It has been argued that we must control human population because otherwise we will not be able to feed everyone. Assuming that we could feed 10 billion to 15 billion people on earth, would we still want to have a smaller population than that?Would that population create a sustainable Earth?
2006-08-30 09:11:08 · 11 answers · asked by collegegrl 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
The earth could theoretically support 10-15 people well, but because of the greed and consumptionism going on all around the world, we'd in practise need to reduce our population with at least a billion, for a sustainable future.
2006-08-30 09:15:09 · answer #1 · answered by nitro2k01 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I tis argued that a population of around 13 billion is the maximum that can be sustained by Earth's resources.
A smaller population would not necessarily be desired; it wouldn't matter that much. If there was a smaller population, it would definitely be able to be sustained.
2006-08-30 09:16:00 · answer #2 · answered by retired_dragon 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The earth's ability to provide sustained food and water is limited by its physical size. Humans need both to survive. It might be possible to support such large numbers as a theory but reality would be much different. Those that have food/water tend to horde during lean times and not share - just human nature- and if sharing was possible distribution difficulties would be tremendous. The earth might be able to support that number of people but I think it wouldn't be a very nice place to live.
2006-09-03 02:20:54 · answer #3 · answered by jack w 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Certainly, if that population were spread evenly across the planet. It is said you could take the entire population of the USA and put them in the state of Texas and each person would have over 20,000 square feet to themselves! That would leave the remaining 49 states free to be populated evenly by the other countries of the world. The same could be said for other lightly-populated regions. Of course infrastructures would have to migrate to accommodate this but, hypothetically it could be sustained.
2006-08-30 09:30:35 · answer #4 · answered by James O 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have to assume that if the population reaches 10-15, that most of them would be living in small apartments, or dorms. Assume that lots of food would be grown in hydroponic vats instead of land. Assume there would be lots of violent crime, disease, and crime. And disasters will become far more common. Deadly epidemics would kill lots of people. "Would we still wants a smaller population than that?" Imaging taking all the living space you have now, and sharing it with 4 other people.
2006-08-30 09:45:08 · answer #5 · answered by Roy C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the Earth can support 10-15 billion or more people. There are enough replenishable resources to do so. The real challenging is being able to manage and control our resources!
2006-08-30 09:18:27 · answer #6 · answered by Mightie Mouse 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
our latest world population is ...
6,528,051,823 total. 3,286,346,545 male. 3,241,705,278 female
on aug 2006.
so in 2050 we will reach up to 9 billion .
during that time life and civilization will change ..
then you can ask 10 to 15 billion population 's question ..
2006-08-30 09:31:21 · answer #7 · answered by kam 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The earth could handle 30 billion people if technology and water were used appropriately in my opinion. Since I don't like urban environments, I wouldn't be too happy about it, but that wasn't the question. Right now the US pays farmers not to grow crops and uses corn for fuel.
2006-08-30 13:14:19 · answer #8 · answered by JimZ 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes because we could irragate the sahara and other deserts. and also we could clone food. and yes we r in explosive population growth right now and in a century we r projected to hit up to 15 billion people.
2006-08-30 09:20:44 · answer #9 · answered by Worldemperor 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We'd kill eachother first, sadly.
2006-08-30 12:34:20 · answer #10 · answered by Koklor 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋