Science Buffs

[BobL]

To feed everyone of the 7 billion at a level of the western world will take about 28 Queenslands in area...

Errrr . . .the worlds total arable area is only 8 Qlds in area - I see a problem here?

[Twisted Tenon]

Read the scoreboard TT.

I have 7 @#$% times
TT

[cava]

Check your maths. Seven billion is a biiggg number. Queensland already has a population density around 0.4km2 per person (approx 4.5mill in 1.75mill km2). Perhaps Vic will have to take a few too.

Bows very low, and backs out slowly. Good thing we have Mensa candidates on this forum.

[cava]

Whilst not as large as I originally thought, at 250 m2 per person and having a typical 4 person family, that is 1000 m2.

As a comparator we are currently feeding (mostly) and supplementing our family of 5 adults + extended family/friends from 300 m2 vegie garden and 970 m2 orchard. Dry/canned foods, grains and condiments, we have to buy.

[swk]

Errrr . . .the worlds total arable area is only 8 Qlds in area - I see a problem here?

Problem with my maths or the situation in the world (or both)

Doing a reality check: as "arable land" is land with annual crops on it (I just found that out from Wiki!) I would assume that the cropped area of the world feeds the people of the world (on average), so the 13.8 million sq km Wiki quotes is about 8 Qlds as Bob noted.
Wiki also notes another 35 million sq km as "agricultural" land, which includes permanent crops like orchards and pastures for livestock. And blow me down if total 48.8 million sq km isn't just a shade over 28 Queenslands!

I am not getting in to the argument about efficiency of using pasture for meat production instead of crop for human consumption, but it seems as though my rough as guts numbers were reasonably close for the situation we are in now. BUT that doesn't show if the "28 Queenslands" is a real limit because we have no more land available or an artificial limit because we only just grow what is required for the worlds population or is it some third type of stable situation due to conditions which I have no idea about(!)

PS I'm not denying BobL's comments there may be a problem here (apart from my maths). There very well could be if, for instance, the worlds agricultural areas are not expandable any further and we can't get a more efficient mix of staples and meat production.

Regards
SWK

[swk]

As a comparator we are currently feeding (mostly) and supplementing our family of 5 adults + extended family/friends from 300 m2 vegie garden and 970 m2 orchard. Dry/canned foods, grains and condiments, we have to buy.

Any meat?
Any wood* for fuel or building?
Any beer?

Regards
SWK

*almost got the thread back to woodworking!

[Bushmiller]

*almost got the thread back to woodworking!

Umm... Just a small point, but this thread is in the section "nothing at all to do with woodwork" and the original subject matter related to the weight of the earth and whether mankind's actions could or do vary that mass.

However, as I am one of the worst offenders for digression I am not going to push the point.

Regards
Paul

[AlexS]

if every one of the 7 billion residents of the earth were to have 0.4 km2 to live on, and grow food etc - they would ALL fit into Queensland. Doesn't sound like too much over population to me.

Sounds like a good place to put them.

[BobL]

Doing a reality check: as "arable land" is land with annual crops on it (I just found that out from Wiki!) I would assume that the cropped area of the world feeds the people of the world (on average), so the 13.8 million sq km Wiki quotes is about 8 Qlds as Bob noted.
Wiki also notes another 35 million sq km as "agricultural" land, which includes permanent crops like orchards and pastures for livestock. And blow me down if total 48.8 million sq km isn't just a shade over 28 Queenslands!

Sure, but we can't live on peaches and mince. Arable land is crucial to our survival and the reality is we have essentially run out of it now, yet certain "mind sets" still avidly promote population growth. What's happening is we are riding on the skill of AG Science to increase soil productivity but that also cannot go on forever. I guess there is always "soilent green"?

[cava]

Any meat?
Any wood* for fuel or building?
Any beer?

Regards
SWK

*almost got the thread back to woodworking!

Soon to have chickens! And we do have a small woodlot.

[swk]

Sure, but we can't live on peaches and mince. Arable land is crucial to our survival and the reality is we have essentially run out of it now, yet certain "mind sets" still avidly promote population growth. What's happening is we are riding on the skill of AG Science to increase soil productivity but that also cannot go on forever. I guess there is always "soilent green"?

Absolutely agree Bob. Though some of us have been living on peaches and mince and we might squeeze a few more in if we try real hard. But absolutely correct IMHO it must stop somewhere. And if we don't do it voluntarily, nature will do it for us...

Brings to mind the Arthur Upfield book "Death of a Lake" where the drought and a rabbit plague forms the background to the murder which is the subject of the story.
We are now the rabbits...

Regards
SWK

[BobL]

Absolutely agree Bob. Though some of us have been living on peaches and mince and we might squeeze a few more in if we try real hard. But absolutely correct IMHO it must stop somewhere. And if we don't do it voluntarily, nature will do it for us...

A rather odd fellow I worked about 30 years ago lived on tinned sardines and tinned peaches. The odd bit was he ate them together. He would open a can of peaches, eat about 1/3rd of the can and the add the tin of sardines. For added flavour he would top this off with half a can of baked beans. For breakfast he would eat half a kg of yoghurt. He had no furniture in his house but he did have a wall of empty yoghurt containers!

Brings to mind the Arthur Upfield book "Death of a Lake" where the drought and a rabbit plague forms the background to the murder which is the subject of the story.
We are now the rabbits...

we sure are.