# Will the world become a whole megacity in 2050



## Klas (May 16, 2005)

Hi ! What you"re think about it : can the world become in the mid term 21 century become a whole megacity , i mean in sprawl!?

Yet we have around 31 megacities worldwide , but whats up in 2050 ? will we have 60 70 or more megacities! so what are with the US Nigeria , japan , the EU ?


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

No, but I predict China alone will have 50-100 megacities (over 20 million people).

http://english.people.com.cn/200207/19/eng20020719_100004.shtml


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

*Q:* Will the world become a whole megacity in 2050

*A:* No.

Reason:

a) Logically thinking, much of the terrain in the world is impassable (eg large mountain ranges, remote deserts etc), so a global megacity is impossible.

b) Cities can house many people, but the area they take up on a global scale is tiny. Occasionally we will see the fusion of two megacities into one hypercity, it won't ever get to a global stage.

c) A worldwide megacity is unpheasable and will never be achieved, because of the strain it would put on resources. Our resources would be stretched way before a global megacity is even reached.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

China is bracing itself for an influx of 400 million people to the cities by 2030 - thats the biggest movement of mankind in history, utterly eclipsing the last colonisation of the New World. Places like Shanghai alone is predicted to see its unofficial population of over 23 million double by 2015, with roughly 20,000 illegally arriving EACH DAY - its a massive problem finding housing and jobs for them. The best scenario is a population stabilising around 40 million, the worst case scenario is 60 million in one city. Currently 14 cities of over 10 million will treble in number.

However China knows its responsibility - it has no choice really as if these new urbanites enjoyed a lifestyle akin to the Americans the world would run out of resources. Alone if all this new housing needed were built in traditional brick, China would run out of its vast coal and clay reserves.

The govt is using thinktanks to build cities in new ways - it has to, and is currently seeing in the 'Great Green Revolution' in which the country will have the strictest and most stringent environmental laws in the world from solar panels and propellers on every new roof, to the dismantling of the coal fired power stations and their replacement by air, sea, wave and controversially nuclear plants, to car ownership and emmission laws, huge public transport infrastrcuture, to greater worker rights than the EU, and allocated, accessible green space per capita seeing vast swathes of cityscape levelled for parkland, to all businesses that must currently suffer a forced 60 percent carbon emmision reduction by 2020.

Lets get this straight, China doesnt have achoice, environmental disaster in China= environmental and economic disaster in the world. Currently 90 percent of all steel production goes to China in this massive urbanisation scheme, there are projects all over the world on hold as supply is so low.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Come check with me in 2050 from the empty Canadian Prairies.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Even adding all the sprawl in all the major cities doesn't even add 1% of the world's area...


----------



## Cristovão471 (May 9, 2006)

The population in 2050 will be 9 billion, They projected back in the 70's that the worlds population in 2050 would have been 16 billion.It is dramatic decrease because of the declining birth rate.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Calvin W said:


> Come check with me in 2050 from the empty Canadian Prairies.


By then, probably our Prairies would be much denser, Saskatoon's urban sprawl might reach Muenster. It is much less probable would our prairies become empty , though.

Remember how did cities grow--- Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Calgary, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, etc. during the past 50 years. In the next 50 years, some cities would go into decline, while some would grow unexpectedly.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

chrisboy47 said:


> The population in 2050 will be 9 billion, They projected back in the 70's that the worlds population in 2050 would have been 16 billion.It is dramatic decrease because of the declining birth rate.


By then African population would possibly exceed 3 billion. India 2 billion, China around 1.5 billion, so forth. 

United States + Canada- roughly 0.4-0.5 billion.


----------



## thryve (Mar 5, 2005)

No.


----------



## TopperCity (Apr 30, 2006)

It's the opposite. The numbers of urban residents will be more equally distributed among the major and small cities. Advanced technology will help close the distance gap which is one of the causes for the human's migration to the cities. Regardless the world population will rise or decline, people will come to sense of community when their financial needs are fulfilled. Humans are not robots. Instead, we make robots work for us.


----------



## Intoxication (Jul 24, 2005)

Xäntårx said:


> By then African population would possibly exceed 3 billion. India 2 billion, China around 1.5 billion, so forth.
> 
> United States + Canada- roughly 0.4-0.5 billion.


By 2050 India is predicted to have 1.6 billion people and China 1.4 billion people. Birth rates around the world are decreasing with every passing year and by 2050 the world's birth rate would reach the replacement level of 2 children per every women. After 2050 the world's population is expected to decline steadily.

But it also depends on the effectiveness of the anti-natalist and the pro-natalist policies adopted by nations around the world.


----------



## Dallas star (Jul 6, 2006)

Of course not but mnay close megacities will probably for togeter and become a megalopolis.
Even if the world was the form into a megacity you should give it much more time maybe as much as even 500 years.
That is my opinion


----------



## futureproof (Nov 2, 2006)

not really, but many cities in 2050 will overpass in population the western world cities. new york will be displaced by many cities in china, africa and asia.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ Klas*

*Planet Earth is Still, Generally, a Wilderness​*
Despite all the fuzz brought about by the increasing trend for sprawl not only in America but also in Europe, Japan, and the rest of Asia; our planet surface area is simply too big to fill or build and populate to a level that is generally accepted as dense areas of urban, suburban, exurban, industrial sprawl. 

By 2050, the latest population projection predicts that global population will reach 9.1 billion people, which means that 2.4 billion humans will live in the year 2050 than 2006. Yes, I recon 2.4 billion is a huge number but it is nowhere near the required number to fill up a global-scale, block-after-block urbanity (similar to Star War's Coruscant). 

Since the Earth's total surface area is 510,100,000 square kilometers, a global spanning mega-city (assuming that the world's oceans will be swallowed-up by such a mega-city--which is, I concur, entirely impossible) with an average density similar to present day Tokyo would require 6,801,333,333,333 inhabitants to assure urban-like density allthroughout the globe (that is *six trillion, one hundred and one billion, three hundred thirty-three million, three hundred thirty-three thousand, three hundred thirty-three people*). Given that the world's population by that time is most likely in the range of 8.5-9.1 billion people, the world is, never in a million years, gonna be transformed into one global urban landscape.

Besides, our current consumption trends is economically and environmentally unsustainable enough. Moreso, a global-scaled mega-city.


----------



## degnaw (Jul 4, 2006)

Xäntårx said:


> Saskatoon's urban sprawl might reach Muenster.


:lol: that would be the day

And I agree that several urban areas, around here, at least, are fusing together (i.e. Cincinnati with Middletown with Dayton with Springfield with Columbus, then maybe Newark), but some of those are quite a stretch. I wouldn't be surprised to see them fused by 2050 though. (but the world thing is impossible) Even if there was such a case, what would we eat?


----------



## TopperCity (Apr 30, 2006)

degnaw said:


> :lol: that would be the day
> 
> And I agree that several urban areas, around here, at least, are fusing together (i.e. Cincinnati with Middletown with Dayton with Springfield with Columbus, then maybe Newark), but some of those are quite a stretch. I wouldn't be surprised to see them fused by 2050 though. (but the world thing is impossible) Even if there was such a case, what would we eat?


Fuel hydrogen bars


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ TopperCity*

^^ That'd be the day we won't need our mouths anymore (well, at least for eating). Hehe 

The main goal/purpose why we eat is that we need the energy contained in the food we eat. But since we can have these Hydrogen Fuel Bars--I prefer inhalant-type intake process--of yours, we won't have to get energy by eating solid, energy-containing, organic material anymore but by inhaling these energy-containing inhalants instead.


----------



## Harkeb (Oct 12, 2004)

Impossible, even to give it a thought.


----------



## urban_addict (Nov 29, 2005)

Does anyone know the daily birth to death ratio? I feel that the global population will actually decline due to better technology, our modern sexual practices, and the decline of traditional family structures in many modern countries.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I read recently its 3 births to every 1 death.


----------



## Klas (May 16, 2005)

*@all*

no okay i dont mean the whole world include the oceans b:nuts: ,that was an mistake from me, but whats wit areas , like the Osaka -Tokyo corridor in Japan , the Sao Paulo -rio corridor in Brazil the rhine ruhr- rhine main corridor in germany or in the US the LA- San Diego /tijuana corridor , boswash , our Southern Florida (Orlando-tampa-Miami) can be that big cities come together to really big megacities ! I find an interesting fact! What comes in youre minds when youre think about this fact?!


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Xäntårx said:


> By then, probably our Prairies would be much denser, Saskatoon's urban sprawl might reach Muenster. It is much less probable would our prairies become empty , though.
> 
> Remember how did cities grow--- Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Calgary, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, etc. during the past 50 years. In the next 50 years, some cities would go into decline, while some would grow unexpectedly.


If Saskatoon reaches Muenster by 2050, A distance of 70 miles, I'll kiss your wrinkled old ass. That would imply Saskatoon being 5-10 million in population to cover that distance, just in this direction alone.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Calvin W said:


> If Saskatoon reaches Muenster by 2050, A distance of 70 miles, I'll kiss your wrinkled old ass. That would imply Saskatoon being 5-10 million in population to cover that distance, just in this direction alone.


Indeed. Very likely that would be an overestimated prediction.


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

Klas said:


> no okay i dont mean the whole world include the oceans b:nuts: ,that was an mistake from me, but whats wit areas , like the Osaka -Tokyo corridor in Japan , the Sao Paulo -rio corridor in Brazil the rhine ruhr- rhine main corridor in germany or in the US the LA- San Diego /tijuana corridor , boswash , our Southern Florida (Orlando-tampa-Miami) can be that big cities come together to really big megacities ! I find an interesting fact! What comes in youre minds when youre think about this fact?!


Do you know how big and empty is Siberia?


----------



## SYDNEYAHOLIC (Nov 3, 2006)

Sydney (4.3 million) and the city's and urban areas within a 150 km radius add up to a total population of 5 million+ at the moment. 

It is possible that these could fuse into a very large megacity though there would be large swathes of national park dividing them. Also, Sydney is surrounded on most sides by rugged terrain and ocean (like LA), so a continuous urban area is impossible. 

Also, South east Queensland could become a mega city and is also experiencing an extended population increase. 

As for all of Australia becoming urbanised to a Tokyo density........... (and Australia is a large land mass).............. you should wait maybe 3000+ years if all goes well - or longer. 


What about some islands in Indonesia becoming completely urbanised???

Large mountains would have to be flattened though.....

hmmmmm....


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*Impossible...*

Reasons why there can't be a continuous planet-wide urban landscape: 


There are oceans and other very large bodies of water that separate the world's landmasses. The Pacific Ocean, itself, has more surface area than the total surface area of all the landmasses combined.

There are inhospitable places such as: fault lines; rifts; extremely mountainous area--think Himalayas or the Andes; 'true' deserts--think Sahara Desert; and polar caps areas--places that are permafrost year-round.

Human's will never reach the required population to urbanize the total land area of *hospitable*/*suitable*/*habitable* areas in the world.

These *hospitable*/*suitable*/*habitable* areas are seperated from one another by either large bodies of water (i.e. oceans) or large swathes of inhospitable lands (i.e. deserts) thereby rendering a continous sprawl even in only these *hospitable*/*suitable*/*habitable* areas virtualy impossible.


----------



## friedemann (Jun 29, 2006)

> There are oceans and other very large bodies of water that separate the world's landmasses. The Pacific Ocean, itself, has more surface area than the total surface area of all the landmasses combined.


I suppose that cities on the ocean's surfaces will be possible in some decades.


----------



## Pak1k1D101 (May 7, 2006)

who knows anythings possible u know? lol u never know:lol:


----------



## MetroGuardian (Dec 20, 2004)

There is a term for that called "*Ecumenopolis*" invented in 1967 by the Greek city planner Constantinos Doxiadis.

Doxiadis also created a scenario based on the traditions and trends of urban development of his time, predicting at first a European *eperopolis* (continent city) which would be based on the area between *London–Paris–Amsterdam.*

_*Trantor* is depicted as the capital of the first *Galactic Empire*. Its land surface of 194,000,000 km² (75,000,000 miles², 130% of Earth land area) was, with the exception of the Imperial Palace, entirely enclosed in artificial domes. It consisted of an enormous metropolis (an ecumenopolis) that stretched deep underground and was home to a population of *45,000,000,000* (45 billion) human inhabitants at its height._

_*Coruscant* was the capital of the Old Republic, the Galactic Empire, the New Republic, the Yuuzhan Vong Empire and the Galactic Alliance at various times_








*Population *
1 trillion+ (according to literature). According to mathematical calculations, it may be as high as 2,861,006,000,000


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

In response to the original question, I sure hope not!


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ MetroGardian*

I find these Star War's statistics to be completely bozo. How in hell's chance can merely 45 billion people overpopulate a planet with 130% larger land surface area than our planet!

Now don't get me wrong, 45 billion people, is a lot of people but I'm hell sure that a landmass with 194 million square kilometers of land area can hold much, much more than just 45 billion...I mean, c'mon! 

Now if I'd consider that the data you posted are canonical (and not just some made-up data) to Star Wars statistics, then I'll have to consider the fact that all of the 194 million square kilometers are covered in domes. Further-on, I'd consider the fact that these domes have large underground chambers boring deep-down into the planet's surface. 

Given the numbers and other data above, I'll incorporate the help of mathematics. Ok...now let us take data/facts on urbanization trends here on Earth--and I'd like to concentrate on present-day Tokyo statistics. Central Tokyo has an average density of 5,736 people/square kilometer. Now these people aren't housed in large domes but rather only mid-rise apartments. Note that Domes can hold much more people than these mid-rise apartments so, definitely, there are way more people living per square kilometer in Trantor than even in Central Tokyo...but what the heck...this is just an illustrative comparison anyway. 

Now *Central Wards Tokyo* is relatively uniformly built-up so that a density of 5,736 people/square kilometers in a land area of 621 square kilometers gives you [5,736 x 621 = *3,562,056*]. Now if all of Trantor's land area of 194 million square kilometers were only as dense as Central Wards Tokyo then the solution is:

194,000,000 / 621 = *312,399.36*

Note that Central Wards Tokyo has *3,562,056*
*312,399.36* * *3,562,056* = *1,112,784,000,000*​
*1,112,784,000,000* <== That's *one trillion, one hundred and twelve billion, seven hundred eighty-four million people*...and since Trantor is probably twice or, even, four times as dense as Central Wards Tokyo then we'd be seeing the population numbers in the range of 2-4 trillion Trantorians ...and DEFINITELY NOT JUST 45 billion!


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

^^ Even only Russia with half of that density can fit 45 billion of persons


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ friedemann*



> I suppose that cities on the ocean's surfaces will be possible in some decades.


Of course it's possible...but is it economically practical and/or does it satisfy the comparative advantage-cost ratio. Yes, it is really possible to build underwaters cities by way of capsules...it's also possible to build cities in deserts by way of artificial irrigation via water-disalination plants...it's even possible to build cities in Artic and Antarctic areas by way of domes that artificially trap heat within it. 

But, *DO BUILDING CITIES IN SUCH PLACES SATISFY ECONOMIC PRACTICALITY OR COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE-COST RATIO*? No! *It requires too much energy* and therefore too much money to sustain the required heat to allow *average-human*-hospitable temperatures to be maintained in these theoretical polar domes or provide regular maintenance for an underwater city or provide safe-desalinated drinking water for irrigated desert communities. Even, floating cities--think Feedom Ship--will soon be completely possible. However, is it economically feasible in that humans still enjoy regular day-to-day activities with minor-restrictions/disturbances from natural elements at minimal cost or, even, at not-so-expensive a price. 

Cheers and happy dreaming  :cheers:


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ Aokromes*



> ^^ Even only Russia with half of that density can fit 45 billion of persons


AGREED.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

The stress that so many people put on the envionment and all of the natural systems (weather, wildlife, etc.) is unthinikable. We would need support of other planets for a wholly urbanized planet.


----------



## Saigoneseguy (Mar 6, 2005)

Yes, when we use up all of our solar system's energy, reaching Kardashev 1 and colonise other systems. 

In 2050? Maybe yes, "the world" in someone's mind will be nothing but endless cities.


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

Lol, another dyson sphere lover.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ Aokromes*

Mega-structures the size of Star-engulfing Dyson Spheres are theoretically feasible though impossible engineering-wise. 

But galactic-sized structures, on the other hand, are pure fantasy even for *very distant-future* standards.

So, all hard-science fiction fans (including me...hehe) who love galaxy-sized structures will only have to contend themselves on fantasizing about these galactic-sized structures for millions and millions of years to come because such a structure is entirely impossible given that a galaxy the size of the Milky Way is so vast that it would take 100,000 years for a starship, which can theoretically travel at the speed of light, to cross.

Remember that a theoretical starship travelling at FTL (Faster-than-Light) speeds will remain a whimsical dream until hell freezes over. It is entirely impossible given that once this theorectical starship can break the light barrier the space-time continuoum, weird in itself, will become weirder in that time stops [for the person/(s) inside this theoretical starship] and would begin to go backwards (they'll go back in time). 

^^ Btw, that is with reference to the *Theory of Relativity*.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ gladisimo*



> The stress that so many people put on the envionment and all of the natural systems (weather, wildlife, etc.) is unthinikable. We would need support of other planets for a wholly urbanized planet.


Very True. :yes:


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*Interstellar Travel*

So, moving on to saigon_monsooner's comments regarding the colonization of other planet in other star system; I'd predict that it can, perhaps, happen in the very distant future but not anytime in the next millenium or so.

With present scientific knowledge, here are the reasons why we can't travel to the stars: 

*1.* There is no engine powerful enough to propel a starship to even the nearest star system (Proxima Centauri) within the crew's lifetime except when a theoretical stasis technology (to prolong crew life) can also be developed. 

*2.* Even if there is an engine that would be powerful enough, there isn't any fuel effective and efficient enough to carry out such a *task* [propelling the starship to Proxima Centauri's Star. System].

*3.* Even if there is an engine powerful enough and fuel efficient and effective enough to propel the starship to Proxima Centauri, one has still to find a coolant that can cool-down the very high temperatures of the engine (in the attainment of high-speeds to reach the star system in reasonable time-intervals--perhaps light-speed) before the engine would blow itself up and, subsequently, the starship. 

*4.* Since engine-propelled travel (as seen from the afformentioned shortcomings) won't be the way to travel to the stars. Therefore, a new method of travel must be practiced. This new method is called "wormhole travel" wherein a theoretical starship passes through a wormhole (other name for blackhole) so that one could reach Proxima centauri in a mere day. However, there are many unknowns in the characteristics and composition of a wormhole. But many scientists are quite positive and contend to the fact that wormholes are unstable (because they disintegrate any energized/uniformly-arraged matter--a starship, for example--in the atomic-level via entropy) and have very high densities. Because of the extreme pressure present in wormholes, a starship will be crushed before it can reach the other end. But, let us say that there would be a starship that could cross a wormhole from end-to-end without being crushed the shear force of pressure exerted upon it by the wormhole...it still has to contend to the fact that it doen't know where it is headed. If a starship reaches the other side of a wormhole, it is possible that it has reach a very distant part of the galaxy...a part of the galaxy where the crew is unfamiliar with. With that scenario, the crew of the starship will be lost forever...unless they can find another wormhole that'll lead them back to Solar-System premises...but AGAIN...getting into a wormhole isn't an assurance you'll get to where you want to go because you fon't control the wormhole and tell it where to point at. This is because large wormholes (large enough to fit starships capable of holding and sustaining even just one crew) are naturally occuring. 

*5.* Even if we can create an artificial wormhole, it won't be big enough to fit even a millionth of a hairstrand moreso a starship simply because large wormholes needs extremely powerful energy to be collapsed (i.e. collapse of a red giant star after a super nova) so as to create them. Even a starship that could produce energy the amount that an average nuclear plant can produce in a year can theoretically only produce a wormhole capable of fitting the nucleus of an atom.​
So you see...travelling to the stars in itself a mind-bogglisgly difficult process even in theoretic terms moreso doing it in reality and even moreso if we colonize another planet in another star-system.


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

Xäntårx said:


> By then, probably our Prairies would be much denser, Saskatoon's urban sprawl might reach Muenster.


Unless Canada's government plans to move the entire population of Canada to Saskatoon it's highly unlikely.


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

Who knows, if there will be a succesful new virus, and not as loser-like as SARS or Ebola, but more with the succes rate of the old black plague, we might even have any megacities left.

Maybe not the most popular scenario, but not completely unthinkable.


----------



## MetroGuardian (Dec 20, 2004)

@ The Cebuano Exultor.

This is pure sci-fi man, you don't have to put down Maths and Physics to prove me that Jedi don't exist. However, the "official" explanation is that the density of the "planet-city" is much less than the normal earth cities, something like 600people/sq.m.


As far as it concerns the Faster than light argument, it might be possible to travel, from place to place, without passing through the intermediate points. Furthermore, because something is weird it doesn't mean that we are not able to make a profit/advantage from it.Still, this is pure speculation for the moment.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ MetroGardian*



> As far as it concerns the Faster than light argument, it might be possible to travel, from place to place, without passing through the intermediate points.


That is precisely when "wormholes" come in...but since they are unstable and exert extreme forces of pressure on anything that is considered as *energized/arranged matter in the atomic-level* (i.e. starship) is able to withstand and avoid being consumed by entropy...it is also an impossible mode of travel.


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

MetroGardian said:


> @ The Cebuano Exultor.
> 
> This is pure sci-fi man, you don't have to put down Maths and Physics to prove me that Jedi don't exist. However, the "official" explanation is that the density of the "planet-city" is much less than the normal earth cities, something like 600people/sq.m.
> 
> ...


fill a planet with 600 people/sq.m is a crazy thing.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ MetroGardian*



> fill a planet with 600 people/sq.m is a crazy thing.


^^Exactly! :yes:


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

BTW, if you make a city from the planet, from where do you get the food for the huge amount of people?


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ Aokromes*

^^ George Lucas said that planets such as Coruscant and Trantor get their food from other planets. Naturally, since Coruscant is the galactic capital, it has political hegemony over millions of other planets in the entire Galactic Empire [set in the era of the Galatic Empire ] to provide for the resource needs of Coruscant. That is the reason why there are billions of ships flying in Coruscant's atmosphere each and every moment. That is also why the Trade Federation was so powerful during the Old Republic.


----------



## Kelsen (Jul 29, 2006)

No! It's impossible!


----------



## FallenGuard (Nov 2, 2006)

Aokromes said:


> BTW, if you make a city from the planet, from where do you get the food for the huge amount of people?


Star-Trek Replicators would probably solve this Problem (as well as a lot of other Problems).

Someone finally construct one and give it to me!


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

Why Replicators and no Borg alcove?


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

FallenGuard said:


> Star-Trek Replicators would probably solve this Problem (as well as a lot of other Problems).
> 
> Someone finally construct one and give it to me!


To be really nerdy, replicators are supposed to "work" by reconstructing atoms stored in a bay somewhere on a ship, we'd need a huge huge garbage dump!


----------

