overnight stay and I am done.
No problem, I can live rurally, right?
Well assume that a sizable portion of the population, say 20%, is like me (I think this is a generously low estimate given how many people choose to live rurally right now in developed countries, despite the "benefits" of cities). That's 20 billion people who want to live at a population density around 400/sqkm on average. You need 50 million sqkm to keep them comfortable and happy. Mind you most don't want to live in deserts or on glaciers.
This isn't going to happen. When it doesn't happen, you're going to get more conflict than you're expecting.
It's not this simple.
OK I hear you. Let's break down this logic.
About 80% of people in advanced economies live in urban areas *today*. This goes up to 92% in Japan. These numbers keep growing.
A lot of the environment you like is defined by what you experience as a child, so it's reasonable to expect the number of children raised in cities to increase. My guess that will reach 90-95% That leaves just 5-10B people who want to live in more rural areas.
Today, there are 3.5B people living in rural areas, and most of countries like Russia, Canada, the US, Argentina, and Australia are basically empty. So you can easily get to 5B rural people, and probably 10B.
I think you're being overly optimistic. My view is it comes down to temperament, which isn't entirely environmental.
But either way population growth presumably doesn't stop at 100b in this scenario, so sooner or later you're going to run into this problem.
There is a carrying capacity beyond which it will become infeasible to host more people on earth. I've seen thermodynamic estimates of around 1-2 trillion (the point at which earth could no longer radiate away the waste heat generated by the population, assuming modest energy consumption and perfectly efficient heat loss). But long before we get there we'll have social conflicts.
Fortunately there's a lot of space ... In space.
You can't just say I'm too optimistic. You have to point out specifically the areas where I am being too optimistic, and why your assessment is different!
I agree there is a carrying capacity limit on Earth. My point is that it's orders of magnitude higher than what we think, and for all intents and purposes it's infinite for us. 100B or 1T or 10T is a theoretical debate. It will only become concrete in centuries, so let's let that debate to those people. They will have better tools to have it.
Well I did, I said I think it’s temperament, and that is not environmental, but I didn’t want to derail on a nature vs. nurture debate. Those are tedious. Just: this is why my POV is different.
And I agree with your general premise. Just think you’re being a little flippant about it. It will be a real challenge someday. But one of two things will happen: we will overcome it, or else we will reach the limit and nature will enforce it. Either way, fine.
At least in the US, more than twice as many “urban” residents actually live in suburbs and exurbs as live in the actual city. I technically am in an MSA. There are horses, cattle, goats, and sheep living on my road, and the smallest lots are 2 acres - largest are in the hundreds of acres. Your urban 80% includes millions of people living in similar areas.
And have absolutely no space grill food. You don't have to worry about getting to 100 billion people there's no way humans are gonna make it to 2035 hell it'll be a miracle if we make it to 2030. Your prop dribble is so pathetic, It's nothing more than tiny bit of humor. Well boatload of embarrassment and disappointment, from your mom.....
Maybe I miss something here. This is satire, right?
Relevantly to growing the world's population to 100B, most young children and parents of young children also hate living in cities.
Kids can't do developmentally important things like playing in dirt or running around outside with light supervision in a city. They'll get lead poisoning or get hit by a car. Most parents realize this and move to the suburbs or country where their kids can have a more human life. Some stay in the city but find raising kids there so difficult/unhappy that they stop after one or two.
Throughout history, cities have typically had a below replacement fertility rate. They're playgrounds for perpetually childfree adults, or networking hubs for young people to get established in their careers before they settle down elsewhere. Cities have always been reliant on a steady infusion of population from more vital areas. One might even argue that urbanization is the primary cause of the fertility collapse.
Whatever percentage of people would be happy living in Paris-like conditions, the number will be lower if they have the needs of a family in mind.
Suburbs and rural areas aren't perfect either, but they're better for families than Paris is. Still, there are many ways suburbs and urban areas like Paris could be made more family friendly. Primarily, there need to be larger (shared when necessary) green spaces that are fenced or in an apartment courtyard. A 4yo should be able to come and go outside without danger of cars while their parent watches them occasionally from the ground floor of their home. And those homes need to be big enough for a family of 5+ and affordable enough to live on a single income, if families are to be able to focus on having the kids and family life that most people want. Probably one of the only ways to get to 100B would be to guarantee families homes at least that appropriate.