BaldoSquemo
New member
Because you're conveniently reducing your argument to being solely about physical space, and in the real world (the world you and I and all the 7 billion people striving for better lives inhabit), it's not. It's about resources, their limits and their unequal distribution around the world.
It's about the impact of human activity on the very air we all have to breathe (Think Beijing, and how their toxic smog is now affecting parts of Japan), the water we all need, the food that even one year of widespread drought will put in short supply, etc etc etc.
Do you know how much 'space' is required to grow all the food you consume in a year, mine all the metals you use, pump and refine all the petroleum you require? Here's a short article if you want to look at it:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-billion-people-use-up-the-planets-resources/
It's not about how many people can fit evenly spaced in Texas. It's about the carrying capacity of the earth. And about human nature, since we're talking about the real world.
This is what I'm getting at. Multibillion dollar corporations and banks and royalty all collude to artificially create famine. They raise the prices of water like in 1903 causing riots. Then they write books saying how the "experiment was a success"
Unequal, you said so yourself. I said that with better management we could all have a higher quality of life. Instead of incentivising corn and outlawing backyard gerdening, we could be feeding ourselves and eachother better.
And it's a space the size of texas, or maybe a collection of spaces that ammount to the size of texas. and you're absolutely right, it's not about how many people can be crammed into texas. It's about what we decide to do with our time and our resources.
Where again are we disagreeing?