Mathematics of Population

[tomcat]

At 290 million in the United States many Americans are beginning to feel the population crowding in around them.  They are noticing huge cities, one after the other, traffic jams, long lines at popular events, and so forth.  What can be done?

Well, I hope no one decides on population control because that involves killing in one form or another.  Also, people are a resource, an asset.  Everyone can contribute.  Why is it that large countries with large populations tend to dominate smaller countries with less people.  Because people are an asset, a resource of talent, ideas, and soldiers for the military.

The fact is we must modify how we live.  Horizontal spread is the cause of overcrowding -- not the number of people.  We are not using land space efficiently.  We are bulldozing the trees and grass to convert raw land into living space.  We must learn to use all 3 dimensions instead.  We must go vertical.

Imagine a United States with 600 million people instead of the 300 million we currently have.  What would it look like?

It might look quite attractive if each state had just 2 large buildings 6 million people each.  These buildings could be surrounded by forests and beautiful lakes.  Let's look at the mathematics:

A single building, 4 miles on each side and 50 stories high could hold 6 million people.  This would allow for 3717 square feet per person total.  This, in turn, would break down to 1000 square feet per person for living space and the remaining 2717 square feet to be used for common areas such as shopping malls, hospitals, police stations, businesses, stores, offices, and the like.

Businesses would be bought and sold, condominiums would be bought and sold, and apartments would be rented, just like they are in our massive horizontal spread of today.

Nothing of a living style or political change need be effected.  It would still be America.



///tomcat///

[LEO]

You think population density is a problem in the USA? Has anyone been to Britain recently?

[martin]

You think population density is a problem in the USA? Has anyone been to Britain recently?

No, but I am just now returning from Shanghai...

Martin

[LunarOrbit]

Well, I hope no one decides on population control because that involves killing in one form or another.

Not necessarily. If people were more responsible by having no more than two children and only having them when they were capable of taking care of them (ie. not at the age of 15) then the world would be able to cope better. Having only two children means you are only balancing population growth (replacing the parents with the children).

No killing is involved, and I'm not advocating governmentally enforced restrictions on how many children we can have. I'm just suggesting that people should consider the impact of population growth and do what they feel is right (even if they feel having 8 kids is right).

Also, people are a resource, an asset. Everyone can contribute.

In a perfect world, yes, but we all know that not everyone does contribute in reality.

There are not enough jobs to go around and that leads to poverty and starvation. Higher populations also lead to heavy use of natural resources, pollution, and crime.

The fact is we must modify how we live. Horizontal spread is the cause of overcrowding -- not the number of people. We are not using land space efficiently. We are bulldozing the trees and grass to convert raw land into living space. We must learn to use all 3 dimensions instead. We must go vertical.

Vertical cities still use resources, they still pollute, and they will still have crime.

[LEO]

No, but I am just now returning from Shanghai...

Yeah, but at least China's a big place... Theres still plenty of rural areas there

[martin]

Not necessarily. If people were more responsible by having no more than two children and only having them when they were capable of taking care of them (ie. not at the age of 15) then the world would be able to cope better. Having only two children means you are only balancing population growth (replacing the parents with the children).

No killing is involved, and I'm not advocating governmentally enforced restrictions on how many children we can have. I'm just suggesting that people should consider the impact of population growth and do what they feel is right (even if they feel having 8 kids is right).

Some years ago, some models for world population growth were predicting a maximum in some decades and then slow decline after this. I do not know if they are still predicting this...

There are not enough jobs to go around and that leads to poverty and starvation.

I must say some thing on this. Supply of jobs is not fixed, but endogenous economic variable. Many people do not have jobs because they live in countries with bad economic policies, or they do not have any skill which is demanded by world market. But supply of jobs can be expanded, and poor people can learn skills. The number of very rich people in the world today is larger than entire world population some decades ago, and there is poverty and starvation in the world when its population is much smaller than today. Even in many countries whcih are poor by standards of today, life expectancy is longer than in rich countries 100 years ago. And in east asia, some countries are showing it is possible to become rich in only a small number of decades. Number of people lifted from extreme poverty in china only in last few decades is substantial fraction of world population 100 years ago. Maybe at some very high level of population, natural resources are so scare per person that poverty is necessary outcome, but we may be very far from this level. But now at apollohoax, some one in one of the richest societies in history of world is complaining how poor is his country...

Martin

[tomcat]

You think population density is a problem in the USA? Has anyone been to Britain recently?

No, but I am just now returning from Shanghai...

Martin

You are absolutely right.  The entire world has a population problem not because it is an impossible problem, but because it is a 'new' version of the problem.

Never before has mankind had 6 billion people on this planet.  Horizontal spread always solved the expanding population problem . . . until now.  Fortunately, however, you simply move upward in a vertical way and you solve the problem once again.

Contractors will tell you that they can build up to 50 stories high as cheaply as a couple of stories.  Vertical expansion is overall cheaper because it minimizes land use at a time when land is skyrocketing in value.  A large building -- covering 1 or more square miles of land -- can be used for urban renewal, killing two birds with one stone.  Since such a large building is also a small city with light manufacturing, stores, professionals of all kinds it serves as a single place where people can live and work.

By having your home and work within a single building you do not necessairly have to have an automobile, which is a major personal expense -- too expensive for some. 

Note:  for the more well to do this concept does not preclude having a vacation cottage or second home elsewhere.  I do not see the vertical building concept changing the economic philosophy or the political structure of any country.  The wealthy, moreover, could purchase very large and beautiful condominiums taking up many floors located on the outside wall where there would be a spectacular view through the plate glass windows.  Hallways leading to these condominums might be multi-level to give a sense of spaciousness too.

Good building design should make both outside and in appear attractive.  A simple 'box' won't do!  Shopping malls should look just like the ones we use today, with high ceilings and beautiful appointments.

The world population of 6 billion is a new version of the problem requiring new ideas, other than 'horizontal spread'. The large vertical -- 50 story -- building is one of those ideas.  When a 4 mile square consisting of 16 square miles can hold 6 million people with comfort . . . well, the 'mathematics of population' has solved the problem.



///tomcat///

[LEO]

What happens during a fire alarm? Bomb scare etc. How many people are you thinking of having in one building and therefore evacuate in such conditions? 6 million?

It is just not practical to make buildings so large. For example, how on earth are you going to get daylight into the middle of these things? I can tell you that after just 4 hours in a room with no daylight, just flourescent tube, as soon as you walk outside, you become completely disorientated and feel kinda strange, despite the fact that it is a very large room. Daylight is a very important part of life - the human race has never been without it for more than a few hours at a time, and many bodily functions are dependant upon its presence.

Have you seen the film 'Time Machine'? (If not, don't bother, its not very good IMO). But still, it tells of how the human race got wiped out, with a small band of survivors starting over again, some dug underground, to stay warm, closer to the core, while others stayed out in the sunlight and decided to build great things again. When those who had been underground returned to the surface, they found that they could not survive in the sunlight - that they were now weak and powerless compared to those above...

I've managed to lose sight of my own point here, which I have now completely forgotten... See what a few days in that room has done to me?!?

[Bob B.]

I've managed to lose sight of my own point here, which I have now completely forgotten...

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one that does this.

[Satanic Mechanic]

A guy by the name of Malthaus (sp) was the first to write a paper about what many people call the "population bomb".

[tomcat]

It's good to see so many are wrestling with the problem. But the vertical building approach is the only approach -- other than killing.  Really.  So, lets get on with it.

Now, the problem of fire and crimes.  It is possible to build a building incapable of catching fire.  Simply use nothing that is flammable.  United States Navy ships were so modified many years ago:  no wood, no flammable curtains, etc.  Such a large building would have many fire barriers, just in case, however.  It would also have it's own Fire Department.

Crimes can be dealt with similarly.  Cameras in public areas is acceptable today.  But nothing can replace the uniformed police officer.   So police stations and personnel will be in the building as well.

Daylight is a more difficult problem.  Certainly there would be daylight on the outside plate glass walls and balconies.  There would be daylight on the roof, which due to it's size would allow for stores and wooded parks.  But, how do you get daylight into the middle of the thing?

Cut a hole?  Very costly I'm afraid, but it has been done with some buildings already.  Today, we have artifical 'natural light'.  These natural light bulbs could be used in homes and larger versions in shopping malls and theatres.

How about air conditioning?  Today the bigger the air conditioner the more efficient.  This would be one of the efficiencies of the building.  The building should have it's own power station and auxiliary power besides, in addition to being connected to the grid.  No more black outs, ever.

Remember, that we already have very large buildings.  Most problems have, therefore, already been solved.  The huge vertical buildings may possibly have some unforeseen problems due to sheer size, but these will probably be psychological problems caused by consciousness of the mass of people in the building.  Good design should solve the 'psychological' problems.  A feeling of aloneness with alcoves, parks and glassed in balconies.  Quiet libraries could be scattered about the building providing quiet time for those grown weary of their houses or apartments.  Movie theatres for entertainment and small intimate restaurants tucked away here and there for couples to enjoy.

This concept if accomplished will not be done overnight.  The very first of the mammoth vertical building/cities should give time to solving even the most difficult of the problems.  Future buildings would be quicker and easier.  Today, if a pilot project were begun, it would start at the edge of some megalopolis, New York for example.  The people moving into this pilot building would already be used to crowded apartment buildings, streets, subways, and the like.  

In fact, if the building is built properly it should seem like a breath of fresh air, with more privacy, not less.  A medium priced apartment should yield several thousand square feet of living space.  Spacious compared to what many now have.

While I have exposited a view of the distant future, what I am calling for with the 'mathematics of population' is a pilot project initiated by the government.  It will be very expensive, but that expense will be divided by the years to completion and, hopefully, private enterprise will find it profitable and purchase it from the government.



///tomcat///

[tomcat]

A guy by the name of Malthaus (sp) was the first to write a paper about what many people call the "population bomb".

Yes . . . Thomas Robert Malthus (1776-1834), and his "An Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society."  His fundamental principle is that human population multiplies in a geometrical progression.

He was concerned with our struggle for existence and its progression doomed to end in the misery of scarcity.  Not a utopian view, I'm afraid.

My position:  His views are dated.  He died in 1834.  We are on a scientific progression as well.  Both our geometrically increasing population and our geometrically increasing scientific prowess are co-related.  It is science that removes the checks on our population of hunger and disease.  It is also science that can provide for a much larger population than we could, otherwise, obtain.

There is no turning back.  Nope.  No turning back at all.  It is either scientific victory or death.  So, lets get going.  We have a lot of work to do.



///tomcat///

[jdbenner]

We could move to space, or to the oceans.  Imagine how many people could live in colonies constructed from disassembled planets. 

[tomcat]

We could move to space, or to the oceans.  Imagine how many people could live in colonies constructed from disassembled planets. 

A good point.  Any 10 mile cube, be it ocean, asteroid, moon, or whatever, can house 2.8 billion people with 3700 square feet allocated for each person, 1000 square feet for personal living and the other 2700 square feet for common areas.  So, a fair sized asteroid, a tiny section of a moon, or a hollowed out mountain, can provide shelter, work, and entertainment for a population 9 times the current size of the United States.  It is a fact.

Check the math:  5280 feet to the statue mile.  14 feet between floors.  Yes, 2,800,000,000 people!


///tomcat///

[LEO]

Does this mean people won't feel the effects of weather? Will they not be able to take a walk in the rain without having to take a shuttle there?

I know I for one would not like to live somewhere without easy access to open space - the sounds of birds, the smell of freshly cut grass, a soft, cooling breeze on a hot day, and THE SKY!

Besides, doesn't the idea of cramming everybody in to a cubic 10 miles defeat the whole point of reducing population density?