Fun fact, he one you're eating isn't going to be producing the next generation in the first place...The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?
Fun fact, he one you're eating isn't going to be producing the next generation in the first place...The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?
Graft. but not corruption.The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?
Fun fact, he one you're eating isn't going to be producing the next generation in the first place...[/QUOTE]The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?
Neither. It's that people don't want any authority telling them they can or can't have kids.What exactly is the argument for a population growth based model? Is it that we're not going to be around when it gets bad, so who cares, or is it that we're just betting everything that a magical easy no sacrifice solution will show up before we run out of room and resources?
You only say that because there's nothing worth nuking in Texas.A global ideological (possibly) thermonuclear war would probably also solve a lot of our population problems...
You only say that because there's nothing worth nuking in Texas.[/QUOTE]A global ideological (possibly) thermonuclear war would probably also solve a lot of our population problems...
By the by: Those numbers up there? From the UN Population Database (http://esa.un.org/unpp/)According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).
So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.
Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.
Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.
You only say that because there's nothing worth nuking in Texas.[/quote]A global ideological (possibly) thermonuclear war would probably also solve a lot of our population problems...
By the by: Those numbers up there? From the UN Population Database (http://esa.un.org/unpp/)[/quote]According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).
So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.
Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.
Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.
Ya know, i was just being silly, not trying to have a serious debate (with nuking everything but Texas). You could have played along.Of course it's only making a point about space Krisken. I'm not providing an answer to the problem of food for the world, just showing how we often tend to think of the planet practically EXPLODING with people when it's really not.
Ya know, i was just being silly, not trying to have a serious debate (with nuking everything but Texas). You could have played along.[/QUOTE]Of course it's only making a point about space Krisken. I'm not providing an answer to the problem of food for the world, just showing how we often tend to think of the planet practically EXPLODING with people when it's really not.
Ya know, i was just being silly, not trying to have a serious debate (with nuking everything but Texas). You could have played along.[/QUOTE]Of course it's only making a point about space Krisken. I'm not providing an answer to the problem of food for the world, just showing how we often tend to think of the planet practically EXPLODING with people when it's really not.
The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?
Fun fact, he one you're eating isn't going to be producing the next generation in the first place...[/quote]The only \"frankenfood\" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?
Fun fact, he one you're eating isn't going to be producing the next generation in the first place...[/quote]The only \"frankenfood\" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?
Well, to be fair, if you added roads, parking, stores, government and commercial structures, factories, dumps, and, of course, enough farms for the 10 billion chickens and however many other animals we have alive at one time and the crops to feed them and crops to feed us...just showing how we often tend to think of the planet practically EXPLODING with people when it's really not.
Neither. It's that people don't want any authority telling them they can or can't have kids.What exactly is the argument for a population growth based model? Is it that we're not going to be around when it gets bad, so who cares, or is it that we're just betting everything that a magical easy no sacrifice solution will show up before we run out of room and resources?
Problem is this isn't the case in many regions of the world which is why Africa still has a horrible AIDS problem as well as population.This fits in very well with empowering women in societies where women are marginalized.