First of all, supply your sources. You don't have the grey matter to come up with the above.<quoted text>
http:/geography.about.com/od/p opulationgeography/a/popdensit y.htm
90% of the population occupies 3% of the land. Land covers 29% of the globe.
.03 x .29 =.0087 =.87% Let's call it 1%. Therefore, if Mr. Rosenberg is
correct with his data, I believe it's very safe to say that less than 2% of the Earth's
surface is inhabited by humans.
And, as per all things cut and pasted and plagiarized (remember, you said plagiarizing was good), you are not capable of synthesizing the numbers and come up with an intelligent conclusion. 2% hmmm? If you exclude Antartica, the Arctic, most of the Scandinivian , Russian and Canadian norths, which are pretty much not habitable, all the mountain ranges (ever tried living in the Himalayas, like Everest, the Andes?), huge deserts and so forth, you will not come up with 2% of surface that allows life to thrive. We are overpopulated on the land that is habitable! Ask the Indians, the Chinese, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Germans, the Koreans, the Japanese, etc. You have no intelligent argument, just statistics supplied by the oil and mining industry lackeys.
7 years post HS? Ha ha.