2007-12-16 19:19:00 · 5 answers · asked by MB 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Geography
Every time science comes up with a number as to the maximum the world can support, it's eventually topped. The question is not nearly as simple as determining a number of people. You have to take into account the resources they consume, the space they require for living, their impact on the ecosystem as a whole. and many other things.
Think about this: How would the number change if there was no such thing as high rise buildings. What if we didn't have to use land for roads. In all honesty, with technological advances in everything from housing to crops, I wouldn't be surprised if the world could support a population of 40-50 billion.
2007-12-16 19:27:16 · answer #1 · answered by Justin H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it is definition of 'suitable' but if we look at it this way: prior to the evolution from gathering-hunter to farmer, about 12,000 years ago, the earth was sustaining about 50 million humans.
If 'suitable' means; in harmony with nature and all other forms of life on earth, then we should stop growing our food and keep domestic animals, and get the population down from 6.6 billions to ... 50 millions. And those 50 millions will have a hard time, working for many centuries, in order to clean up the mess we make today.
2007-12-16 23:18:54 · answer #2 · answered by Michel Verheughe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No 'SUITABLE' number. The world's population increases, but forces of nature makes it livable for survivors. Hunger does its work. War does its work. The world will handle all possible newborns.
2007-12-16 21:42:10 · answer #3 · answered by Striker 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
every second, minute, hours, weeks, days, years it will increase so we don't have an excact population.
2007-12-16 22:13:19 · answer #4 · answered by Johnny the real santa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe about 7 billion and increasing...
2007-12-17 02:30:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋