Posted: Jun 12, 2019 10:30 am
Thommo wrote:
Quite possibly I did, although that doesn't actually sound like a prediction of population in 2200 to me anyway. I'm sure there's lots to discuss in such a claim, but it doesn't sound inherently unreasonable to me. Certainly if you had a world population stratified in the same way the current world population is, but stable at around the 2B mark a lot of sustainability issues like land use, deforestation, water use, mineral depletion or fish stock depletion would take on radically different dimensions, and other resources would be deteriorating at a proportionately lower rate which would allow for a much more gradual course correction.
Oops Thommo, you went and took all the wind out of the sails setting course for fanciful new horizons!
Thommo wrote:There'd need to be more in depth discussion to form a sensible view one way or the other, I'm sure.
Very much agreed. There are certain people you can expect to engage in this kind of discussion with here. And then there are those who don't seem able to engage in such discussion.
That might well be enough of an explanation as to why tuco's still trotting out soundbites.