Would planet Earth be able to sustain one trillion human beings?

No

Religious people think there is no limit, but we are getting stretched thin now I couldn’t imagine adding more billions to this shit pile.

No, not with current technology, food production, and land use policies.

“The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles, of which about 33% is desert and about 24% is mountainous. Subtracting this uninhabitable 57% (32,665,981 mi2) from the total land area leaves 24,642,757 square miles or 15.77 billion acres of habitable land”.

57,000,000 square miles =57000000mi²= 1.589069e+15ft².= 1589046000000000 square feet

now divide that number by 1 trillion/

1589.046 sq ft per person on earth. And that does NOT include roads, farms, business, factory, and areas like mountains and deserts that can’t be made liveable.

Answer: NO

No.
There are/were a group of very smart people who erected a monument near Atlanta, Georgia, that states that the Earth should have no more than 500 million people to sustain resources for continued survival.
The UN estimates that the Earth’s population will top out just after the turn of this century at approx. 11 billion.

@kritiper you mean the Georgia Stones link I took my grandkids there last summer. It’s about 90 miles NE of Atlanta, past Athens. Very close to South Carolina.

While you describe the message properly, you should know that the guy who underwrote the project was generally considered to be a rich lunatic.

With apartments going up to the 50 or more floors, its possible. for housing and that would leave more land for growing food>
Or by then maybe have a greenhouse built right in each apartment block to sustain food production?

@elbanditoroso did you make a mistake? You stated it would leave us with 15.77 billion acres and then the next sentence you said 57,000,000 square miles. Did you mean to do this?

@Coolhandluke my calculation was on the 57,000,000 total land mass on earth; that’s what I based my calculations on. The rest of paragraph (where it notes that onl 24,642,000 square miles are habitable) shows that less than half the land mass is usable.

I could have used the 24,642,000 number but my square footage per person would have been even lower.

Note of my calculations had anything to do with acres – it was all either square miles or square foot.

@elbanditoroso But it does sound like a logical number no matter who wrote it.

I just had a thought about this question.

The Earth is in constant change and it was forecast that both the North pole area

( Greenland in the Arctic Ocean) and the South Pole ( Antarctica) would eventually thaw out and reveal new land that can be suitable for habitation.

Meanwhile those lands that are coastal will experience flooding levels never seen before
( except in the time that the Pyramids of Egypt were constructed.

So to say can the Earth sustain a trillion in population, I say yes it will but the continents could change geographically to accommodate this eventual transition.

This is a gradual change not a sudden one and seems to be the pattern of Earth for thousands of Centuries.

@Inspired_2write we’ll all be long dead before that will ever happen

@elbanditoroso

Civilization will always endure even though we in the present won’t see it.

Even IF the planet manages to survive, I fear the population would implode onto ourselves. We’re no where near a trillion now & we already can’t be civil toward others. At our current rate, we’ll be adding about 81 million new bodies per year. I should be dead & gone by the time it reaches the critical stage!!!

@LadyMarissa
One should factor in human diseases, war, natural disasters , contraceptives,people not having children etc
These all will put a dent into the rapid population increase.

Then give me a better answer!!! I got my figures from here. They are showing over 6 million births since the first of the year & we are only half way through the month. They are showing a decline in the growth rate, but it’s still growing; however, IF we get the birth rate down to 1 baby per year that means that the population will still be growing albeit at a much slower rate that say 30 years ago.

No—the earth was only designed to accommodate so many,

We can innovate and come up with ways to adjust the odds, but nature was designed to take its course and some will die out from disease or hunger, sustaining a balance.

I hate to sound calloused but there already are many populations in the world on life support which would die out if not for the altruistic aid of others, We have aided ‘endangered’ populations since the late 1800s.

Science can come up with ways to modify and improvise, but the Earth was only designed to yield a certain number before nature takes its course and people die off or have fewer children.

@LadyMarissa I’ve got some bad news for you! As many as 95 million people are born into this world each year. It’s how the population can grow by one billion in about 12 years.
30 years ago the Earth’s population was about 5.3 billion, where now it is about 8 billion.

When the U.S. dissolves its borders when the next democrats are elected, they can all come over and get free healthcare and food.

Free health care from where?
The states don’t have it so what the heck are you talking about?
Or are you sending them North to us?

Every Democrat in the debates says they support free health care for illegal immigrants, and open borders.

As to what ? caging them and watch them die and offer no medical assistance?
How dare they say that, those animals belong in cages.