this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
164 points (100.0% liked)

World News

44649 readers
3825 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Rural regions account for 43 percent of the world's population – estimated to be just over 8 billion, at the last count – and if the calculations in this new study are correct then the number of unaccounted-for people could potentially stretch into the billions.(...)

"We were surprised to find that the actual population living in rural areas is much higher than the global population data indicates – depending on the dataset, rural populations have been underestimated by between 53 percent to 84 percent over the period studied."(..)

ad: "Not everyone is convinced. Scientists who weren't involved in the study told Chris Stokel-Walker at New Scientist that improvements in satellite imagery and the quality of data collecting in some countries would make these discrepancies smaller."(..)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 days ago (2 children)

TBH China's population is likely less than the official figure, but they could easily accommodate more. There are tons of empty apartment buildings everywhere, and most of the country is still empty. Most people don't intuitively grasp population density at scale but it's shocking how little space we all take up with good urbanism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If people were to stand shoulder to shoulder, the entire population of the world could fit into half of Prince Edward Island. If the world's population was in a single city with the density of Paris, it would be the size of Iraq. To put that in perspective, Paris is the 35th most dense city in the world. If you matched the density of the densest city in the world, it would be about the size of Uruguay.

Of course, each person needs much more land to survive, and more still if they're to live the lifestyle we in the developed world enjoy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I don't like living in a dense urban area, but undoubtedly it is the way to keep the planet healthy and us alive.

Vertical farming and efficiencies of providing services to denser areas, along with re-wilding areas for carbon capture all seem like part of the puzzle.

In the real world though, how do you get the entire population of the US to move to a handful of cities?

How would we even pay for the infrastructure development with our current model of building it and then ignoring it until we have to put a bandaid on it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

vertical farming is not efficient. it doesn't scale well for most crops, and none of those are the calorie dense stuff we tend to eat lots of.

carbon capture is pointless until we stop making so fucking much of it.

you don't but you don't really need to. how they live is less important than where. modal shifts are probably more important than economies of scale, where they differ.

we would need to end capitalism. but that's necessary for any way the species survives more than a few years from now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I don't see us all moving into cities, although many people already have. I also don't think we need to have one giant city - those numbers were given to show how little actual living space people need, keeping in mind that Paris doesn't seem to be viewed as somewhere undesirable to live, and still has room for beauty and not just urban utilitarianism.

On the flip side, many people who move to the city do so for work. I hope we see less of that, where things can be more decentralized so people who like a less urban environment can still effectively contribute to society and the economy without having to stifle their personal living preferences. I'd also like to see less cost-efficient but more space-efficient growing conditions for agriculture so more land can be returned to a natural state while still supporting the populations we have. Both vertical farming and vertical living can contribute to that. And I absolutely realize that livestock tend to be both less cost- and space-efficient, especially if it's humane.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, the only way I see reducing livestock is if the cost gets unacceptable for the working class. Nobody wants to hear "you need to eat plants". Would require a culture shift in the US at least

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Chickens are surprisingly effective as far as meat animals go.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm super interested in insects too. Im growing spirulina right now to experiment if it can be a protein source

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

spirulina is gross.

insects are gross too. I will not eat the bugs, not even during 'unlimited shrimp' week at red lobster.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Powdered spirulina is pretty foul. I've heard that when fresh it's more palatable.

You can process crickets to make them mostly flavorless as an additive but I hear you.

Like I said it would take a culture shift.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

im saying the bugs it's already popular to eat are gross and disgusting and I refuse, no matter how luxury an event I'm at.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

and this here is the only advantage of single family zoning, preventing the scourge of urbanism from taking root by cutting it off at the housing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Single family home zoning was designed for racism and really shouldn't exist anymore