World population in 2009: 6,800,000,000 (6.8 billion)
Population in the most populated urban areas is about 100 sq m / person = 10m x 10m = 0.01 km x 0.01km = 0.0001 sq km = 1056 sq ft. That means a 4200 sq ft footprint for land area (for home and business) for 4 people. Rather generous in my humble opinion.
This means that if all the people in the world were crammed into 1 large urban area, it would be
6,800,000,000 people x 0.0001 sq km = 680,000 sq km = 825 km x 825 km = 502 miles x 502 miles
The density of 10m x 10m / sq km = 10,000 people / sq km = higher density than Singapore (7022 in 2009) and lower than Monaco (16,923 in 2009).
The area needed would be about the size of Texas (some people would need to take turns swimming).
To think that such a small urban area would be needed to house all the people, means that some of the remaining world's surface area would be used to support these people with (wealth producing) products for food, clothing and shelter (as well as nose pegs). The urban centre could survive with (wealth consuming) services as it already does in high density cities. Hey, we could even afford to stretch our legs and afford another 502 sq miles. Maybe a few people could afford an idyllic remote vacation spot to get away from it all!
Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting we all move to Texas, but I am illustrating how few of us there actually are on this planet. We actually inhabit 0.456% of the land area. 680,000 sq km are required / 148,940,000 sq km of land = 0.456% usage.
This is the first time in history that we are being convinced (not very well - Al baby) that humans are more powerful than Mother Nature. This cannot be. (ever tried to stop a hurricane?).
We cannot be affecting the climate. There are not enough of us here.
The only way we could prove that we are bigger than Mother Nature is to detonate all the nukes in existence all at once. Then we would all die and the world would be uninhabitable for a while. This is illogical, as humans are programmed to survive, not destruct.
