People use 83 percent of land surface

[Mr. Anderson]

Humans take up 83 percent of the Earth's land surface to live on, farm, mine or fish, leaving just a few areas pristine for wildlife, according to a new report this week.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/23/footprint.people.reut/index.html

http://wcs.org/humanfootprint

Charles Lindberg (aviation pioneer of the ealry 20th Century) was one of the first to voice his concerns about overpopulation and man's impact on the Earth after he saw the changes men had made after flying from coast to coast in the US. I can't imagine what he would say today if he saw how much things have changed since. By our standards the country was mostly wilderness in his time. Its crazy and nothing will probably change any time soon.

Get out and see it while you can....

D

 

[diorio]

Whats even sadder is how we are destroying what wilderness we have left. Look at the slash and burn policy in many areas around the rainforest.

 

[Vector]

Re: People use 83 percent of land surface

Originally posted by dukestreet
Humans take up 83 percent of the Earth's land surface to live on, farm, mine or fish, leaving just a few areas pristine for wildlife, according to a new report this week.

Humans influence 83% of the earths land surface not take up 83% of it. The 17% that the map shows that is not influenced by man is in the arctic and jungles of south america. It does not mean that humans are living on or caonstantly using 83% of the land. Man uses a smaller percentage of the land to live and work on. The map just uses areas that are completely unihabitable it does not included undisturbed forests, which still comprise are large percentage of the land, or deserts, or preserves.

 

[MacAztec]

Heck no.

That information is so false. Just think off all the land in antarctica, aurstralia, russia, even the U.S that has no people around it. I mean, 83 percent is a joke

 

[King Cobra]

A certain percentage of statistics is false.

A certain percentage of wurdz in this sentence is spelt incorrectly.


Where I am in Montvale, there have been a lot of home sales. In place of some of them are enormous million dollar houses that occupy a supermajority of the land on the property itself. In some areas the problem is well amplified by personal observations, and it is scary when you think about it.

However, where I'll be living much later, we will live in a town, where a property must occupy a minimum of 2.5 acres in order to build/live in a house within the property. Who is ever going to build a 2.5 acre house, or moe 2 acres of it consistantly, or use even half of it? Sure, some people will go about farming and such, but where I'll be there are not many farms for crops and such. And there are a ridiculous amount of trees and such forest life. Tell me about the rest of the land in which there are very few people living in towns.

So, to sum it up, I agree with MacAztec.

 

[Vector]

Re: Heck no.

Originally posted by MacAztec
That information is so false. Just think off all the land in antarctica, aurstralia, russia, even the U.S that has no people around it. I mean, 83 percent is a joke

Most of australia, almost all of siberia, and all but the base camps in antarctica are unaffected by man. If the study only considers inhabitable land, excluding lands like antarctica then it may be higher but no where near 83%. As i pointed out it is land influenced by man but 83% still seams to be too high.

Originally posted by King Cobra
A certain percentage of statistics is false.

A certain percentage of wurdz in this sentence is spelt incorrectly.

So, to sum it up, I agree with MacAztec.

78.5% of statistics are made up

I also agree with both of you.

 

[MacRumorSkeptic]

What nonsense. Anyone whos ever been on a plane can see for themselves that the vast majority of land is unused. I once read that the entire human population of earth could fit in a land area the geographical size of Texas.