Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl
12 billion for the system. If we assume that Earth has a Habitability of 8 and a RVM of +0 (average), then the maximum carrying capacity is 3.75 billion at TL9 (7.5 billion at RVM+1 and 15 billion at RVM+2). I am being generous and assuming an RVM+2 with 80% capacity (reflecting the very real fact that average fertility drops of a cliff the more wealthy a society becomes at TL7+).
Beyond carrying capacity, you divide average wealth by (actual population/carrying capacity). For example, if Earth is RVM+0, then we are 3x carrying capacity at 2020, meaning that per capita income will be $10,300, which is pretty close to nominal world GDP.
|
...Ok, I'm just going to drop you a link on Arcologies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqKQ94DtS54&t=351s
Another on Ecumenopolises:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJeYe-abUA&t=144s
One on Normal Borlaug, one of the most important people of all time, and almost entirely unknown. He saved human live on Earth by inventing wheat that's 2-3 times more nutritious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
And while I'm at it, here's a link on vertical farming:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
China feeds about 4 people per acre, minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricu...p_distribution
Since there doesn't seem to be a cite on how much "permanently supports crops", while "4 people per acre" is the minimum, it also has to be the default.
The US is very inefficient on land area for food, but it is inefficient on land because it can afford to be; the US has about 4.25 times more land per person than China, and an even larger multiple of arable land. Meanwhile, only about 10% of Chinas' land can grow crops.
Given that the land area of the US and China are comparable, if the US farmed 10% of its land to the same efficiency standard, the US could also support 1.4 billion people.
That gets us to 2.8 billion people; 80% of your 3.5 billion figure, and we've only used about 23% of the arable surface area:
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/land.html
"But doesn't that link support the idea that we're overpopulating the planet?"
No, because decades ago, people came up with vertical farming, arcologies, and ecumenopolii. We just haven't built any yet (save for some experimental vertical farms) for one very simple reason:
First-world nations didn't need vertical farms, and so didn't build vertical farms. Since first-world nations are starting to need vertical farms, and since China is rapidly becoming a first-world nation (and thus has the money and knowledge to build vertical farms), and is also increasing in population - people are building vertical farms.
The bottom line is that, whenever you predict current capability against future problems, you will always predict disaster. However, future
capability should also be accounted for. Especially future capability we already know how to do.