According to the CIA factbook (1) there are 6,525,170,264 (6.5 billion) people in the World occupying a total of 148,940,000 square kilometers of all available land (global surface total is 510,072,000 km2). Laid out as a square block this gives a grid with sides of 12,204 km. Placed on this grid we would be in 80,778 rows and 80,778 columns and each occupying 0.0228km2 (22,826m2) every man, woman and child.
This doesn't sound a lot especially as it equates to a square with sides of 0.151km, or 151 metres. For comparison, regulation football pitches range from 90 x 45m (surface area of 4050 m2 and squared off to 64m sides) to 120 x 90m (10,800 m2 and a square of 104m sides).
In the UK with a land mass of 244,820 km2 and 60,609,153 people we get 4040m2 - equivalent to our smallest football pitch of 64m sides. Unlike the grid example, and fairly obviously, the world's population is not evenly distributed. Africans would have 50,000m2 and box sides of 224m, Australians get a third of a km2 each and box sides of 577m, Chinese have 7,097m2 with box sides of 84m and so on.
In the UK almost 85% live in England, just 12% of UK land is built/urban, 75% cultivated and 13% other. The UK is fairly densely populated as far as statistics go yet take a flight with Google's Earth programme or even a road or train journey and there is plenty of countryside. Even in 'overcrowded' England you can travel miles without hardly seeing a soul.
It's expected that human population on the planet will peak as development grows and living standards raise. However true this may prove to be it is frequently given as sop to shrill environmentalists, is part denial and admits that we need to put the brakes on. But what about an expansive humanity? Panics aside about a shrinking landmass and encroaching oceans but shouldn't we be thinking the more the merrier and see our progeny scattered far, wide and developed? For instance, the UN calculates that Africa could support a population of 32 billion if developed to western standards.
' . . . lies, damned lies and statistics'
Spread out like a gas (or virus if one adheres to some contemporary views regards human beings) there is surprisingly little room for each of us. Yet, according to Alan Coren the entire population of China - 1.3 billion plus people and counting - could fit on the Isle of Wight (2). This at the rate of three per square yard. Using the same calculation then the entire global population could fit on the island of Maui, Hawaii. By 2030 it's estimated that the World's population will reach 8.3 billion and the same exercise could be held in Luxembourg (which to some could prove a good enough reason to limit population growth . . . ). Of course on the whole we would choose neither to live in isolation from one another nor could we live cheek by jowl; all the above merely being a consideration of space.
The final frontier?
Considering that Planet Earth is actually quite small even within our own solar system (3) that there are billions of other galaxies and countless billions of other stars, planets and God only knows what else 'out there' then the contemporary outlook of reigning in human aspiration and minimising our footprint on the world is pathetic. lt's safe to assume that we are alone in the universe - it's our universe just as much as it's our world.
Human beings are the unique product of naturally occuring events specific to Earth's composition and existence in time and space - 4,550,000,000 years, a tilting axis, hurtling through space in an expanding universe, etc. The Universe as much as natural life on Earth operates to no plan and unless a planet has evolved under the exact same circumstances then there is nothing else out there remotely like us. I'd go as far as to suggest that the 'sci-fi community' and their search for intelligent extra-terrestrial life is merely pseudo-scientific wishful thinking to find answers about ourselves and replacement for religion. Both are human constructs.
Our ability to understand things has not been God-given. We are The superior being; we stood out from the rest, developed to the point of being able to understand everything else and to make it fit for our purpose.
In the unlikely event that humanity disappears - choose from any 'popular' scenario be it a colliding asteroid, avian flu, nuclear war, climate change, the slow death of lowered horizons, etc, etc, etc - then what we call Mother Nature will, over time, eradicate all traces of our existence on the surface leaving only fossilised remains, artefacts, etc that nothing else will have any interest in. 'Mother Nature' will carry on as it always does - organisms will develop that can survive and thrive in certain conditions and evolve into other creatures - unconcerned, no game-plan, no sigh of relief and no possible means of comprehending events; arbitrary. Knowledge would exist at the level of primal intuition and history would have no basis until intelligent life resumed.
Should the ultimate prophecies of eco-miserablists prevail and, God forbid, we 'destroy the whole planet' that again in the grand scheme of things would only ever matter to the human race. Really, it seems, we are talking about life in our time, for us and ours. Nothing else can mean anything unless we reclaim a progressive view, can project ourselves forward and make things fit for a better humanity - above all else.
Today ideas of human progress are severely limited. Environmentalism now the mantra and humanism its nemesis. Like most creatures just by existing we impact upon that that occupies the same space. Every step we take impacts on some aspect of life yet creates as much by accident as it destroys. Like new growth after fire, oilspill, earthquake then our footfalls or even scratching an itch wipes out life forms but creates space for new life to flourish.
Plain fact is our bodies teem with life-forms other than our own (4) -
'Of the trillions and trillions of cells in a typical human body — at least 10 times as many cells in a single individual as there are stars in the Milky Way — only about 1 in 10 is human. The other 90 percent are microbial. These microbes — a term that encompasses all forms of microscopic organisms, including bacteria, fungi, protozoa and a form of life called archaea — exist everywhere. They are found in the ears, nose, mouth, vagina, anus, as well as every inch of skin, especially the armpits, the groin and between the toes. The vast majority are in the gut, which harbors 10 trillion to 100 trillion of them. “Microbes colonize our body surfaces from the moment of our birth. They are with us throughout our lives, and at the moment of our death they consume us.” (5) Eeeeuww indeed . . . Which kind of makes trying to preserve every bug and critter's habitat intact a non-starter.
Environmentalism severely impedes 'boldly going' - at present no end of development projects are being held up on the say so of misanthropes. Anything from vast damming projects to telescopes (6), Arctic drilling and so on. Such things would have an impact on the lives of millions immediately and billions far off into the future. The last one particularly gets me - explorative drilling stopped because the lubricant could contaminate an unknown environment. But then that one opening provides a treasure chest of discovery and yes the environment will change - we'll be there poking, prodding and cataloguing anything that moves.
Otherwise we prolong the day of understanding or lose the opportunity entirely.
What next? Space exploration stopped because we may harm possible habitats of beings unknown, infect them with our germs? What if . . . . the world is ultimately doomed? Do we meekly hope that reducing, reusing and recycling our carrier bags we could prevent it? This static, orderly, textbook world of ours where everything fits neatly in a box . . .
Every creature 'contaminates' its environment. For it to exist there has to be something to sustain it and things of itself it leaves behind. In the UK there are efforts to make a more 'British' wildlife, to eradicate or curtail the march of invasive 'foreigners'. What period in history do we take as a starting point and where do you stop - Chinese Mitten crabs that threaten to erode the river banks, since the 30's (?) (and considered a delicacy), sunfish, dolphins, American crayfish? Rabbits, hares, mink? Do we bring back the boar, bear and wolf? What about migrating birds leaving 'exotic' seeds in their droppings? ln truth nature knows no national boundaries and neither should we - national or natural.
Any creature new to an environment sinks, swims or gets out of there. Likewise the weed. Wheras nature merely adapts to itself we can adapt endlessly, bring in ideas from any angle, transform things and increase knowledge. Whenever the world does 'go' - a catastrophic 500 years or we may just squeeze another couple of billion out of her - everything else that matters goes with it should humanity decide to rein in aspiration. All life would have been meaningless . . pff.
Nothing else can do anything about that.
Really shouldn't we be considering bombarding planets with bacteria, etc that could form the building blocks of life? Future generations may be better grateful for that than us cowering before an uncomprehending and everchanging nature.
On the eighth day . . .
Human comprehension of the natural world not only benefits ourselves but also that being studied. Karl Marx remarked that one day food may be produced in the laboratory and recent advances in agro technology, sport and medical supplements certainly point that way (it's assumed he didn't mean Quorn). Over time foodstuffs could be developed to feed all of God's little creatures so that they don't have to eat each other and nature exist in sweet harmony. Which is nice but then it would cease to be nature and we've better things to do.
A more enlightened humanity could unravel planetary physics, possibly manipulate or even re-engineer them to create idealised environments - get to grips with the secrets of the universe and extend them further. Of course something of the sci-fi/religious there but consider the manpower and effort going into destructive technologies then surely that could be put to positive use? Perhaps something of turning tanks into ploughshares and naive but given the justifications for war and the lack of direction in the west it just might fly. (7)
Current global figures for military spending are to the tune of $950 billion with the US on top at $466 billion (8). How much of this represents a true figure is unknown but, despite the conception of the good ol' US deemed to be an all out military machine, that comes out of an economy operating to the tune of over $2 trillion. Depending on how well you know your 'illions that is a lot of money and suffice to say there's plenty of other things going on in America.
Although merely seeing this as a redistribution of finances is perhaps the wrong way to consider. More concerning is the effort, ingenuity and resources that goes into devices to kill people or restrain them. Seeing that put to constructive use and more people free to prosper and develop opens vast new horizons. This can't be done without viewing humanity in a more positive, universal and expansive light. Today's ideas of treading warily, overcrowding and overuse of resources do the opposite.
Weary old west?
lt came as a surprise to hear of China's involvement with Kyoto as it was assumed to be an expression of western political exhaustion. But perhaps 1.3 billion people with upwardly mobile aspirations will doubtless be good but ultimately bring pressures to bear on the State (and possibly the Isle of Wight . . )
It's probably safe to say that dynamism in eastern economies will encourage a greater worldview amongst our eastern neighbours and rising confidence. This at a time when the west offers little positive vision and all previous influential institutions are on shaky ground. Should for instance the Chinese leap ahead then hopefully this translates into new developments in science, technology and arts and a positive influence to the developing world (as yet a long way off as 'they' haven't fully ratified Google). lf the west only offers 'save the world' efforts and the east - development and prosperity and a loosening of the shackles - could there be any real contest?
Whatever does happen in the future it is highly unlikely that humanity will disappear. Society in one form or another sputters on as new events and movements arise. We've moved on from considering that the earth is flat but now mainstream western ideas seem to be in danger of sinking down the plughole.
lt doesn't have to be that way. Just as history is constantly being rewritten then neither is the future set in stone.
(1)www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html (2)www.geocities.com/heartland/valley/8414/china.htm (3)Google search Universe, solar system, Galaxy, etc. (4)www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9812/fngm/index.html www.andrewlost.com/hair_k1.htm (5)www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/magazine/13obesity.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&en=091c29f788379524&ex=1171771200&excamp=mkt_at4 (6)www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1573/ (7)www.battleofideas.co.uk>
