Let me start this essay of mine by asking which part of the human body occupies the most space while he is standing? Is it his shoulder, his abdomen, waist or feet?
The average cross-sectional area of a human body is not
a readily available single value as it significantly varies depending on the
body part and individual size, but for an adult, the average cross-sectional
area at a typical "mid-body" section is roughly around 0.2 square
meters.
The body surface area (BSA) is the measured or
calculated surface area of a human body. The most widely used formula for
measuring body fat in obese and non-obese patients is the Du Bois formula for
estimating the approximate surface area of a body if height and weight be
known. Du Bois formula does not measure the cross-sectional area of the
body. The simpler Mosteller formula is a common way to calculate a person's
body surface area (BSA) in square meters but not the cross-sectional part of
his body.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be used to measure
the muscle volume (MV) and muscle-size of the body and anatomical
cross-sectional area (CSA), but (MRI) is a very time-consuming process.
Finally, if we know the cross-sectional area of an
average person, how much space would 100 average people occupy on the ground if
they were to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with each other? Let me try to answer
this.
To answer the first question, the part of the human
body that occupies the most space while standing is the shoulders. The width of
the shoulders is generally the broadest horizontal dimension of the body
compared to the waist, abdomen, or feet. The cross-sectional area of the body
varies along different sections, but at the shoulder level, the body tends to
be at its widest, especially in males. The next question is the space
occupied by 100 people standing shoulder-to-shoulder.
Estimating the cross-sectional area of an individual at
shoulder level would be, if we assume an average shoulder width of about
0.45 meters (45 cm) per person and an average depth (front-to-back thickness)
of 0.25 meters (25 cm), then the approximate cross-sectional area at the
shoulder level is:
If we assume an average shoulder width of about
0.45 meters (45 cm) per person and an average depth (front-to-back thickness)
of 0.25 meters (25 cm), then the approximate cross-sectional area at the
shoulder level is:
0.45 × 0.25 = 0.1125 square meters
Calculating the total space occupied by 100 people:
If these 100 people stand shoulder-to-shoulder, they
will form a single row with a total width of:
100 × 0.45 = 45 meters
The depth of the row remains 0.25 meters, so the total
area they occupy on the ground is:
45 × 0.25 = 11.25 square meters
Thus, 100 average people standing shoulder-to-shoulder
would occupy approximately 11.25 square meters of space on the ground.
However, according to one estimate, the source claimed
that, if every person on Earth were to stand shoulder to shoulder, they would
occupy an area of approximately 7,000 square miles. Is this estimate or claim correct?
Let’s check this out using mathematics.
As of 2023, the estimated global population is around 8
billion people. What is the space required per person? A common estimate for
the space an average person occupies while standing is about 0.1 square meters
(1 square foot). This accounts for personal space and some movement.
Let's go through the mathematical calculations carefully to check it out (what was claimed by one source)
Step 1: Checking the Total Area Calculation
We assume each person occupies 0.1 m² while standing.
Total Area = 8,000,000,000 × 0.1 =
800,000,000 m
Since 1 square kilometer (km²) = 1,000,000 m²,
800,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 800 km²
Converting to square miles (1 km² ≈ 0.3861 mi²):
800 × 0.3861 ≈ 309 square miles
This means that if 8 billion people were standing
shoulder-to-shoulder, they would only occupy about 309 square miles, not 7,000
square miles (as claimed by one source). The 7,000 square miles estimate or claim likely
includes personal space for comfort rather than just tight shoulder-to-shoulder
standing.
Step 2: How Many People Can Stand Shoulder-to-Shoulder
on the Habitable Surface of Earth?
1. Estimating the Habitable Land Area of Earth
The Earth's total land area is about 148 million km².
However, much of this consists of deserts, mountains, and ice-covered regions.
The habitable land area (including forests, grasslands, and arable land) is
estimated to be about 104 million km² (or 40 million square miles).
Total Habitable Land Area =
104,000,000 km² =
104,000,000,000,000 m²
2. Maximum Number of People Standing
Shoulder-to-Shoulder
If each person occupies 0.1 m², then:
104,000,000,000,0000 / 0.1
=1.04 × 1015 =
1.04 quadrillion people
or 1,040 trillion people could theoretically fit on all
habitable land if they stood tightly packed, shoulder-to-shoulder.
Step 3: Population Scenarios for Earth's Carrying
Capacity
Even if people could physically fit, we must consider
resources, food, water, and sustainability. Here’s what happens if the
population keeps growing:
Scenario 1: 50 billion people
At 50 billion, Earth’s cities would be 10 times denser
than today’s largest cities.
Food, water, and energy would become the biggest
challenges.
Agricultural land would be converted into urban zones,
making food production difficult.
Scenario 2: 100 billion people:
Housing would need to expand vertically into massive
skyscrapers or underground cities.
Water shortages and food production would require
advanced hydroponics, vertical farming, and desalination.
Global climate and biodiversity loss would be severe.
Scenario 3: 1 trillion people:
Even with extreme technology like synthetic food,
fusion energy, and AI-controlled ecosystems, Earth would struggle.
Living conditions would be like a mega-arcology (giant,
self-contained city).
Most natural ecosystems would be destroyed.
Scenario 4: 1.04 quadrillion people (Max Density)
The entire habitable land surface would be one giant
crowd.
Zero land for food, water, or movement - humans would be
standing still.
A completely un-liveable scenario.
A Conclusion:
Physically, we could fit over 1 quadrillion people standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the habitable land, but sustainable living would collapse long before that.
A more realistic upper limit with advanced
technology might be 100 billion people, but even that would be a stretch.
What then shall we do as potential solutions for future
overpopulation, such as space colonization or deep-sea living? We also need to
consider oxygen and food supply, waste disposal, energy requirement, water
pressure problems among others
Deep-sea living is a fascinating but highly challenging
concept. Let me analyse the key requirements and challenges, as well as
possible solutions.
1. Oxygen Supply
Challenge:
The ocean has limited dissolved oxygen, especially in
deeper regions.
People need a continuous supply of oxygen, which cannot
be naturally sustained in an underwater city.
Possible Solutions:
Electrolysis of seawater: Using electricity to split
water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen.
Artificial oxygen farms: Using underwater algae or
engineered microorganisms to generate oxygen.
Compressed air pipelines: Supplying oxygen from the
surface through pipes or airlocks.
Nuclear submarines approach: Nuclear-powered oxygen generators
(as used in submarines) could be used for long-term sustainability.
2. Food Supply
Challenge:
Traditional agriculture is impossible without light.
Transporting food from the surface is expensive and
inefficient.
The deep ocean lacks natural food sources for humans.
Possible Solutions:
Hydroponic and aquaponic farming: Using LED grow lights
powered by renewable energy for plant growth.
Fish and seafood farming: Large-scale aquaculture of
deep-sea fish, seaweed, shellfish, and plankton.
Genetically engineered food sources: Lab-grown meat and
algae-based proteins tailored for underwater conditions.
Harvesting deep-sea organisms: Exploring edible
deep-sea creatures such as krill, jellyfish, and certain deep-sea fish.
3. Waste Disposal
Challenge:
Waste management is crucial in a closed environment.
Direct disposal into the ocean can disrupt ecosystems
and lead to pollution.
Possible Solutions:
Closed-loop waste recycling: Converting waste into
energy using biogas digestion or microbial fuel cells.
Deep-sea composting: Using bacteria to break down
organic waste into reusable nutrients.
Water filtration and purification: Advanced filtration
systems to recycle water continuously.
4. Energy Requirements
Challenge:
Solar energy is unavailable in the deep sea.
Traditional fossil fuels are impractical due to the
need for constant resupply.
Possible Solutions:
Nuclear power: Small modular reactors (SMRs) could
provide continuous energy.
Geothermal energy: Using underwater hydrothermal vents
to generate power.
Wave and tidal energy: Harnessing the ocean currents to
generate electricity.
Hydrogen fuel cells: Storing and using hydrogen
generated from seawater electrolysis.
5. Water Pressure Problems
Challenge:
Pressure increases by 1 atmosphere (14.7 psi) for every
10 meters of depth.
At 1,000 meters, the pressure is 100 times greater than
at the surface.
Possible Solutions:
Reinforced habitats: Building habitats from titanium
alloys, carbon composites, or transparent acrylics (like submarine windows).
Pressure equalization: Keeping internal pressure
similar to the surrounding water, similar to deep-sea diving suits.
Floating cities: Instead of being at extreme depths,
habitats could be anchored at mid-depths (~200–500 meters) where pressures are
more manageable.
6. Psychological and Social Challenges
Challenge:
Humans evolved to live with sunlight and open spaces.
Long-term isolation and confinement could cause
depression, anxiety, and social instability.
Possible Solutions:
Artificial daylight simulation: Using full-spectrum
lights to mimic natural sunlight.
Large, open communal spaces: Designing underwater domes
with virtual sky projections.
Frequent rotations to the surface: Allowing people to
alternate between underwater and surface life.
7. Structural Design of an Underwater City
Design Concepts:
Seafloor Cities: Large, pressurized habitats built on
the ocean floor with energy and oxygen self-sufficiency.
Floating Underwater Cities: Suspended at 200–500 meters
below the surface, tethered to floating platforms.
Bubble Cities in Giant Domes: Transparent domes
creating enclosed, breathable environments underwater.
Mobile Submarine Cities: Self-sufficient underwater
vessels that move with ocean currents.
Deep-sea living is possible, but it requires overcoming
technological, physiological, and logistical challenges. The best approach
would be a gradual transition, starting with offshore floating platforms, then
semi-submerged habitats, and eventually, full-fledged underwater cities.
Shall we explore space colonization as an alternative, or should we refine any of these deep-sea ideas further?
But at the moment as I write, I think it may be far easier for us to control our ever-expanding population than to do suggest all those almost unimageable solutions.
The sheer complexity, cost, and engineering challenges of deep-sea
(or even space) colonization make population control a far more practical
solution. Humanity's future on Earth ultimately depends on political will,
cultural attitudes, and our collective desire to balance growth with
sustainability.
Furthermore, I don't think we have the resources to
build all these structures just because we like to increase our population.
It is much easier to implement population control. But would countries
like India and Islamic countries want that? At least in China that has the
world's largest population, they used to have a one-child policy, but after
China found their population in declined, they now allow 3 child policy to
replace their parents. China one-child policy slowed population growth
but later led to problems like an aging workforce. Now, they have shifted to a
three-child policy due to declining birth rates.
The Challenge of Population Control:
However, countries like India and many Islamic nations may resist strict population control due to cultural, religious, and economic factors:
1. Religious and Cultural Beliefs: Many societies see having large families as a blessing or necessity.
2. Economic Dependence on Large Families: In some developing nations, children are seen as an economic asset rather than a burden.
3. Political Resistance: Governments may fear backlash from citizens if they impose birth limits.
The Future of Humanity: Key Factors for Survival are:
Resource Management: Efficient use of food, water, and
energy will be crucial.
Technological Innovation: Advances in vertical farming,
renewable energy, and smart cities could reduce the impact of population
growth.
Education and Family Planning: Empowering people
(especially women) with education and healthcare often leads to natural
population decline.
Global Cooperation: Countries must work together rather
than compete over dwindling resources.
If humanity does not control population growth, extreme
solutions like deep-sea or space living may become necessary, not optional, but
at an unimaginable cost. Do we think governments will ever truly take
global population control seriously, or will they wait until it's too late? The
fate of humanity on this limited world of ours depends on political will and
our desire to survive.
But I think humanity will destroy itself
politically through wars, political and social unrest, economic disruption,
shortage of agricultural land for food, water fuel and energy supply, limited
space for living, unemployment, congestion, pollution, climate change,
earthquakes, floods, massive wild fires and other unpredictable destructive
elements such as a massive asteroid smashing up this earth as it did to the
dinosaurs that went extinct about 65 million years ago (at the end of
the Cretaceous Period), after living on Earth for about 165 million
years.
I don't think humanity can exist that long for us to
start to explore and colonize other worlds, live under the seas or on the top
of them in boats or other structures. Our unbecoming behaviour adverse to the
existence of life would have long destroyed us. No other animal or life sharing
this home with us do the same as we, basically and zoologically as human
animals. No other animal sharing this world with us do things like we do.
Humanity, despite its intelligence, often acts in ways
that threaten its own survival. Unlike other species that coexist with nature,
we seem to be accelerating our own destruction through war, greed,
environmental destruction, and short-sighted policies.
The Self-Destruction Hypothesis
If we examine history, civilizations have collapsed due
to:
- Political instability
(wars, revolutions, corrupt governance)
- Resource depletion
(food, water, energy crises)
- Climate change and
natural disasters
- Economic failure
(collapse of trade, unemployment, hyperinflation)
- Pandemics and
bioweapons (plagues, engineered viruses)
The world today is facing all of these simultaneously,
at an unprecedented scale. Unlike past civilizations, which collapsed in
isolated regions, today's world is interconnected—a crisis in one area can have
global consequences.
Colonization of Other Worlds: A Fantasy?
It is questionable whether humanity will
even survive long enough to colonize space or the deep sea. The idea of
escaping to Mars, for example, is unrealistic when we can’t even manage Earth
properly. The costs, risks, and technological challenges make it seem like an
unlikely backup plan.
A Race Against Time
At this rate, the real question is: Can we change
before it's too late?
- Will we prioritize
cooperation over conflict?
- Will we stop depleting
the Earth's resources?
- Will we control our
population and waste?
Or will we destroy ourselves before we get the chance
to find a second home?
(I shall try to answer this dilemma of ours in Part 2 of
this essay. Probably this article may stretch up to 5 or 6 parts? I do not know myself. I can only continue to write as my thoughts continues to flow).
No comments:
Post a Comment