Agree with your skepticism. I recommend avoiding arguments based on the number of people that can fit within a given area, even Texas. You can fit zillions in the Sahara Desert, but most of them will die of thirst. Carrying capacity is a more useful approach, recognizing that it's as much a function of human ingenuity as the bounties of nature. (Returning to the Sahara: desalinization powered by thorium fusion, or drilling deep enough to tap into juvenile water might be two ways to overcome the arid climate.) Agree that environmentalism has turned into a pretext (Elizabeth Nickson's definitely on the same wavelength), just go beyond the area-per-person arguments.
Excellent insight Greg, thank you for the perspective... I appreciate how you expressed carrying capacity as a function of human ingenuity, rooted in the bounties of nature.
I wonder if all the "New Champions" are helping carve up people to get organs for transplant.
The Globalists could change the dynamics overnight on this planet by simply not stripping the assets and natural resources from countries. They might try offering help with a limited share of the bootie involved...allowing the countries involved to use the money as they see fit...not simply tying that money to buying war weapons from the U.S. or infrastructure via Bechtel. Maybe some of these countries could actually drill wells for fresh water for their citizens. Build schools and hospitals. Eschew themselves from global conflicts. Provide security for their countries.
The major cause of pollution and scarcity comes from multinational corporations who move in huge mining and earth-stripping equipment to garner the gems, minerals, and resources with nary a cent to the citizens and improperly distribute the assets and money gained from production. Their idea of "distribution of wealth" would have to cease. They should be the last paid with the smallest share rather than first paid with most lucrative portion.
Look at Conoco-Phillips in Syria. They don't even have to share their profits from Syria's oil/gas fields because they've declared Assad a "brutal dictator" and illegally occupy Syria.
Hmmm. Would that be a "dictator" like the unseen clique which rules American and positions the U.S. as the biggest bully and instigator of violence, murder, and mayhem throughout the world?
The citizens aren't running around wildly polluting...that's for sure. Or if they are, they do because their poverty invites no other alternative. Let those assets and resources support those citizens...and if they don't want plundering of their assets or minimal extraction, that's their right. They can sit on their assets and resources for as long as they wish.
Agree with your skepticism. I recommend avoiding arguments based on the number of people that can fit within a given area, even Texas. You can fit zillions in the Sahara Desert, but most of them will die of thirst. Carrying capacity is a more useful approach, recognizing that it's as much a function of human ingenuity as the bounties of nature. (Returning to the Sahara: desalinization powered by thorium fusion, or drilling deep enough to tap into juvenile water might be two ways to overcome the arid climate.) Agree that environmentalism has turned into a pretext (Elizabeth Nickson's definitely on the same wavelength), just go beyond the area-per-person arguments.
Excellent insight Greg, thank you for the perspective... I appreciate how you expressed carrying capacity as a function of human ingenuity, rooted in the bounties of nature.
I wonder if all the "New Champions" are helping carve up people to get organs for transplant.
The Globalists could change the dynamics overnight on this planet by simply not stripping the assets and natural resources from countries. They might try offering help with a limited share of the bootie involved...allowing the countries involved to use the money as they see fit...not simply tying that money to buying war weapons from the U.S. or infrastructure via Bechtel. Maybe some of these countries could actually drill wells for fresh water for their citizens. Build schools and hospitals. Eschew themselves from global conflicts. Provide security for their countries.
The major cause of pollution and scarcity comes from multinational corporations who move in huge mining and earth-stripping equipment to garner the gems, minerals, and resources with nary a cent to the citizens and improperly distribute the assets and money gained from production. Their idea of "distribution of wealth" would have to cease. They should be the last paid with the smallest share rather than first paid with most lucrative portion.
Look at Conoco-Phillips in Syria. They don't even have to share their profits from Syria's oil/gas fields because they've declared Assad a "brutal dictator" and illegally occupy Syria.
Hmmm. Would that be a "dictator" like the unseen clique which rules American and positions the U.S. as the biggest bully and instigator of violence, murder, and mayhem throughout the world?
The citizens aren't running around wildly polluting...that's for sure. Or if they are, they do because their poverty invites no other alternative. Let those assets and resources support those citizens...and if they don't want plundering of their assets or minimal extraction, that's their right. They can sit on their assets and resources for as long as they wish.
Very astute observations, thank you.