# Thread: How tall would 16 buildings need to be to house the world's population? (split)

1. ## How tall would 16 buildings need to be to house the world's population? (split)

Originally Posted by Hard
I mean, you can't readily put 7,000,000,000 people in 16 boxes
It's 7.3 billion, and yeah we can. With good engineering we can.

2. Originally Posted by EcK
It's 7.3 billion, and yeah we can. With good engineering we can.
You'd need 4,600km boxes with the same structure engineering of the Taipei world financial center (Because you wanted something boxy). That would even give the average person some leg room with one sq meter each.

That's not that big. Might be expensive though.

3. Originally Posted by Mane
You'd need 4,600km boxes with the same structure engineering of the Taipei world financial center (Because you wanted something boxy). That would even give the average person some leg room with one sq meter each.

That's not that big. Might be expensive though.
You haven't taken height into consideration. It could be tower like structures, if the box is 'closed' then you can probably use the ceiling for support but not sure about that

manhattan for example has a population density of 66,940 people per square mile

4. Originally Posted by EcK
You haven't taken height into consideration. It could be tower like structures, if the box is 'closed' then you can probably use the ceiling for support but not sure about that

manhattan for example has a population density of 66,940 people per square mile
The height is 508m. Same engineering as the Taipei 101.

I suppose you might be able to create denser floors with less head space, but that's get iffy - if you have people wider then average it gets compensated by having other people taking less space then average, if you put the floors just high enough for the average person there's a lot of legs then are going to have to be cut off. You could alternatively put every person in a box of their own and just place those on top of one another, but then you'll need more support columns for the individual stacks which take more of the space inside. On the other hand.. You could probably be to build the giant boxes in space so that you don't need the support to fight off gravity, just to hold the thing together. That increases the cost by a lot though, at least without an existing industry up there, which another NTP is working on (Musk) but it's still a wait.

Alternatively, since they will likely die in there anyway, you could just have a furnace in the entrance calculate the total mass of the ash. If they need to be alive you'd need life support, and if they'd need to actually have lives, well.. with space to move and shit and fuck, with agriculture and industries to maintain them, then... You kind of end up back with earth's landmass.

5. Originally Posted by Mane
The height is 508m. Same engineering as the Taipei 101.

I suppose you might be able to create denser floors with less head space, but that's get iffy - if you have people wider then average it gets compensated by having other people taking less space then average, if you put the floors just high enough for the average person there's a lot of legs then are going to have to be cut off. You could alternatively put every person in a box of their own and just place those on top of one another, but then you'll need more support columns for the individual stacks which take more of the space inside. On the other hand.. You could probably be to build the giant boxes in space so that you don't need the support to fight off gravity, just to hold the thing together. That increases the cost by a lot though, at least without an existing industry up there, which another NTP is working on (Musk) but it's still a wait.

Alternatively, since they will likely die in there anyway, you could just have a furnace in the entrance calculate the total mass of the ash. If they need to be alive you'd need life support, and if they'd need to actually have lives, well.. with space to move and shit and fuck, with agriculture and industries to maintain them, then... You kind of end up back with earth's landmass.

Are you sure??
The way I calculate it, I'm not using some towers as then you have to recalculate and speculate but just using an existing large city with roads, shops and all that stuff
so manhattan is according to wikipedia 57km2 for 1,8 million people (approximating) so you end up with for 1/16 of 7,000,000,000 people, needing 253,972km2 which is 'only' twice the size of the state of New York. Compared with the about 152 millions km2 of land on earth (of course mountains etc)

And that state of new york is not particularly huge compared to other US states

6. Originally Posted by EcK
Are you sure??
The way I calculate it, I'm not using some towers as then you have to recalculate and speculate but just using an existing large city with roads, shops and all that stuff
so manhattan is according to wikipedia 57km2 for 1,8 million people (approximating) so you end up with for 1/16 of 7,000,000,000 people, needing 253,972km2 which is 'only' twice the size of the state of New York. Compared with the about 152 millions km2 of land on earth (of course mountains etc)

And that state of new york is not particularly huge compared to other US states

Depends what you count in it, New York isn't exactly self sufficient. I found this, which has an interesting take on the question:

What If All 7.1 Billion People Moved To Tunisia? - Wait But Why

7. Originally Posted by Mane
Why would all those people move to Tatooine?

8. Originally Posted by Vulcan
Why would all those people move to Tatooine?
For the landscaping:

9. Originally Posted by Mane
Depends what you count in it, New York isn't exactly self sufficient. I found this, which has an interesting take on the question:

What If All 7.1 Billion People Moved To Tunisia? - Wait But Why
Well yeah but the question only regarded putting them there, so we could store them like meat or something or on the other side of the spectrum have a self sufficient 'box'
Now when it comes to feeding them the 'issue' is of course that if your goal is to save space you're faced with the issue that the frame of reference we're using is a square function (or close enough) rather than volumetric. By which I mean that everything starts with PLANTS, and plants need sunlight. so if you pile 100 fields of potatoes up you end up with 99 deadfields and 1 working out.
But then again there's lots of other options, vertical farming, clever use of mirrors, mushrooms and of course if you have a decent source of energy you can pretty much create the light that feeds the damn plants in the first place. Then there's genetic engineering to increase yield and stuff. But we already do that to a degree

10. So... Considering the friendship between Hard & EJCC (And showbread?) and her general call to action attitude and his general dislike of shenanigans, is anyone else kind of surprised they haven't split the thread yet, or even simply moved the non-Hard stuff to the off topic? Did it not get noticed yet? Are they too busy? Are they taking the time to think things through (J/k), or has it really not gotten reported yet?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO