Well, I don’t consider myself to be an envirowhacko.
But whether you are a socialist fanatic like Gore, or an arch conservative, we need to admit one thing.
Earth can only support some number (we don’t know that number yet) of people.
Even if we could grow an unlimited supply of food, soon we would be up to our eyeballs in chit, and that’s not a very exciting proposition.
We’ve been lucky (and intelligent) so far. And I hate social engineering as much as the next guy. But we are getting to the point that we HAVE to answer some serious questions about the future.
And they are hard questions.
Exhale, please.
The population of the planet is unlikely to ever break 10 billion. The planet could support that easily.
And what, in your opinion, would those questions be?
If that is the case who do we kill off to manage that number? Your answer will tell much about you.
djf (post 15),
Global warming is the question to the liberal answer of higher fuel costs, expensive alternative energy schemes, etc.
It’s such a good question that they cannot let it go. Their answer(s) have been prepared for at least a generation, and Al Gore supplied the Global Warming BS. It’s too perfect to allow rational thought to intervene. Flashback 20,000 years ago when half-mile high glaciers were receding (melting) from New York in the east, to Washington in the west. Was that anthropogenic global warming? Man discovered fire, and maybe that’s what brought about the end of the Ice Age. Earth has continued to warm ever since. This whole Global Warming bruhaha is a disgusting stain on the state of science in the beginning of the 21st century. Future generations will judge us harshly on our sciencio-politico-religio-liberalio-fascio-BS.
Everyone in the entire world could fit in the State of Texas, so I wouldn’t worry just yet. :)
Just colonize the moon and Mars, for pete’s sake! We’ve had the friggin’ technology since the 1980’s (perhaps earlier).