[Lava]

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Lava, I believe I addressed that with my 8 point list.

Who will provide the funding to turn desert into arable land? Will come out of thin air or the kindness of our hearts? [/b][/quote]
Firstly the finding needed is not great. The centrepiece of the technique is simply dumping large quantities of unsorted household rubbish onto the sand. Then sand and seeds are added on top.

Secondly those who want to use it for farmland or development land - which will both become increasingly valuable - will pay. Thirdly government grants are likely to be forthcoming given the need for more farmland.

So humans can indeed live successfully at that density. How someone feels about it when they go from low density to high doesnt have any impact on that. It has impact on the human society and the wildlife surrounding it. The megacities aren't exactly the most environmentally friendly, are they?

This does not have enough impact to curtail population levels. Survival comes first, by a long way.

A good question, and one to which there is no good answer. But it does not change the fact that this planet can support a much greater population than at present. Theoretically, yes, but realistically, no. That is the point, no good saying there is enough food for a larger population when there are still large numbers of people dying of thirst and starvation.

I think I addressed that.

It is impossible. Whether it is desirable is another question (think communism vs capitalism), which leads one to ask what is desirable. If you want to equalise living standards, which I think would be a very good thing to some extent, it is better to face these facts first, then go in with realistic achievable goals. So you're saying we should give up from the beginning and just have the resources distributed as they are now?

I did not say that. What I said is: "If you want to equalise living standards, which I think would be a very good thing to some extent, it is better to face these facts first, then go in with realistic achievable goals."

I dont feel you really answered these qs. That's because I don't have definitive figures.

I was asking for concepts: too much for what criterion, what breakpoint? But I'm not optimistic about getting an answer now.


Regards, NT