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.”(…)

  • cygnus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • GreyEyedGhost
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Chris@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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

        • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours 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.

        • GreyEyedGhost
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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.

          • Chris@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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

            • GreyEyedGhost
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Chickens are surprisingly effective as far as meat animals go.

              • Chris@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                22 hours ago

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

                  • Chris@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    13 hours ago

                    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.

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Chris@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

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