It's theoretically possible to drive around 7 billion people in less than an hour.

tysongee

So if we all (7 billion people) pack into a square with each person having 1 meter squared to stand in, you can drive around it in less than an hour. I thought there was a lot more people in the world than that.

http://snapzu.com/geoleo/how-much-room-the-entire-world-population-would-take-up-if-standing-side-by-side

WhatNowForUs?

I love these scientific non-scientific studies.

--Kaiser--

A brilliant answer to a question no one asked

CrazyRabbit

It would be much quicker if you drove straight through them.

bnt

OK ... a square of area 7200 km² has sides of just under 85 km, and a square has four sides, so it has a perimeter of just under 340 km. Like they say, you'd need a Bugatti Veyron.

It's a silly construct, though, since people don't just occupy space, they use resources that require much more space to produce unsustainably today, and would require even more space to produce in a sustainable manner. That's what concerns about overpopulation are about. Whether you think we're "getting by" depends on which part of the world you're looking at - but even so, can we keep on "getting by" over the long term, as populations increase and resources are depleted?

razorblunt

I was expecting to see a ma-hoo-sive bus to drive them around in.

Thread disappoints.

garv123

What kinda fat feckers take up a square metre each? You could cut the distance by 2/3's or 3/4's..

moc moc a moc

garv123 wrote: »

What kinda fat feckers take up a square metre each?

There are over 300 million Americans on the planet skewing the average.

kildara

If all 7 billion people stood side-by-side from Europe to America, most of them would drown

WhatNowForUs?

kildara wrote: »

If all 7 billion people stood side-by-side from Europe to America, most of them would drown

Where did you get that statistic from. Your just making it up arnt ya.

Nabber

1 person would die every 1.8 seconds, so you'd wanna be fast about it

flutterflye

Nabber wrote: »

1 person would die every 1.8 seconds, so you'd wanna be fast about it

People are probably born at a similar rate, so it'd probably even out.

Pie Man

There would be no traffic, so i'd say I could do it in 20 min.

Profiler

flutterflye wrote: »

People are probably born at a similar rate, so it'd probably even out.

If that were the case then the population of the planet would neither be falling nor increasing, however...

There was:

4 billion people in 1974
5 billion people in 1987
6 billion people in 1999
7 billion people in 2011
It is projected we will see the 8th billion person by 2025

So the birth rate is clearly outstripping the death rate, quite significantly.

flutterflye

Profiler wrote: »

If that were the case then the population of the planet would neither be falling nor increasing, however...

There was:

4 billion people in 1974
5 billion people in 1987
6 billion people in 1999
7 billion people in 2011
It is projected we will see the 8th billion person by 2025

So the birth rate is clearly outstripping the death rate, quite significantly.

Well then I guess it doesn't matter so much about taking the people dying into account.

Also, I knew that our population was increasing, but I didn't realise it was that much in only 40 years! That's mad!

keithsfleet

I'm gonna have the 8 millionth child and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's probably theoretically possible for me to fart my way to the moon, but doesn't mean it's scientifically true.

spurious

The space all the people in the world would take up used to be the size of the Isle of Wight when I was at school, so it has increased a lot.

newmug

Profiler wrote: »

If that were the case then the population of the planet would neither be falling nor increasing, however...

There was:

4 billion people in 1974
5 billion people in 1987
6 billion people in 1999
7 billion people in 2011
It is projected we will see the 8th billion person by 2025

So the birth rate is clearly outstripping the death rate, quite significantly.

And I thought the Chinese "1 child family" policy had sorted all that out! Boy was I wrong!!!

Daniel2590

keithsfleet wrote: »

I'm gonna have the 8 millionth child and there's nothing you can do about it.

I'm afraid someone's beaten you to that by quite a bit.

TheIrishGrover

Well, if you put them into 1/m^3 cubes........ and stacked them on top of each other you'd walk around in a few seconds...... Even better

bnt

newmug wrote: »

And I thought the Chinese "1 child family" policy had sorted all that out! Boy was I wrong!!!

Especially considering that the Chinese "1 child family" policy didn't apply in India, or Bangladesh, Nigeria or the Gaza Strip. China's population growth rate is now one of the lowest - but it's still ~ 0.5% a year.

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Well, if you put them into 1/m^3 cubes........ and stacked them on top of each other you'd walk around in a few seconds...... Even better

If you did that, only the 7-8 thousand at the bottom would be able to breath. There may be more humane ways of solving the population problem.

How about stacking the small cubes in to a bigger cube? Then it would be more like 90 minutes at a brisk walk, to get around it. The cube would have sides of just over 1.9 km, so the perimeter would be about 7.7 km.
(calculated assuming a total population of 7.2 billion)

newmug

bnt wrote: »

Especially considering that the Chinese "1 child family" policy didn't apply in India, or Bangladesh, Nigeria or the Gaza Strip. China's population growth rate is now one of the lowest

The Gaza Strip? Are they trying to out-breed their invaders?

bnt

newmug wrote: »

The Gaza Strip? Are they trying to out-breed their invaders?

Without wishing to politicise this thread, the late Yasser Arafat was quoted as saying "we will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion", calling the wombs of Palestinian women a "biological weapon". So the short answer to the question is "yes".

Prof Nincom Poop Ph.D

newmug wrote: »

And I thought the Chinese "1 child family" policy had sorted all that out! Boy was I wrong!!!

bnt wrote: »

Especially considering that the Chinese "1 child family" policy didn't apply in India, or Bangladesh, Nigeria or the Gaza Strip. China's population growth rate is now one of the lowest - but it's still ~ 0.5% a year.

Not to mention they ended up with something like 20 million more males as everyone wanted a boy.

oppenheimer1

bnt wrote: »

OK ... a square of area 7200 km² has sides of just under 85 km, and a square has four sides, so it has a perimeter of just under 340 km. Like they say, you'd need a Bugatti Veyron.

It's a silly construct, though, since people don't just occupy space, they use resources that require much more space to produce unsustainably today, and would require even more space to produce in a sustainable manner. That's what concerns about overpopulation are about. Whether you think we're "getting by" depends on which part of the world you're looking at - but even so, can we keep on "getting by" over the long term, as populations increase and resources are depleted?

You wouldn't be able to do it in a Veyron as you would be constantly stopping for fuel.

Eric Cartman

thinly veiled attempt by delaware to organise a big orgy...

baalthor

bnt wrote: »

Without wishing to politicise this thread, the late Yasser Arafat was quoted as saying "we will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion", calling the wombs of Palestinian women a "biological weapon". So the short answer to the question is "yes".

The birth rate of the Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel is much higher - around 6 children per woman

I remember when the 5 billionth child was born - the UN picked a girl born in Yugoslavia to mark the "event" - I guess it was a hopeful gesture to recognise a country where people with many differing languages, religions and alphabets could live together in harmony ...

bnt

baalthor wrote: »

The birth rate of the Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel is much higher - around 6 children per woman

It's not a competition ... or if it is, it's one that will have no winners, only losers.

Capt'n Midnight

Why do they need 1m2 each ??


http://www.gkstill.com/Support/crowd-density/625sm/Density6.html

Dfmnoc

What heat would be generated in the center of the square?

Would the CO2 generated in the square out do the oxygen levels so much that it would wipe out a high percentage of the square.

Capt'n Midnight

Dfmnoc wrote: »

What heat would be generated in the center of the square?

about 1/10th that from bright sunlight

Would the CO2 generated in the square out do the oxygen levels so much that it would wipe out a high percentage of the square.

all the heat would create a updraft the resulting vortex would suck people off into the stratosphere where they'd be frozen solid until we discover how to reanimate them

patmac

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

all the heat would create a updraft the resulting vortex would suck people off into the stratosphere where they'd be frozen solid until we discover how to reanimate them

The over population problem solved there.

seamus

Not sure why they decided to use a square. A circle is a more efficient use of space and there'd be no need to slow down to take the 90 degree corner.

7200km^2 area, so ~48km radius. Gives us a circumference of ~300km. More than a 10% drop and no slowing down - at that size the relative curvature would be quite small, you wouldn't lose much if any speed having to turn.

As Cap'n Midnight quite astutely points out, you could fit two people on average per square metre. It'd be awkward and warm, but they would fit. So that's actually 3600km^2. That's a circle with a circumference of ~213km, which many higher-end production vehicles could clear in an hour at full pelt. Though your engine might be junk at the end of it.

If you want to go mad and squeeze in 6 people per square metre, that brings the circle down to 153km, which most consumer vehicles could manage in an hour or less.

Capt'n Midnight

spurious wrote: »

The space all the people in the world would take up used to be the size of the Isle of Wight when I was at school, so it has increased a lot.

http://www.ampneycrucis.f9.co.uk/PARK/Population.htm

For every obese American and European there are at least 10 under-nourished adults in the world, so one average adult can comfortably stand on a rectangle 500 cm wide by 400 cm deep (= 0.2 square metres), with the average child occupying half that area.
...
4,729,542,349 adults x 0.2 sq. m = 945,908,469 sq.m

2,026,946,721 children x 0.1 = 202,694,672 sq.m

__________________________ _______________

Total area needed = 1,148,603,141 sq.m

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_by_area
Okinawa is 1,206

Grande Comore 1,158 (Comoros)

Oblomov

The figure of 7 buillion is for 2011, given the exponential increase of 160 million per year.. but, the number reaching the age and being able to have childeen increases each year... as shown by the figures posted eaarlier, the gap betwen each billion becomes smaller each year

An additional 320 million square metres needed to house the additional but also dial in that age is not taken into account and a large number in their first infancy and likely to be carried by one of their parents.

Wouls one square metre be suffcient in the case where multiple births take place. The increasing number of twins and triplets etc.

What is the fuel consumption of the Bugatti running at full throttle for that time. Race cars usual at least once in the hour.


Who would cater for that number of people in one place, the biggest McDonald's was built at the London Olympics and was only capapnle of seating 1500 customers.

kowloon

How alive do these people have to be? They'd take up a lot less space as a liquid.

lomtick

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

A brilliant answer to a question no one asked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcLy8h9grQ&t=1m5s

bnt wrote: »

OK ... a square of area 7200 km² has sides of just under 85 km, and a square has four sides ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz-TemWooa4&t=0m3s

You're welcome

Capt'n Midnight

kowloon wrote: »

How alive do these people have to be? They'd take up a lot less space as a liquid.

do you even know what a liquid is ?

it would flow all over the place


stack them in a pyramid or cone , should get to about 60 degrees before it starts getting unstable



Technically speaking if you drive a car in a circle you have just driven around everyone ,it's just a matter of perspective

Victor

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Technically speaking if you drive a car in a circle you have just driven around everyone ,it's just a matter of perspective

http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/~rfm/107f07/epmjokes.html

The “Herding Sheep” joke

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are shown a pasture with a herd of sheep, and told to put them inside the smallest possible amount of fence. The engineer is first. He herds the sheep into a circle and then puts the fence around them, declaring, "A circle will use the least fence for a given area, so this is the best solution." The physicist is next. She creates a circular fence of infinite radius around the sheep, and then draws the fence tight around the herd, declaring, "This will give the smallest circular fence around the herd." The mathematician is last. After giving the problem a little thought, he puts a small fence around himself and then declares, "I define myself to be on the outside!"

kowloon

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

do you even know what a liquid is ?

it would flow all over the place

I thought you were smart enough to know they'd have to be contained in something. :pac:

Prof Nincom Poop Ph.D

kowloon wrote: »

I thought you were smart enough to know they'd have to be contained in something. :pac:

Stir in abit of Bisto and it'll thicken up.