Hacker News Reader

You mean if every meter of the planet was covered with skyscrapers? Not sure how that's remotely realistic.

And it sounds incredibly dystopian.

No, the opposite. I mean you could use skyscrapers to make people's living space take up a much smaller proportion of the land area, leaving the rest free for farming.

Land usable for agriculture is a significantly smaller percentage than that.

Where exactly would the resources for enough skyscrapers to house a trillion humans come from? The world is facing a sand shortage already with not even 1% of that imagined population.

Sure whatever. I'm just saying land area isn't the problem.

Except it is. At least half the world's land is unusable for agriculture, and often for habitation. And transport had to be btaen into account for area. And that leaves no space for any wilderness, forests etc. Which is impossible ecologically. Your theoretical arguments here have no practical value.