Earth under one roof: Feasible?












2














Okay, so how feasible is it- if even possible- to put the Earth under 'one roof'?



So here is the premise. The world is heavily heavily over populated, so overpopulated in fact that almost all of the land has been covered in infrastructure. However, instead of visualising this as a huge mega city, imagine it more as... an apartment complex, or a mall.



Imagine if Earth was a giant mass of slightly crowded apartments, houses, indoor parks with glass roofs, conveyor-belt like roads, with no real free sky access (As everywhere you go there are stories and stories of shops, markets, cinemas etc above you. Even at the very top, there is only limited access to the open-sky)



Woodlands and Natural features such as lakes, and rivers have direct sky access, with a sort of wall/perimeter of infrastructure, and are still being desperately protected by organisations.



How realistic would this be?



Edit: keeping in mind that colonising/resource gathering on other planets are possible.










share|improve this question




















  • 4




    So essentially, you're asking if Trantor is possible?
    – Gryphon
    1 hour ago










  • I didnt know about Trantor- but im looking to a an era of time a tad bit closer to Earth and not as technologically advanced such that space travel to other galaxies are possible.
    – Uncertainty
    1 hour ago










  • The word "food" leaps to mind, as in "how do we feed this population ?".
    – StephenG
    1 hour ago










  • @StephenG So do the words "waste heat"
    – Eth
    52 mins ago








  • 1




    Thanks for the tip, although im not a total newbie here, im still relatively new... having helpful users like you on sites like this is very helpful!
    – Uncertainty
    22 mins ago
















2














Okay, so how feasible is it- if even possible- to put the Earth under 'one roof'?



So here is the premise. The world is heavily heavily over populated, so overpopulated in fact that almost all of the land has been covered in infrastructure. However, instead of visualising this as a huge mega city, imagine it more as... an apartment complex, or a mall.



Imagine if Earth was a giant mass of slightly crowded apartments, houses, indoor parks with glass roofs, conveyor-belt like roads, with no real free sky access (As everywhere you go there are stories and stories of shops, markets, cinemas etc above you. Even at the very top, there is only limited access to the open-sky)



Woodlands and Natural features such as lakes, and rivers have direct sky access, with a sort of wall/perimeter of infrastructure, and are still being desperately protected by organisations.



How realistic would this be?



Edit: keeping in mind that colonising/resource gathering on other planets are possible.










share|improve this question




















  • 4




    So essentially, you're asking if Trantor is possible?
    – Gryphon
    1 hour ago










  • I didnt know about Trantor- but im looking to a an era of time a tad bit closer to Earth and not as technologically advanced such that space travel to other galaxies are possible.
    – Uncertainty
    1 hour ago










  • The word "food" leaps to mind, as in "how do we feed this population ?".
    – StephenG
    1 hour ago










  • @StephenG So do the words "waste heat"
    – Eth
    52 mins ago








  • 1




    Thanks for the tip, although im not a total newbie here, im still relatively new... having helpful users like you on sites like this is very helpful!
    – Uncertainty
    22 mins ago














2












2








2







Okay, so how feasible is it- if even possible- to put the Earth under 'one roof'?



So here is the premise. The world is heavily heavily over populated, so overpopulated in fact that almost all of the land has been covered in infrastructure. However, instead of visualising this as a huge mega city, imagine it more as... an apartment complex, or a mall.



Imagine if Earth was a giant mass of slightly crowded apartments, houses, indoor parks with glass roofs, conveyor-belt like roads, with no real free sky access (As everywhere you go there are stories and stories of shops, markets, cinemas etc above you. Even at the very top, there is only limited access to the open-sky)



Woodlands and Natural features such as lakes, and rivers have direct sky access, with a sort of wall/perimeter of infrastructure, and are still being desperately protected by organisations.



How realistic would this be?



Edit: keeping in mind that colonising/resource gathering on other planets are possible.










share|improve this question















Okay, so how feasible is it- if even possible- to put the Earth under 'one roof'?



So here is the premise. The world is heavily heavily over populated, so overpopulated in fact that almost all of the land has been covered in infrastructure. However, instead of visualising this as a huge mega city, imagine it more as... an apartment complex, or a mall.



Imagine if Earth was a giant mass of slightly crowded apartments, houses, indoor parks with glass roofs, conveyor-belt like roads, with no real free sky access (As everywhere you go there are stories and stories of shops, markets, cinemas etc above you. Even at the very top, there is only limited access to the open-sky)



Woodlands and Natural features such as lakes, and rivers have direct sky access, with a sort of wall/perimeter of infrastructure, and are still being desperately protected by organisations.



How realistic would this be?



Edit: keeping in mind that colonising/resource gathering on other planets are possible.







science-based far-future dystopia urban-fantasy






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago







Uncertainty

















asked 2 hours ago









Uncertainty Uncertainty

1278




1278








  • 4




    So essentially, you're asking if Trantor is possible?
    – Gryphon
    1 hour ago










  • I didnt know about Trantor- but im looking to a an era of time a tad bit closer to Earth and not as technologically advanced such that space travel to other galaxies are possible.
    – Uncertainty
    1 hour ago










  • The word "food" leaps to mind, as in "how do we feed this population ?".
    – StephenG
    1 hour ago










  • @StephenG So do the words "waste heat"
    – Eth
    52 mins ago








  • 1




    Thanks for the tip, although im not a total newbie here, im still relatively new... having helpful users like you on sites like this is very helpful!
    – Uncertainty
    22 mins ago














  • 4




    So essentially, you're asking if Trantor is possible?
    – Gryphon
    1 hour ago










  • I didnt know about Trantor- but im looking to a an era of time a tad bit closer to Earth and not as technologically advanced such that space travel to other galaxies are possible.
    – Uncertainty
    1 hour ago










  • The word "food" leaps to mind, as in "how do we feed this population ?".
    – StephenG
    1 hour ago










  • @StephenG So do the words "waste heat"
    – Eth
    52 mins ago








  • 1




    Thanks for the tip, although im not a total newbie here, im still relatively new... having helpful users like you on sites like this is very helpful!
    – Uncertainty
    22 mins ago








4




4




So essentially, you're asking if Trantor is possible?
– Gryphon
1 hour ago




So essentially, you're asking if Trantor is possible?
– Gryphon
1 hour ago












I didnt know about Trantor- but im looking to a an era of time a tad bit closer to Earth and not as technologically advanced such that space travel to other galaxies are possible.
– Uncertainty
1 hour ago




I didnt know about Trantor- but im looking to a an era of time a tad bit closer to Earth and not as technologically advanced such that space travel to other galaxies are possible.
– Uncertainty
1 hour ago












The word "food" leaps to mind, as in "how do we feed this population ?".
– StephenG
1 hour ago




The word "food" leaps to mind, as in "how do we feed this population ?".
– StephenG
1 hour ago












@StephenG So do the words "waste heat"
– Eth
52 mins ago






@StephenG So do the words "waste heat"
– Eth
52 mins ago






1




1




Thanks for the tip, although im not a total newbie here, im still relatively new... having helpful users like you on sites like this is very helpful!
– Uncertainty
22 mins ago




Thanks for the tip, although im not a total newbie here, im still relatively new... having helpful users like you on sites like this is very helpful!
– Uncertainty
22 mins ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















3














Could an entire neighborhood or even an entire city be that crowded?



Sure.



enter image description here
Hong Kong’s Kowloon Walled City was probably the densest neighbourhood in history, with more than 1,000,000 people per sq km. Photograph: Alamy



enter image description here
Kowloon Walled City was 119 times as dense as New York City.Greg Girard



While this example was just 33k people in 6.4 acres, it lasted for 40 years.




The streets and alleyways of the Walled City were narrow.
Most were barely wider than six feet and some were so narrow that one
had to walk sideways through them. A massive network of passageways in
the upper levels also made it possible to travel the distance of the
city without walking on a ground level street.



The Walled City had its own micro-climate,
due to the massive amounts of tubing, wires, and
open gutters snaking through the building. The lower levels were
constantly hot, humid, and damp...Because of the smelly, humid
conditions down below, the rooftops of Kowloon would turn into a
communal hangout during the afternoons and evenings. People would hang
out, do laundry or homework, or practice instruments.



"It was like a
strange, urban garden. There was tons of household refuse. It was a
bit of an eyesore, but compared to the area below, the air was light
and breezy. It was nice to come up there after living and working on
the lower floors."




In other cases, a somewhat less dense set of buildings can cover an entire city.



enter image description here
Delhi, India



Could this be most of the earth?



No.



People need to eat and to do that, you need farmland, oceans/lakes, factories or processing centers, and transportation ways. While you have some wild spaces and waterways accounted for, you still need massive amounts of flat buildable land to grow crops and raise animals for meat. Even if everyone is vegan, you still need an awful lot of space.




By 2050 the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion, 34 percent higher than today...It should be possible to meet
the future food and feed demand of the projected world population in
2050 within realistic rates for land and water use expansion and yield
development. However, achieving this will not at all be automatic and
several significant challenges will have to be met. (ref)




Can you feed your world? It depends what the population is. If agencies are projecting that feeding 9 billion people is doable with some work, then you can assume that larger populations will be even harder to feed. Not only are there more people, but there's less land to do it with, because the people take over arable land for housing and for other resources like schools, offices, warehouses, roads, parking, factories, distribution channels, etc.



Air quality: Half the world's oxygen comes from the oceans and the other half "via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants." Some sources say the ocean's contribution is even higher, up to 85%. Land plants do contribute, though they don't affect oxygen levels much because of the total volume. Though wild spaces and urban trees are important for carbon dioxide sequestering and to reduce air pollution.




Our atmosphere has such an enormous reserve of oxygen that even if all
fossil fuel reserves, all trees, and all organic matter in soils were
burned, atmospheric oxygen would only drop a few percent.



Tree impacts on important atmospheric trace chemicals such as carbon
dioxide and...air
pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead) will have greater significant
impacts on human health and environmental quality. Urban forest carbon
sequestration and air pollution removal along with other environmental
impacts of urban forests (e.g., water quality improvement, lower air
temperatures, reduced ultraviolet radiation loads) need to be better
incorporated within local and regional planning efforts to improve
environmental quality and enhance the quality of urban life.(ref)




Power generation: That's a whole other issue and should be a separate question. Wind generation is likely your best bet, as wind will be a factor in keeping your cities from collapsing, so generators around the cities will help deflect it. And you can have small generators on top of the buildings. Solar won't have much space to work. Fossil fuels are likely depleted since you have a "far-future" tag and that many people. There are other ways to generate fuel, including from the waste products of that many people, but you need some space to do it.






share|improve this answer





















  • Hey basically my answer with more things considered and looking better. Good job.
    – Soan
    35 mins ago










  • @Soan Ha ha thanks. It took me a while to write it and I kept seeing popups saying there were new answers. I finally finish and what do I see, the same walled city example! Fortunately, in SE giving the same answer just reinforces it; no duplicates rule. You focused on some stuff I skipped over. So I think it works. :-)
    – Cyn
    32 mins ago



















2














For some reason i read this and i get the feeling it's an dystopian world, I mean how can it not be?



In our petit planet we only cover about 3% of it's area, just saying.



Feasible? Probably, a good idea? Probably not.



"So we will have an Earth size hollow sphere with 3 m (9 feet) thick walls. The volume of all this concrete is 1.54∗10^15cubic meters... that means a square surface mine with 1240 km (770 miles) on a side and 1 km (0.6 miles) deep."



That's a big mine, assuming we'll take the resources from earth. But that is only taking in consideration a hollow sphere, are we covering the oceans too? Are buildings going to have multiple floors (I'd assume yes)?



So to make this more plausible we'd be probably mining planets and asteroids for that to be possible, are animals sheltered in like zoos? Do we even care about animals? Is this a working class planet and titan is the rich people's planet? That would be fun. I'd assume rooftops would be really sought after.



I really like the idea and do really think it's plausible, specially if we have colonized other planets. I'm not sure i got the vibe you wanted but i definitely got a dystopian feeling from what i read.



Hollow sphere earth numbers:
https://www.quora.com/Could-we-build-a-spaceship-larger-than-the-Earth-itself






share|improve this answer








New contributor




GaboSampaio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • I was writing the answer when i saw you wanted something closer to today not like super futuristic.
    – GaboSampaio
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Hm... I meant that by 'closer to our era' i mean in the lower thousands, not the hundred of thousands, and the idea that richer people have inhabited a different planet is really cool. Using other planets for resources is a great idea too... In a very technological Earth like this one, animals would probably be kept solely for food, and only the wealthy can keep pets
    – Uncertainty
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    My thoughts exactly i can't help to think where i live, a working class neighborhood , hundred of small apartments clutched together and comparing that to the suburbs, farms and crops could be done in buildings, multiple floors, artificial lights, hydroponics.
    – GaboSampaio
    1 hour ago



















2














Assumptions




  • Population density according to your description even this might be less dense than your world but I will work with this

  • Water to land ration like on earth

  • Animals are of no concern


So few things that have to be met (without getting to deep into fiction/fantasy):




  • More planets/asteroids available than only the one mentioned

  • The top of your building(s)? is covered by wind turbines and solar panels

  • Health care is great

  • Some of the build upon area is use for food production


The Numbers



Based on Kowloon City Density and the land mass of earth and reserving 20% for food generation. We arrive at a measly 154 quadrillion people inhabiting your world.



Food production in 2009 when accounted for population this was about half a ton per person which would amount to 77 quadrillion metric tons per year or 2 439 435 497 tons per second.



Results/Consequences



this was only food and population but the numbers for water/fluid consumption and power will be equally high. I highly doubt any greenhouse even when sized at one fifth of all land mass an earth would produce these numbers so your civilization should already have a partial dysonsphere or something like that in place to generate the power and food demands of this crowded planet.



It is very unlikely that anyone who has the money would stay there so you'll need a good explanation for that. Considering that you need other planets/asteroids and even partial dysonspheres to get this to work in the first place.



Conclusion



Possible but very unlikely. Except when it is something like a big lower class world where the majority of people have to live because of their limited power/influence/money supply.






share|improve this answer





























    1















    everywhere you go there are stories and stories of shops, markets, cinemas etc above you. Even at the very top, there is only limited access to the open-sky




    Why?



    There's actually a very good reason why: That open-sky view is being used for power generation.



    It sounds like you want a "high tech" but not "very high tech" situation. Let's suppose these people have near-perfect photovoltaics and can capture 6$kWhm^{-2}$ each day, or 168$kWhm^{-2}$ each month. (Reference) That means that if each person has 80$m^2$ of living space (whether or not that's "crowded" is subjective, I'd call it normal), the roof of the top-story apartment will be generating 161$MWh$ per year.



    How's that compare to real-world energy production?
    India has 1,300,000,000 people and generates 6,444,000,000$MWh$ per year (see here, and double-check my unit conversions). That's 5$MWh$ per year per capita. For the United States it works out to 72$MWh$ per year per capita.



    So far it looks like this could work; your "global building" could be as much as 30 stories tall (deep) provided you're not expecting too many people to have modern amenities like electricity or refrigerators.



    But where does the food come from? For that matter, where does the oxygen come from? CO$_2$ concentrations can be a problem even in existing buildings.



    I think your best bet for a plausible world would be one with much less land-mass than ours.

    You'd basically have a water-world, with people living on barges and civilizations powered by floating wind turbines and eating farmed fish and seaweed, and then there'd be this big island or chain of islands, say the size of Japan or Madagascar, that, as the only firm ground in the entire world, had been developed into a single contiguous 100-story-tall megastructure.
    For that matter, does your story even need to be set in the fixed mega-structure? Can you imagine living in a cruise ship the size of a city-state?



    $_{Someone's;going;to;complain;that;this;civilization;wouldn't;have;the;iron;to;build;boats;that;big.;I'm;assuming;they;have;the;technology;to;mine;the ;sea-floor,;and;that;it's;reasonably;shallow;for;whatever;reason.}$






    share|improve this answer





















    • I decided to ask the question more vague than i would have, because there is more room to visualise and be creative, rather than setting a more concrete idea. I love your idea of a moving mega structure, but like you said^ i intend for the world to have a smaller landmass than our Earth, though that idea is open to change, which is again why its so vague. A water-world like Subnautica etc could be very interesting...
      – Uncertainty
      23 secs ago



















    0














    not physically impossible but why not just burrow into the earth?
    It would be easier, also don't forget about food it is hard to grow food without sunlight and if the planet was one big apartment complex that is just so much more food you need seeing as there would be about something trillion people. I say either burrow or build a sky scraper into space several times, it also leaves more space for food.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • Say that some 'obstacles' prevent them from burrowing, and since the rich and powerful live on a different planet, they dont give much thought to the over-crowding population. Hence not giving much thought on the quality of life that the rest of the populace have to suffer for on Earth.
      – Uncertainty
      36 mins ago











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135858%2fearth-under-one-roof-feasible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    Could an entire neighborhood or even an entire city be that crowded?



    Sure.



    enter image description here
    Hong Kong’s Kowloon Walled City was probably the densest neighbourhood in history, with more than 1,000,000 people per sq km. Photograph: Alamy



    enter image description here
    Kowloon Walled City was 119 times as dense as New York City.Greg Girard



    While this example was just 33k people in 6.4 acres, it lasted for 40 years.




    The streets and alleyways of the Walled City were narrow.
    Most were barely wider than six feet and some were so narrow that one
    had to walk sideways through them. A massive network of passageways in
    the upper levels also made it possible to travel the distance of the
    city without walking on a ground level street.



    The Walled City had its own micro-climate,
    due to the massive amounts of tubing, wires, and
    open gutters snaking through the building. The lower levels were
    constantly hot, humid, and damp...Because of the smelly, humid
    conditions down below, the rooftops of Kowloon would turn into a
    communal hangout during the afternoons and evenings. People would hang
    out, do laundry or homework, or practice instruments.



    "It was like a
    strange, urban garden. There was tons of household refuse. It was a
    bit of an eyesore, but compared to the area below, the air was light
    and breezy. It was nice to come up there after living and working on
    the lower floors."




    In other cases, a somewhat less dense set of buildings can cover an entire city.



    enter image description here
    Delhi, India



    Could this be most of the earth?



    No.



    People need to eat and to do that, you need farmland, oceans/lakes, factories or processing centers, and transportation ways. While you have some wild spaces and waterways accounted for, you still need massive amounts of flat buildable land to grow crops and raise animals for meat. Even if everyone is vegan, you still need an awful lot of space.




    By 2050 the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion, 34 percent higher than today...It should be possible to meet
    the future food and feed demand of the projected world population in
    2050 within realistic rates for land and water use expansion and yield
    development. However, achieving this will not at all be automatic and
    several significant challenges will have to be met. (ref)




    Can you feed your world? It depends what the population is. If agencies are projecting that feeding 9 billion people is doable with some work, then you can assume that larger populations will be even harder to feed. Not only are there more people, but there's less land to do it with, because the people take over arable land for housing and for other resources like schools, offices, warehouses, roads, parking, factories, distribution channels, etc.



    Air quality: Half the world's oxygen comes from the oceans and the other half "via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants." Some sources say the ocean's contribution is even higher, up to 85%. Land plants do contribute, though they don't affect oxygen levels much because of the total volume. Though wild spaces and urban trees are important for carbon dioxide sequestering and to reduce air pollution.




    Our atmosphere has such an enormous reserve of oxygen that even if all
    fossil fuel reserves, all trees, and all organic matter in soils were
    burned, atmospheric oxygen would only drop a few percent.



    Tree impacts on important atmospheric trace chemicals such as carbon
    dioxide and...air
    pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
    dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead) will have greater significant
    impacts on human health and environmental quality. Urban forest carbon
    sequestration and air pollution removal along with other environmental
    impacts of urban forests (e.g., water quality improvement, lower air
    temperatures, reduced ultraviolet radiation loads) need to be better
    incorporated within local and regional planning efforts to improve
    environmental quality and enhance the quality of urban life.(ref)




    Power generation: That's a whole other issue and should be a separate question. Wind generation is likely your best bet, as wind will be a factor in keeping your cities from collapsing, so generators around the cities will help deflect it. And you can have small generators on top of the buildings. Solar won't have much space to work. Fossil fuels are likely depleted since you have a "far-future" tag and that many people. There are other ways to generate fuel, including from the waste products of that many people, but you need some space to do it.






    share|improve this answer





















    • Hey basically my answer with more things considered and looking better. Good job.
      – Soan
      35 mins ago










    • @Soan Ha ha thanks. It took me a while to write it and I kept seeing popups saying there were new answers. I finally finish and what do I see, the same walled city example! Fortunately, in SE giving the same answer just reinforces it; no duplicates rule. You focused on some stuff I skipped over. So I think it works. :-)
      – Cyn
      32 mins ago
















    3














    Could an entire neighborhood or even an entire city be that crowded?



    Sure.



    enter image description here
    Hong Kong’s Kowloon Walled City was probably the densest neighbourhood in history, with more than 1,000,000 people per sq km. Photograph: Alamy



    enter image description here
    Kowloon Walled City was 119 times as dense as New York City.Greg Girard



    While this example was just 33k people in 6.4 acres, it lasted for 40 years.




    The streets and alleyways of the Walled City were narrow.
    Most were barely wider than six feet and some were so narrow that one
    had to walk sideways through them. A massive network of passageways in
    the upper levels also made it possible to travel the distance of the
    city without walking on a ground level street.



    The Walled City had its own micro-climate,
    due to the massive amounts of tubing, wires, and
    open gutters snaking through the building. The lower levels were
    constantly hot, humid, and damp...Because of the smelly, humid
    conditions down below, the rooftops of Kowloon would turn into a
    communal hangout during the afternoons and evenings. People would hang
    out, do laundry or homework, or practice instruments.



    "It was like a
    strange, urban garden. There was tons of household refuse. It was a
    bit of an eyesore, but compared to the area below, the air was light
    and breezy. It was nice to come up there after living and working on
    the lower floors."




    In other cases, a somewhat less dense set of buildings can cover an entire city.



    enter image description here
    Delhi, India



    Could this be most of the earth?



    No.



    People need to eat and to do that, you need farmland, oceans/lakes, factories or processing centers, and transportation ways. While you have some wild spaces and waterways accounted for, you still need massive amounts of flat buildable land to grow crops and raise animals for meat. Even if everyone is vegan, you still need an awful lot of space.




    By 2050 the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion, 34 percent higher than today...It should be possible to meet
    the future food and feed demand of the projected world population in
    2050 within realistic rates for land and water use expansion and yield
    development. However, achieving this will not at all be automatic and
    several significant challenges will have to be met. (ref)




    Can you feed your world? It depends what the population is. If agencies are projecting that feeding 9 billion people is doable with some work, then you can assume that larger populations will be even harder to feed. Not only are there more people, but there's less land to do it with, because the people take over arable land for housing and for other resources like schools, offices, warehouses, roads, parking, factories, distribution channels, etc.



    Air quality: Half the world's oxygen comes from the oceans and the other half "via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants." Some sources say the ocean's contribution is even higher, up to 85%. Land plants do contribute, though they don't affect oxygen levels much because of the total volume. Though wild spaces and urban trees are important for carbon dioxide sequestering and to reduce air pollution.




    Our atmosphere has such an enormous reserve of oxygen that even if all
    fossil fuel reserves, all trees, and all organic matter in soils were
    burned, atmospheric oxygen would only drop a few percent.



    Tree impacts on important atmospheric trace chemicals such as carbon
    dioxide and...air
    pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
    dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead) will have greater significant
    impacts on human health and environmental quality. Urban forest carbon
    sequestration and air pollution removal along with other environmental
    impacts of urban forests (e.g., water quality improvement, lower air
    temperatures, reduced ultraviolet radiation loads) need to be better
    incorporated within local and regional planning efforts to improve
    environmental quality and enhance the quality of urban life.(ref)




    Power generation: That's a whole other issue and should be a separate question. Wind generation is likely your best bet, as wind will be a factor in keeping your cities from collapsing, so generators around the cities will help deflect it. And you can have small generators on top of the buildings. Solar won't have much space to work. Fossil fuels are likely depleted since you have a "far-future" tag and that many people. There are other ways to generate fuel, including from the waste products of that many people, but you need some space to do it.






    share|improve this answer





















    • Hey basically my answer with more things considered and looking better. Good job.
      – Soan
      35 mins ago










    • @Soan Ha ha thanks. It took me a while to write it and I kept seeing popups saying there were new answers. I finally finish and what do I see, the same walled city example! Fortunately, in SE giving the same answer just reinforces it; no duplicates rule. You focused on some stuff I skipped over. So I think it works. :-)
      – Cyn
      32 mins ago














    3












    3








    3






    Could an entire neighborhood or even an entire city be that crowded?



    Sure.



    enter image description here
    Hong Kong’s Kowloon Walled City was probably the densest neighbourhood in history, with more than 1,000,000 people per sq km. Photograph: Alamy



    enter image description here
    Kowloon Walled City was 119 times as dense as New York City.Greg Girard



    While this example was just 33k people in 6.4 acres, it lasted for 40 years.




    The streets and alleyways of the Walled City were narrow.
    Most were barely wider than six feet and some were so narrow that one
    had to walk sideways through them. A massive network of passageways in
    the upper levels also made it possible to travel the distance of the
    city without walking on a ground level street.



    The Walled City had its own micro-climate,
    due to the massive amounts of tubing, wires, and
    open gutters snaking through the building. The lower levels were
    constantly hot, humid, and damp...Because of the smelly, humid
    conditions down below, the rooftops of Kowloon would turn into a
    communal hangout during the afternoons and evenings. People would hang
    out, do laundry or homework, or practice instruments.



    "It was like a
    strange, urban garden. There was tons of household refuse. It was a
    bit of an eyesore, but compared to the area below, the air was light
    and breezy. It was nice to come up there after living and working on
    the lower floors."




    In other cases, a somewhat less dense set of buildings can cover an entire city.



    enter image description here
    Delhi, India



    Could this be most of the earth?



    No.



    People need to eat and to do that, you need farmland, oceans/lakes, factories or processing centers, and transportation ways. While you have some wild spaces and waterways accounted for, you still need massive amounts of flat buildable land to grow crops and raise animals for meat. Even if everyone is vegan, you still need an awful lot of space.




    By 2050 the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion, 34 percent higher than today...It should be possible to meet
    the future food and feed demand of the projected world population in
    2050 within realistic rates for land and water use expansion and yield
    development. However, achieving this will not at all be automatic and
    several significant challenges will have to be met. (ref)




    Can you feed your world? It depends what the population is. If agencies are projecting that feeding 9 billion people is doable with some work, then you can assume that larger populations will be even harder to feed. Not only are there more people, but there's less land to do it with, because the people take over arable land for housing and for other resources like schools, offices, warehouses, roads, parking, factories, distribution channels, etc.



    Air quality: Half the world's oxygen comes from the oceans and the other half "via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants." Some sources say the ocean's contribution is even higher, up to 85%. Land plants do contribute, though they don't affect oxygen levels much because of the total volume. Though wild spaces and urban trees are important for carbon dioxide sequestering and to reduce air pollution.




    Our atmosphere has such an enormous reserve of oxygen that even if all
    fossil fuel reserves, all trees, and all organic matter in soils were
    burned, atmospheric oxygen would only drop a few percent.



    Tree impacts on important atmospheric trace chemicals such as carbon
    dioxide and...air
    pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
    dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead) will have greater significant
    impacts on human health and environmental quality. Urban forest carbon
    sequestration and air pollution removal along with other environmental
    impacts of urban forests (e.g., water quality improvement, lower air
    temperatures, reduced ultraviolet radiation loads) need to be better
    incorporated within local and regional planning efforts to improve
    environmental quality and enhance the quality of urban life.(ref)




    Power generation: That's a whole other issue and should be a separate question. Wind generation is likely your best bet, as wind will be a factor in keeping your cities from collapsing, so generators around the cities will help deflect it. And you can have small generators on top of the buildings. Solar won't have much space to work. Fossil fuels are likely depleted since you have a "far-future" tag and that many people. There are other ways to generate fuel, including from the waste products of that many people, but you need some space to do it.






    share|improve this answer












    Could an entire neighborhood or even an entire city be that crowded?



    Sure.



    enter image description here
    Hong Kong’s Kowloon Walled City was probably the densest neighbourhood in history, with more than 1,000,000 people per sq km. Photograph: Alamy



    enter image description here
    Kowloon Walled City was 119 times as dense as New York City.Greg Girard



    While this example was just 33k people in 6.4 acres, it lasted for 40 years.




    The streets and alleyways of the Walled City were narrow.
    Most were barely wider than six feet and some were so narrow that one
    had to walk sideways through them. A massive network of passageways in
    the upper levels also made it possible to travel the distance of the
    city without walking on a ground level street.



    The Walled City had its own micro-climate,
    due to the massive amounts of tubing, wires, and
    open gutters snaking through the building. The lower levels were
    constantly hot, humid, and damp...Because of the smelly, humid
    conditions down below, the rooftops of Kowloon would turn into a
    communal hangout during the afternoons and evenings. People would hang
    out, do laundry or homework, or practice instruments.



    "It was like a
    strange, urban garden. There was tons of household refuse. It was a
    bit of an eyesore, but compared to the area below, the air was light
    and breezy. It was nice to come up there after living and working on
    the lower floors."




    In other cases, a somewhat less dense set of buildings can cover an entire city.



    enter image description here
    Delhi, India



    Could this be most of the earth?



    No.



    People need to eat and to do that, you need farmland, oceans/lakes, factories or processing centers, and transportation ways. While you have some wild spaces and waterways accounted for, you still need massive amounts of flat buildable land to grow crops and raise animals for meat. Even if everyone is vegan, you still need an awful lot of space.




    By 2050 the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion, 34 percent higher than today...It should be possible to meet
    the future food and feed demand of the projected world population in
    2050 within realistic rates for land and water use expansion and yield
    development. However, achieving this will not at all be automatic and
    several significant challenges will have to be met. (ref)




    Can you feed your world? It depends what the population is. If agencies are projecting that feeding 9 billion people is doable with some work, then you can assume that larger populations will be even harder to feed. Not only are there more people, but there's less land to do it with, because the people take over arable land for housing and for other resources like schools, offices, warehouses, roads, parking, factories, distribution channels, etc.



    Air quality: Half the world's oxygen comes from the oceans and the other half "via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants." Some sources say the ocean's contribution is even higher, up to 85%. Land plants do contribute, though they don't affect oxygen levels much because of the total volume. Though wild spaces and urban trees are important for carbon dioxide sequestering and to reduce air pollution.




    Our atmosphere has such an enormous reserve of oxygen that even if all
    fossil fuel reserves, all trees, and all organic matter in soils were
    burned, atmospheric oxygen would only drop a few percent.



    Tree impacts on important atmospheric trace chemicals such as carbon
    dioxide and...air
    pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
    dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead) will have greater significant
    impacts on human health and environmental quality. Urban forest carbon
    sequestration and air pollution removal along with other environmental
    impacts of urban forests (e.g., water quality improvement, lower air
    temperatures, reduced ultraviolet radiation loads) need to be better
    incorporated within local and regional planning efforts to improve
    environmental quality and enhance the quality of urban life.(ref)




    Power generation: That's a whole other issue and should be a separate question. Wind generation is likely your best bet, as wind will be a factor in keeping your cities from collapsing, so generators around the cities will help deflect it. And you can have small generators on top of the buildings. Solar won't have much space to work. Fossil fuels are likely depleted since you have a "far-future" tag and that many people. There are other ways to generate fuel, including from the waste products of that many people, but you need some space to do it.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 38 mins ago









    CynCyn

    5,170933




    5,170933












    • Hey basically my answer with more things considered and looking better. Good job.
      – Soan
      35 mins ago










    • @Soan Ha ha thanks. It took me a while to write it and I kept seeing popups saying there were new answers. I finally finish and what do I see, the same walled city example! Fortunately, in SE giving the same answer just reinforces it; no duplicates rule. You focused on some stuff I skipped over. So I think it works. :-)
      – Cyn
      32 mins ago


















    • Hey basically my answer with more things considered and looking better. Good job.
      – Soan
      35 mins ago










    • @Soan Ha ha thanks. It took me a while to write it and I kept seeing popups saying there were new answers. I finally finish and what do I see, the same walled city example! Fortunately, in SE giving the same answer just reinforces it; no duplicates rule. You focused on some stuff I skipped over. So I think it works. :-)
      – Cyn
      32 mins ago
















    Hey basically my answer with more things considered and looking better. Good job.
    – Soan
    35 mins ago




    Hey basically my answer with more things considered and looking better. Good job.
    – Soan
    35 mins ago












    @Soan Ha ha thanks. It took me a while to write it and I kept seeing popups saying there were new answers. I finally finish and what do I see, the same walled city example! Fortunately, in SE giving the same answer just reinforces it; no duplicates rule. You focused on some stuff I skipped over. So I think it works. :-)
    – Cyn
    32 mins ago




    @Soan Ha ha thanks. It took me a while to write it and I kept seeing popups saying there were new answers. I finally finish and what do I see, the same walled city example! Fortunately, in SE giving the same answer just reinforces it; no duplicates rule. You focused on some stuff I skipped over. So I think it works. :-)
    – Cyn
    32 mins ago











    2














    For some reason i read this and i get the feeling it's an dystopian world, I mean how can it not be?



    In our petit planet we only cover about 3% of it's area, just saying.



    Feasible? Probably, a good idea? Probably not.



    "So we will have an Earth size hollow sphere with 3 m (9 feet) thick walls. The volume of all this concrete is 1.54∗10^15cubic meters... that means a square surface mine with 1240 km (770 miles) on a side and 1 km (0.6 miles) deep."



    That's a big mine, assuming we'll take the resources from earth. But that is only taking in consideration a hollow sphere, are we covering the oceans too? Are buildings going to have multiple floors (I'd assume yes)?



    So to make this more plausible we'd be probably mining planets and asteroids for that to be possible, are animals sheltered in like zoos? Do we even care about animals? Is this a working class planet and titan is the rich people's planet? That would be fun. I'd assume rooftops would be really sought after.



    I really like the idea and do really think it's plausible, specially if we have colonized other planets. I'm not sure i got the vibe you wanted but i definitely got a dystopian feeling from what i read.



    Hollow sphere earth numbers:
    https://www.quora.com/Could-we-build-a-spaceship-larger-than-the-Earth-itself






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    GaboSampaio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • I was writing the answer when i saw you wanted something closer to today not like super futuristic.
      – GaboSampaio
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      Hm... I meant that by 'closer to our era' i mean in the lower thousands, not the hundred of thousands, and the idea that richer people have inhabited a different planet is really cool. Using other planets for resources is a great idea too... In a very technological Earth like this one, animals would probably be kept solely for food, and only the wealthy can keep pets
      – Uncertainty
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      My thoughts exactly i can't help to think where i live, a working class neighborhood , hundred of small apartments clutched together and comparing that to the suburbs, farms and crops could be done in buildings, multiple floors, artificial lights, hydroponics.
      – GaboSampaio
      1 hour ago
















    2














    For some reason i read this and i get the feeling it's an dystopian world, I mean how can it not be?



    In our petit planet we only cover about 3% of it's area, just saying.



    Feasible? Probably, a good idea? Probably not.



    "So we will have an Earth size hollow sphere with 3 m (9 feet) thick walls. The volume of all this concrete is 1.54∗10^15cubic meters... that means a square surface mine with 1240 km (770 miles) on a side and 1 km (0.6 miles) deep."



    That's a big mine, assuming we'll take the resources from earth. But that is only taking in consideration a hollow sphere, are we covering the oceans too? Are buildings going to have multiple floors (I'd assume yes)?



    So to make this more plausible we'd be probably mining planets and asteroids for that to be possible, are animals sheltered in like zoos? Do we even care about animals? Is this a working class planet and titan is the rich people's planet? That would be fun. I'd assume rooftops would be really sought after.



    I really like the idea and do really think it's plausible, specially if we have colonized other planets. I'm not sure i got the vibe you wanted but i definitely got a dystopian feeling from what i read.



    Hollow sphere earth numbers:
    https://www.quora.com/Could-we-build-a-spaceship-larger-than-the-Earth-itself






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    GaboSampaio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • I was writing the answer when i saw you wanted something closer to today not like super futuristic.
      – GaboSampaio
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      Hm... I meant that by 'closer to our era' i mean in the lower thousands, not the hundred of thousands, and the idea that richer people have inhabited a different planet is really cool. Using other planets for resources is a great idea too... In a very technological Earth like this one, animals would probably be kept solely for food, and only the wealthy can keep pets
      – Uncertainty
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      My thoughts exactly i can't help to think where i live, a working class neighborhood , hundred of small apartments clutched together and comparing that to the suburbs, farms and crops could be done in buildings, multiple floors, artificial lights, hydroponics.
      – GaboSampaio
      1 hour ago














    2












    2








    2






    For some reason i read this and i get the feeling it's an dystopian world, I mean how can it not be?



    In our petit planet we only cover about 3% of it's area, just saying.



    Feasible? Probably, a good idea? Probably not.



    "So we will have an Earth size hollow sphere with 3 m (9 feet) thick walls. The volume of all this concrete is 1.54∗10^15cubic meters... that means a square surface mine with 1240 km (770 miles) on a side and 1 km (0.6 miles) deep."



    That's a big mine, assuming we'll take the resources from earth. But that is only taking in consideration a hollow sphere, are we covering the oceans too? Are buildings going to have multiple floors (I'd assume yes)?



    So to make this more plausible we'd be probably mining planets and asteroids for that to be possible, are animals sheltered in like zoos? Do we even care about animals? Is this a working class planet and titan is the rich people's planet? That would be fun. I'd assume rooftops would be really sought after.



    I really like the idea and do really think it's plausible, specially if we have colonized other planets. I'm not sure i got the vibe you wanted but i definitely got a dystopian feeling from what i read.



    Hollow sphere earth numbers:
    https://www.quora.com/Could-we-build-a-spaceship-larger-than-the-Earth-itself






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    GaboSampaio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    For some reason i read this and i get the feeling it's an dystopian world, I mean how can it not be?



    In our petit planet we only cover about 3% of it's area, just saying.



    Feasible? Probably, a good idea? Probably not.



    "So we will have an Earth size hollow sphere with 3 m (9 feet) thick walls. The volume of all this concrete is 1.54∗10^15cubic meters... that means a square surface mine with 1240 km (770 miles) on a side and 1 km (0.6 miles) deep."



    That's a big mine, assuming we'll take the resources from earth. But that is only taking in consideration a hollow sphere, are we covering the oceans too? Are buildings going to have multiple floors (I'd assume yes)?



    So to make this more plausible we'd be probably mining planets and asteroids for that to be possible, are animals sheltered in like zoos? Do we even care about animals? Is this a working class planet and titan is the rich people's planet? That would be fun. I'd assume rooftops would be really sought after.



    I really like the idea and do really think it's plausible, specially if we have colonized other planets. I'm not sure i got the vibe you wanted but i definitely got a dystopian feeling from what i read.



    Hollow sphere earth numbers:
    https://www.quora.com/Could-we-build-a-spaceship-larger-than-the-Earth-itself







    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    GaboSampaio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer






    New contributor




    GaboSampaio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered 1 hour ago









    GaboSampaioGaboSampaio

    1216




    1216




    New contributor




    GaboSampaio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    GaboSampaio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    GaboSampaio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.












    • I was writing the answer when i saw you wanted something closer to today not like super futuristic.
      – GaboSampaio
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      Hm... I meant that by 'closer to our era' i mean in the lower thousands, not the hundred of thousands, and the idea that richer people have inhabited a different planet is really cool. Using other planets for resources is a great idea too... In a very technological Earth like this one, animals would probably be kept solely for food, and only the wealthy can keep pets
      – Uncertainty
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      My thoughts exactly i can't help to think where i live, a working class neighborhood , hundred of small apartments clutched together and comparing that to the suburbs, farms and crops could be done in buildings, multiple floors, artificial lights, hydroponics.
      – GaboSampaio
      1 hour ago


















    • I was writing the answer when i saw you wanted something closer to today not like super futuristic.
      – GaboSampaio
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      Hm... I meant that by 'closer to our era' i mean in the lower thousands, not the hundred of thousands, and the idea that richer people have inhabited a different planet is really cool. Using other planets for resources is a great idea too... In a very technological Earth like this one, animals would probably be kept solely for food, and only the wealthy can keep pets
      – Uncertainty
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      My thoughts exactly i can't help to think where i live, a working class neighborhood , hundred of small apartments clutched together and comparing that to the suburbs, farms and crops could be done in buildings, multiple floors, artificial lights, hydroponics.
      – GaboSampaio
      1 hour ago
















    I was writing the answer when i saw you wanted something closer to today not like super futuristic.
    – GaboSampaio
    1 hour ago




    I was writing the answer when i saw you wanted something closer to today not like super futuristic.
    – GaboSampaio
    1 hour ago




    1




    1




    Hm... I meant that by 'closer to our era' i mean in the lower thousands, not the hundred of thousands, and the idea that richer people have inhabited a different planet is really cool. Using other planets for resources is a great idea too... In a very technological Earth like this one, animals would probably be kept solely for food, and only the wealthy can keep pets
    – Uncertainty
    1 hour ago




    Hm... I meant that by 'closer to our era' i mean in the lower thousands, not the hundred of thousands, and the idea that richer people have inhabited a different planet is really cool. Using other planets for resources is a great idea too... In a very technological Earth like this one, animals would probably be kept solely for food, and only the wealthy can keep pets
    – Uncertainty
    1 hour ago




    1




    1




    My thoughts exactly i can't help to think where i live, a working class neighborhood , hundred of small apartments clutched together and comparing that to the suburbs, farms and crops could be done in buildings, multiple floors, artificial lights, hydroponics.
    – GaboSampaio
    1 hour ago




    My thoughts exactly i can't help to think where i live, a working class neighborhood , hundred of small apartments clutched together and comparing that to the suburbs, farms and crops could be done in buildings, multiple floors, artificial lights, hydroponics.
    – GaboSampaio
    1 hour ago











    2














    Assumptions




    • Population density according to your description even this might be less dense than your world but I will work with this

    • Water to land ration like on earth

    • Animals are of no concern


    So few things that have to be met (without getting to deep into fiction/fantasy):




    • More planets/asteroids available than only the one mentioned

    • The top of your building(s)? is covered by wind turbines and solar panels

    • Health care is great

    • Some of the build upon area is use for food production


    The Numbers



    Based on Kowloon City Density and the land mass of earth and reserving 20% for food generation. We arrive at a measly 154 quadrillion people inhabiting your world.



    Food production in 2009 when accounted for population this was about half a ton per person which would amount to 77 quadrillion metric tons per year or 2 439 435 497 tons per second.



    Results/Consequences



    this was only food and population but the numbers for water/fluid consumption and power will be equally high. I highly doubt any greenhouse even when sized at one fifth of all land mass an earth would produce these numbers so your civilization should already have a partial dysonsphere or something like that in place to generate the power and food demands of this crowded planet.



    It is very unlikely that anyone who has the money would stay there so you'll need a good explanation for that. Considering that you need other planets/asteroids and even partial dysonspheres to get this to work in the first place.



    Conclusion



    Possible but very unlikely. Except when it is something like a big lower class world where the majority of people have to live because of their limited power/influence/money supply.






    share|improve this answer


























      2














      Assumptions




      • Population density according to your description even this might be less dense than your world but I will work with this

      • Water to land ration like on earth

      • Animals are of no concern


      So few things that have to be met (without getting to deep into fiction/fantasy):




      • More planets/asteroids available than only the one mentioned

      • The top of your building(s)? is covered by wind turbines and solar panels

      • Health care is great

      • Some of the build upon area is use for food production


      The Numbers



      Based on Kowloon City Density and the land mass of earth and reserving 20% for food generation. We arrive at a measly 154 quadrillion people inhabiting your world.



      Food production in 2009 when accounted for population this was about half a ton per person which would amount to 77 quadrillion metric tons per year or 2 439 435 497 tons per second.



      Results/Consequences



      this was only food and population but the numbers for water/fluid consumption and power will be equally high. I highly doubt any greenhouse even when sized at one fifth of all land mass an earth would produce these numbers so your civilization should already have a partial dysonsphere or something like that in place to generate the power and food demands of this crowded planet.



      It is very unlikely that anyone who has the money would stay there so you'll need a good explanation for that. Considering that you need other planets/asteroids and even partial dysonspheres to get this to work in the first place.



      Conclusion



      Possible but very unlikely. Except when it is something like a big lower class world where the majority of people have to live because of their limited power/influence/money supply.






      share|improve this answer
























        2












        2








        2






        Assumptions




        • Population density according to your description even this might be less dense than your world but I will work with this

        • Water to land ration like on earth

        • Animals are of no concern


        So few things that have to be met (without getting to deep into fiction/fantasy):




        • More planets/asteroids available than only the one mentioned

        • The top of your building(s)? is covered by wind turbines and solar panels

        • Health care is great

        • Some of the build upon area is use for food production


        The Numbers



        Based on Kowloon City Density and the land mass of earth and reserving 20% for food generation. We arrive at a measly 154 quadrillion people inhabiting your world.



        Food production in 2009 when accounted for population this was about half a ton per person which would amount to 77 quadrillion metric tons per year or 2 439 435 497 tons per second.



        Results/Consequences



        this was only food and population but the numbers for water/fluid consumption and power will be equally high. I highly doubt any greenhouse even when sized at one fifth of all land mass an earth would produce these numbers so your civilization should already have a partial dysonsphere or something like that in place to generate the power and food demands of this crowded planet.



        It is very unlikely that anyone who has the money would stay there so you'll need a good explanation for that. Considering that you need other planets/asteroids and even partial dysonspheres to get this to work in the first place.



        Conclusion



        Possible but very unlikely. Except when it is something like a big lower class world where the majority of people have to live because of their limited power/influence/money supply.






        share|improve this answer












        Assumptions




        • Population density according to your description even this might be less dense than your world but I will work with this

        • Water to land ration like on earth

        • Animals are of no concern


        So few things that have to be met (without getting to deep into fiction/fantasy):




        • More planets/asteroids available than only the one mentioned

        • The top of your building(s)? is covered by wind turbines and solar panels

        • Health care is great

        • Some of the build upon area is use for food production


        The Numbers



        Based on Kowloon City Density and the land mass of earth and reserving 20% for food generation. We arrive at a measly 154 quadrillion people inhabiting your world.



        Food production in 2009 when accounted for population this was about half a ton per person which would amount to 77 quadrillion metric tons per year or 2 439 435 497 tons per second.



        Results/Consequences



        this was only food and population but the numbers for water/fluid consumption and power will be equally high. I highly doubt any greenhouse even when sized at one fifth of all land mass an earth would produce these numbers so your civilization should already have a partial dysonsphere or something like that in place to generate the power and food demands of this crowded planet.



        It is very unlikely that anyone who has the money would stay there so you'll need a good explanation for that. Considering that you need other planets/asteroids and even partial dysonspheres to get this to work in the first place.



        Conclusion



        Possible but very unlikely. Except when it is something like a big lower class world where the majority of people have to live because of their limited power/influence/money supply.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 38 mins ago









        SoanSoan

        55013




        55013























            1















            everywhere you go there are stories and stories of shops, markets, cinemas etc above you. Even at the very top, there is only limited access to the open-sky




            Why?



            There's actually a very good reason why: That open-sky view is being used for power generation.



            It sounds like you want a "high tech" but not "very high tech" situation. Let's suppose these people have near-perfect photovoltaics and can capture 6$kWhm^{-2}$ each day, or 168$kWhm^{-2}$ each month. (Reference) That means that if each person has 80$m^2$ of living space (whether or not that's "crowded" is subjective, I'd call it normal), the roof of the top-story apartment will be generating 161$MWh$ per year.



            How's that compare to real-world energy production?
            India has 1,300,000,000 people and generates 6,444,000,000$MWh$ per year (see here, and double-check my unit conversions). That's 5$MWh$ per year per capita. For the United States it works out to 72$MWh$ per year per capita.



            So far it looks like this could work; your "global building" could be as much as 30 stories tall (deep) provided you're not expecting too many people to have modern amenities like electricity or refrigerators.



            But where does the food come from? For that matter, where does the oxygen come from? CO$_2$ concentrations can be a problem even in existing buildings.



            I think your best bet for a plausible world would be one with much less land-mass than ours.

            You'd basically have a water-world, with people living on barges and civilizations powered by floating wind turbines and eating farmed fish and seaweed, and then there'd be this big island or chain of islands, say the size of Japan or Madagascar, that, as the only firm ground in the entire world, had been developed into a single contiguous 100-story-tall megastructure.
            For that matter, does your story even need to be set in the fixed mega-structure? Can you imagine living in a cruise ship the size of a city-state?



            $_{Someone's;going;to;complain;that;this;civilization;wouldn't;have;the;iron;to;build;boats;that;big.;I'm;assuming;they;have;the;technology;to;mine;the ;sea-floor,;and;that;it's;reasonably;shallow;for;whatever;reason.}$






            share|improve this answer





















            • I decided to ask the question more vague than i would have, because there is more room to visualise and be creative, rather than setting a more concrete idea. I love your idea of a moving mega structure, but like you said^ i intend for the world to have a smaller landmass than our Earth, though that idea is open to change, which is again why its so vague. A water-world like Subnautica etc could be very interesting...
              – Uncertainty
              23 secs ago
















            1















            everywhere you go there are stories and stories of shops, markets, cinemas etc above you. Even at the very top, there is only limited access to the open-sky




            Why?



            There's actually a very good reason why: That open-sky view is being used for power generation.



            It sounds like you want a "high tech" but not "very high tech" situation. Let's suppose these people have near-perfect photovoltaics and can capture 6$kWhm^{-2}$ each day, or 168$kWhm^{-2}$ each month. (Reference) That means that if each person has 80$m^2$ of living space (whether or not that's "crowded" is subjective, I'd call it normal), the roof of the top-story apartment will be generating 161$MWh$ per year.



            How's that compare to real-world energy production?
            India has 1,300,000,000 people and generates 6,444,000,000$MWh$ per year (see here, and double-check my unit conversions). That's 5$MWh$ per year per capita. For the United States it works out to 72$MWh$ per year per capita.



            So far it looks like this could work; your "global building" could be as much as 30 stories tall (deep) provided you're not expecting too many people to have modern amenities like electricity or refrigerators.



            But where does the food come from? For that matter, where does the oxygen come from? CO$_2$ concentrations can be a problem even in existing buildings.



            I think your best bet for a plausible world would be one with much less land-mass than ours.

            You'd basically have a water-world, with people living on barges and civilizations powered by floating wind turbines and eating farmed fish and seaweed, and then there'd be this big island or chain of islands, say the size of Japan or Madagascar, that, as the only firm ground in the entire world, had been developed into a single contiguous 100-story-tall megastructure.
            For that matter, does your story even need to be set in the fixed mega-structure? Can you imagine living in a cruise ship the size of a city-state?



            $_{Someone's;going;to;complain;that;this;civilization;wouldn't;have;the;iron;to;build;boats;that;big.;I'm;assuming;they;have;the;technology;to;mine;the ;sea-floor,;and;that;it's;reasonably;shallow;for;whatever;reason.}$






            share|improve this answer





















            • I decided to ask the question more vague than i would have, because there is more room to visualise and be creative, rather than setting a more concrete idea. I love your idea of a moving mega structure, but like you said^ i intend for the world to have a smaller landmass than our Earth, though that idea is open to change, which is again why its so vague. A water-world like Subnautica etc could be very interesting...
              – Uncertainty
              23 secs ago














            1












            1








            1







            everywhere you go there are stories and stories of shops, markets, cinemas etc above you. Even at the very top, there is only limited access to the open-sky




            Why?



            There's actually a very good reason why: That open-sky view is being used for power generation.



            It sounds like you want a "high tech" but not "very high tech" situation. Let's suppose these people have near-perfect photovoltaics and can capture 6$kWhm^{-2}$ each day, or 168$kWhm^{-2}$ each month. (Reference) That means that if each person has 80$m^2$ of living space (whether or not that's "crowded" is subjective, I'd call it normal), the roof of the top-story apartment will be generating 161$MWh$ per year.



            How's that compare to real-world energy production?
            India has 1,300,000,000 people and generates 6,444,000,000$MWh$ per year (see here, and double-check my unit conversions). That's 5$MWh$ per year per capita. For the United States it works out to 72$MWh$ per year per capita.



            So far it looks like this could work; your "global building" could be as much as 30 stories tall (deep) provided you're not expecting too many people to have modern amenities like electricity or refrigerators.



            But where does the food come from? For that matter, where does the oxygen come from? CO$_2$ concentrations can be a problem even in existing buildings.



            I think your best bet for a plausible world would be one with much less land-mass than ours.

            You'd basically have a water-world, with people living on barges and civilizations powered by floating wind turbines and eating farmed fish and seaweed, and then there'd be this big island or chain of islands, say the size of Japan or Madagascar, that, as the only firm ground in the entire world, had been developed into a single contiguous 100-story-tall megastructure.
            For that matter, does your story even need to be set in the fixed mega-structure? Can you imagine living in a cruise ship the size of a city-state?



            $_{Someone's;going;to;complain;that;this;civilization;wouldn't;have;the;iron;to;build;boats;that;big.;I'm;assuming;they;have;the;technology;to;mine;the ;sea-floor,;and;that;it's;reasonably;shallow;for;whatever;reason.}$






            share|improve this answer













            everywhere you go there are stories and stories of shops, markets, cinemas etc above you. Even at the very top, there is only limited access to the open-sky




            Why?



            There's actually a very good reason why: That open-sky view is being used for power generation.



            It sounds like you want a "high tech" but not "very high tech" situation. Let's suppose these people have near-perfect photovoltaics and can capture 6$kWhm^{-2}$ each day, or 168$kWhm^{-2}$ each month. (Reference) That means that if each person has 80$m^2$ of living space (whether or not that's "crowded" is subjective, I'd call it normal), the roof of the top-story apartment will be generating 161$MWh$ per year.



            How's that compare to real-world energy production?
            India has 1,300,000,000 people and generates 6,444,000,000$MWh$ per year (see here, and double-check my unit conversions). That's 5$MWh$ per year per capita. For the United States it works out to 72$MWh$ per year per capita.



            So far it looks like this could work; your "global building" could be as much as 30 stories tall (deep) provided you're not expecting too many people to have modern amenities like electricity or refrigerators.



            But where does the food come from? For that matter, where does the oxygen come from? CO$_2$ concentrations can be a problem even in existing buildings.



            I think your best bet for a plausible world would be one with much less land-mass than ours.

            You'd basically have a water-world, with people living on barges and civilizations powered by floating wind turbines and eating farmed fish and seaweed, and then there'd be this big island or chain of islands, say the size of Japan or Madagascar, that, as the only firm ground in the entire world, had been developed into a single contiguous 100-story-tall megastructure.
            For that matter, does your story even need to be set in the fixed mega-structure? Can you imagine living in a cruise ship the size of a city-state?



            $_{Someone's;going;to;complain;that;this;civilization;wouldn't;have;the;iron;to;build;boats;that;big.;I'm;assuming;they;have;the;technology;to;mine;the ;sea-floor,;and;that;it's;reasonably;shallow;for;whatever;reason.}$







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 16 mins ago









            ShapeOfMatterShapeOfMatter

            864




            864












            • I decided to ask the question more vague than i would have, because there is more room to visualise and be creative, rather than setting a more concrete idea. I love your idea of a moving mega structure, but like you said^ i intend for the world to have a smaller landmass than our Earth, though that idea is open to change, which is again why its so vague. A water-world like Subnautica etc could be very interesting...
              – Uncertainty
              23 secs ago


















            • I decided to ask the question more vague than i would have, because there is more room to visualise and be creative, rather than setting a more concrete idea. I love your idea of a moving mega structure, but like you said^ i intend for the world to have a smaller landmass than our Earth, though that idea is open to change, which is again why its so vague. A water-world like Subnautica etc could be very interesting...
              – Uncertainty
              23 secs ago
















            I decided to ask the question more vague than i would have, because there is more room to visualise and be creative, rather than setting a more concrete idea. I love your idea of a moving mega structure, but like you said^ i intend for the world to have a smaller landmass than our Earth, though that idea is open to change, which is again why its so vague. A water-world like Subnautica etc could be very interesting...
            – Uncertainty
            23 secs ago




            I decided to ask the question more vague than i would have, because there is more room to visualise and be creative, rather than setting a more concrete idea. I love your idea of a moving mega structure, but like you said^ i intend for the world to have a smaller landmass than our Earth, though that idea is open to change, which is again why its so vague. A water-world like Subnautica etc could be very interesting...
            – Uncertainty
            23 secs ago











            0














            not physically impossible but why not just burrow into the earth?
            It would be easier, also don't forget about food it is hard to grow food without sunlight and if the planet was one big apartment complex that is just so much more food you need seeing as there would be about something trillion people. I say either burrow or build a sky scraper into space several times, it also leaves more space for food.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.


















            • Say that some 'obstacles' prevent them from burrowing, and since the rich and powerful live on a different planet, they dont give much thought to the over-crowding population. Hence not giving much thought on the quality of life that the rest of the populace have to suffer for on Earth.
              – Uncertainty
              36 mins ago
















            0














            not physically impossible but why not just burrow into the earth?
            It would be easier, also don't forget about food it is hard to grow food without sunlight and if the planet was one big apartment complex that is just so much more food you need seeing as there would be about something trillion people. I say either burrow or build a sky scraper into space several times, it also leaves more space for food.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.


















            • Say that some 'obstacles' prevent them from burrowing, and since the rich and powerful live on a different planet, they dont give much thought to the over-crowding population. Hence not giving much thought on the quality of life that the rest of the populace have to suffer for on Earth.
              – Uncertainty
              36 mins ago














            0












            0








            0






            not physically impossible but why not just burrow into the earth?
            It would be easier, also don't forget about food it is hard to grow food without sunlight and if the planet was one big apartment complex that is just so much more food you need seeing as there would be about something trillion people. I say either burrow or build a sky scraper into space several times, it also leaves more space for food.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            not physically impossible but why not just burrow into the earth?
            It would be easier, also don't forget about food it is hard to grow food without sunlight and if the planet was one big apartment complex that is just so much more food you need seeing as there would be about something trillion people. I say either burrow or build a sky scraper into space several times, it also leaves more space for food.







            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer






            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 55 mins ago









            Dylan BullDylan Bull

            1




            1




            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.












            • Say that some 'obstacles' prevent them from burrowing, and since the rich and powerful live on a different planet, they dont give much thought to the over-crowding population. Hence not giving much thought on the quality of life that the rest of the populace have to suffer for on Earth.
              – Uncertainty
              36 mins ago


















            • Say that some 'obstacles' prevent them from burrowing, and since the rich and powerful live on a different planet, they dont give much thought to the over-crowding population. Hence not giving much thought on the quality of life that the rest of the populace have to suffer for on Earth.
              – Uncertainty
              36 mins ago
















            Say that some 'obstacles' prevent them from burrowing, and since the rich and powerful live on a different planet, they dont give much thought to the over-crowding population. Hence not giving much thought on the quality of life that the rest of the populace have to suffer for on Earth.
            – Uncertainty
            36 mins ago




            Say that some 'obstacles' prevent them from burrowing, and since the rich and powerful live on a different planet, they dont give much thought to the over-crowding population. Hence not giving much thought on the quality of life that the rest of the populace have to suffer for on Earth.
            – Uncertainty
            36 mins ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135858%2fearth-under-one-roof-feasible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            CARDNET

            Boot-repair Failure: Unable to locate package grub-common:i386

            濃尾地震