5
$\begingroup$

So I got a human hivemind living in East Asia with a population at exactly 22,222,222,222,222 people. Because of her arbitrarily specific powerset, she is comprised entirely of adult women without the need for sustenance, having the needed food and nutrients magically sent inside her bodies.

To solve the population density issue, every inch of livable space within East Asia including underground are occupied and maximized by her. Current tech and civilization level for her is modern day. Even with the extreme population density, which is 4,862,631 people per square mile if I got it right, she is able to maintain her nation and all the associated modern infrastructure without any major trouble, even being a thriving superpower.

Is this doable and realistic?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're not quite hitting the wall on phosphorus but you're close enough that you've probably used the crustal rock supply and are starting to strip the biosphere there. Unless you're stripping the lower mantle somehow and then you're up against radioisotope issues. $\endgroup$
    – Ash
    Commented Aug 4 at 6:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Other than "not eating", what are all these hivemind bodies actually doing? Mining, manufacturing, guiding tourists...? Does the hivemind actually need to have bodies learn/practise skills or can any body do anything, regardless of whether it has ever used a skill or even the relevant muscle groups before? Lots of activities need large areas to be conducted (manufacturing, military training, power generation), but if the answer to all of these is "no, because magic" then it's impossible to analyse. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 4 at 6:43
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ VTC:Needs More Focus. Doable and realistic are two very different questions. BTW, might be doable but heck no, it's not realistic. Further VTC:Needs More Details. If all the bodies must do is lie in tubes and sleep away their participation in the hive mind then this is very doable - but I assume all those people are needed for something more than that. Or are they? What are the specific things the population are engaged in and at what percentage of the whole? Finally, the food is magically delivered, is the waste magically taken away? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Aug 4 at 18:35
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ BTW, @Dmyt, keep in mind that you're technically not asking a valid question. You're not asking us to help you solve a problem. You've already solved the problem - you're asking us to comment on its validity to some standard. (a) SE is not a discussion forum (see the tour). (b) The help center prohibits questions where "there is no actual problem to be solved." Questions asking if something is plausible, possible, realistic, feasible, etc. aren't asking for help solving a problem and are off-topic. How, after all, will you judge a best answer? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Aug 4 at 18:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is obviously on topic. You only have to look at the answer to see it's a perfectly answerable question. $\endgroup$
    – N. Virgo
    Commented Aug 5 at 7:31

1 Answer 1

9
$\begingroup$

Assuming your numbers are on and looking only at living space that's less than 2m2 of ground footprint per person, which is impossible, until we start building:

Now let's look at a per person spacial minimum. Kowloon Walled City is widely regarded as the most densely populated site in human history, in 1990 it housed 35,000 on a footprint of just 6.4 acres or 1.3 people per square metre spread across 14 stories or 10.08m2 per person, I think we can do better because those people had to eat and had all their own stuff.

Many modern tiny homes are in the region of 25m2 total living space, but that includes food storage and preparation space we can remove that gets us down to at most 20m2. We get further discounts for communal bathing and storage facilities, and for using everything in three shifts so we can probably get things down to ~5-7m2 per individual without compromising the physical health of the hiveminds many bodies (assuming no external pathogen intrusion). This means huge walk through communal bathes with clothes dropped into a chute at one end and laundered to be put back on at the other, vast fractal bedding spaces, minimal distance pathing for all individuals from bed to work space, if any, to bathes and back to bed each day and everyone moving through perfectly. By the time we take into account access spaces and structural necessities etc... you're probably looking at covering East Asia with four or possibly five stories of living space.

Theoretically that could be in any combination of above and below ground floors, however given the annual rainfall I would look to build the living and working spaces entirely above ground for reasons of sanitation and also to keep spacial loses to maintenance infrastructure (pumps etc...) to a minimum.

Given you're cramming that many genetically identical individuals in that tight if anyone gets a lethal airborne infection the hivemind is doomed before they realise they're in trouble.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If there is an averagely 100 storey building system in the whole continent, we have already 200m^2/human. We also need an unthinkable amount of technology, including fusion power. $\endgroup$
    – Gray Sheep
    Commented Aug 4 at 7:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GraySheep What? Who said anything about that much construction? $\endgroup$
    – Ash
    Commented Aug 4 at 7:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Quite a bit of East Asia is mountainous, which limits the amount of ground on which multi-story living quarters could be built. Maybe if you put terraces on every slope, but then we start having to ask how much time and resources were available to do all this. $\endgroup$
    – N. Virgo
    Commented Aug 5 at 1:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @N.Virgo 22 Trillion people would be about 176 trillion hours of work a day, that's one of those "quantity has a quality all of it's own" numbers i.e. even working with their bare hands they can move ridiculous amounts of material. $\endgroup$
    – Ash
    Commented Aug 5 at 6:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .