The population of the world is approaching seven billion. We may have even passed that figure. Who really knows? It’s hard to get everyone to stand still long enough for an accurate count.
Most discussions about this topic are pretty gloomy. They’re usually accompanied by pictures of cities teeming with masses of people, traffic backed up for miles, and clusters of apartment buildings that are home to thousands. And depending where you happen to be, these images may seem accurate. Try to make your way through a downtown Tokyo subway station or the Long Island Expressway at rush hour. Ask someone about their trip to London or Mexico City or Shanghai. Head for Disney World on a sunny day in early August. Worst of all, go to any Wal-Mart on a Saturday afternoon. In any of those places and in many more, you might get the feeling that the world is just about filled with people. There isn’t much more room.
Indeed, according to the United Nations, world population is growing by 200,000 people per day. That figure seems insane, and a little frightening. But there are many ways to look at population growth. The most basic, I think, is to consider the amount of food, water, energy, and clean air that’s available. The number of people becomes an issue only when there aren’t enough of those resources to accommodate everyone for the foreseeable future.
But wait, you’re thinking: It isn’t just about resources. What about living space? Humans need a certain amount of air around them. If we’re crammed in with too many people standing too close to us, we get cranky. (This is why bullet trains need to move so fast.) There’s only so much land area on the planet, and we can’t produce any more. Where are we going to put everyone?
Relax. Let’s go for a swim. In fact, let’s all go. All seven billion of us. Would that be possible, for everyone in the world to go for a dip at the same time? Well, how much space does each person need? I’ve been in public pools that were so densely occupied, it was impossible to put more than four feet between me and the next person. With that level of crowding, it was hard to enjoy the water. Let’s give ourselves a hundred square feet. In other words, each person would have a square of water that measured ten feet by ten feet. That would be a lot less crowded than those pools I mentioned.
If we have seven billion people and each person is going to get one hundred square feet, that means we need a body of water that has a surface area of at least 700 billion square feet. Sounds huge, doesn’t it? The math isn’t that complicated. A mile is 5,280 feet. So a square mile contains 27,878,400 square feet. If we divide that figure into 700 billion, we would know how many square miles we would need for everyone to go for a swim. The answer is 25,109. So again, we’re assembling the entire world population — seven billion men, women, and children — and giving each person a hundred square feet of water. And for that, we need at least 25,109 square miles of water surface. Is there an ocean big enough?
Actually, there’s a lake big enough. No, it isn’t the Caspian Sea, or Lake Superior. It’s Lake Victoria, located at the intersection of Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. At 26,800 square miles, it’s big enough to hold every person in the world. True, we wouldn’t have room for sailboats or water-skiing, and parking would be a nightmare. But imagine it: everyplace else in the world would be empty!
Now look at the map again. Is the world really overcrowded?
Or is it that we’ve allowed too few to grab too much?
heidit
June 21, 2010
What a fantastic way to look at it. And, I agree, we’ve allowed too few to take too much. Maybe we can take some of it back…
LikeLike
bronxboy55
June 21, 2010
We don’t have to look far. Canada is the second largest country in the world, but it has only 34 million people, and most of them are concentrated in densely populated cities along the southern border. Yet if you’re in the middle of Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver, you could easily think Canada is overcrowded.
I think the first step is to stop believing the lies. Is there any reason we can’t feed everyone now? Back in 2008, Obama said there was a need to redistribute some of the wealth and a lot of his critics went nuts. Apparently, waging war and wasting thousands of lives is acceptable. Helping others is not.
There aren’t too many people. There are too many greedy people.
LikeLike
Amiable Amiable
June 22, 2010
Too many greedy people, yes. I think we could all get along swimmingly in Lake Victoria. Where DO you get your graphics? Do YOU draw them???? Great post (though I couldn’t keep up with the math – my worst subject). Hard to imagine the population growing by 200,000 per day! WOW!
LikeLike
bronxboy55
June 22, 2010
One of my countless Facebook friends (not you, the other one) asked me the same question about the graphics just the other day. Here’s what I told her:
The cartoons are all from http://www.iclipart.com. Some of them are combinations of two or more pieces of art that I combine in a page layout program. Then I add dialogue and captions. For example, in “Maybe It’s Mars That’s Shrinking,” I found a picture of the Earth and another of a candy bar. Then I just duplicated each one twice, reduced two of them, and arranged them in a simple graph. Occasionally, I’ll find a great cartoon and change what I’ve written to match the image. And sometimes it’s just right there waiting for me, and I don’t have to change anything.
LikeLike
Marie M
June 24, 2010
The topic of world hunger truly gets my dander up. And I think that is mostly because the issue really is huge and seems barely manageable.
In the early 1980’s, I was a member of Bread for the World. I also took a class at the University of Hawaii on world hunger. The consensus at that time, way before Obama was lambasted, is that there is–or could be–plenty of food to go around, but there was/is not enough political will to make it happen. For starters, transportation, storage, and distribution are real problems. And who would pay for food destined for countries that could not afford it?
The most difficult part of this for me, though, is trying to figure out what I can do that would make a difference. Relatively speaking, although my family is far from affluent in the nation we live in, we have more than the vast, vast majority of others in the world (and thus could easily qualify as being among the greedy). I love a quote from Elizabeth Ann Seton: “Live simply so that others might simply live.” It’s a wonderful thought, but I have to ask, how can what I do make a difference? I’m afraid that a significant difference will come about only when most of the people in the developed countries decide to live with less and find ways to transfer their wealth to developing countries. The problem cries out for institutional as well as individual change.
I would venture to say that in the last 30 years, great advances have been made in finding ways to feed those with next to nothing, from innovations in irrigation to engineering drought- and pest-resistant crops. But it’s not nearly enough to right the imbalance of resources . . . . what do you think it will take to feed (not to mention clothe and house) everyone in the world?
LikeLike
bronxboy55
June 24, 2010
This is the issue I always think of when I consider what I would want to do if I could devote myself to just one thing, one goal of helping to change the world for the better. You mention projects and classes you were involved in more than twenty-five years ago. Imagine how many millions have died since then because they didn’t have enough food and clean water. There’s such an imbalance: so many people with next to nothing and a privileged few with an abundance. I know redistribution of wealth and resources is an unacceptable concept for many people, and just as you admitted, I am also one of the fortunate few. The problem is huge, and I don’t have any idea how to change the situation, but would love to talk to you and anyone else interested in pursuing the possibilities. Any improvement is better than nothing, and I’ve done nothing for long enough.
LikeLike
Wyrd Smythe
January 25, 2013
That 200,000 figure is even more impressive when see how it’s derived. About 350,000 new souls born each day. About 150,000 souls leave each day. That’s about four people born every second and almost two dying every second.
Interesting factoid to go with your lake: The world’s population would just about fit in Rhode Island.
http://what-if.xkcd.com/8/
http://what-if.xkcd.com/27/
LikeLike
bronxboy55
January 26, 2013
This post aside, I do find the numbers startling. Nigeria has 160 million people. So does Bangladesh. When you pack that many people into a relatively small area, bad things happen.
LikeLike
Wyrd Smythe
January 26, 2013
Indeed! I’ve thought that about NYC and Los Angeles!
LikeLike