Re: Overpopulation (was Re: Exowombs & AGING: a few billion toomany)

From: Damien R. Sullivan (
Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 12:31:42 MST

On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 07:31:29PM +0100, Eugene Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
> > It's absolutely true that we're not overpopulated in a living-space
> > sense. The whole world could be packed into the United States at light
> > suburban densities (four people per acre, 1000 people per km^2. LA is
> > 3500/km^2, NYC about 12,000, Manhattan 30,000)
> 1000 people/km^2 does only sound not overpopulated if you're talking about
> ambulatory trees.
> Population density of 1000 people/km^2 is not possible at current level of
> technology. Dramatic change in lifestyle, routing mesh traffic and

What are you smoking? Did you read my parathesis? Any city worth the
name today has a much higher density than 1000/km^2. That's including
transportation (and park) space. The city isn't producing its own food,
of course. But then that was my point in responding to James; I was
skeptical of 2 billion people supported by North America. For just
living space it's easy.

-xx- Damien X-)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST