Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   banjoaah said, 1 day ago

   “Alternative Minimum Security”

   “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man”
   -Thomas Malthus

   I’m sure you have read of the Fertile Crescent at the dividing of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the biblical land of milk and honey. At one time those descriptions were true. But what do you think of when you consider the Levant now? Not a fertile Garden of Eden. You think of rocks and sand. The overuse of what was once lush and fertile land has been reduced to desert over the millennia by the hand of man.
   -—————————————————————————————

   The rise of agrarian societies combined with our overflowing population has degraded the earth to the point of environmental disaster. Through bad cultivation practices we continue to destroy the fertile topsoil, which is but the first six inches of arable land. Furthermore, the use of land that is only marginally suited for agriculture has intensified in both the developing and developed world. The loss of topsoil due to excessive cultivation is resulting in growing desertification.
   -—————————————————————————————-

   As population continues to increase the amount of land needed to provide food will also increase. Unfortunately, the amount of land left to provide that food will continuously decrease. “The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat) is one half an acre per person. This minimum amount does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies”.
   -——————————————————————————————

   Very few populous countries have more than an average of .60 of an acre per person. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere .17 of an acre. This assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation, no water shortage, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate etc.
2. 

   Zyreenesque said, 1 day ago

   ok that’s a narrowly selected demographic & about as likely as industrialized farmers that care about land more than money. the individual won’t be farming their .17 acre, they’ll be importing dried mealworms from Australia, and drinking recycled purified water like space guys.
3. 

   timrinaldo said, about 20 hours ago

   BS. Technolgy increases productivity by orders of magnitude. The earth can easily an expanding poulation.
4. 

   Ms. Ima said, about 20 hours ago

   @banjoaah

   The entire population of the world could live on the landmass of Texas. The only overpopulation is liberals.
5. 

   Feralglance said, about 20 hours ago

   When was the last time this artist put up a storyline?
6. 

   starfighter441 said, about 19 hours ago

   @Feralglance

   I think it was the 12th of Never, but it may have been before that.
7. 

   rick scott said, about 19 hours ago

   @Feralglance

   Actually, little Steffi is in grad school, and she is using the drawings and comments for her dissertation. As to the plant offered today, the Bangladeshi lemon is used as a stimulant by the workers in the garment factories. Perhaps they could import coca plants, and thereby increase production another 18%.
8. 

   Night-Gaunt49 said, about 15 hours ago

   @banjoaah

   The great cedar forests in the area too are gone. Logged to build ships that plied the 7 seas in ancient times.
9. 

   Night-Gaunt49 said, about 15 hours ago

   @timrinaldo

   A typical reaction. Why is population control and reduction so terrible to you? It means more for the rest of us. Now the more people the less for the rest of us. Except for the rich countries like the USA that has 6% of the population yet uses 25% of resources, produce 25% of the waste. Expand where, into the ever growing deserts caused by climate change we have caused?
10. 

    Night-Gaunt49 said, about 15 hours ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Yes and you leave out all the logistics for living on that land. Food, water, sewer, living space all ignored. For the entire 7 billion to live the way we live would deplete all resources in a very short time.
11. 

    Lenin Out of the Box said, about 15 hours ago

    Scarcity is control. It imposes order, where abundance is license to excess. Scarcity does not judge, but it may condemn. Ultimately, any sense of abundance is an illusion of hope. But the promise of limitless prosperity and freedom is an excellent motivator for the masses. Endless they will march to the distant horizon, no matter the cost or obstacles before them! They will march – and follow. Work will set you free.
12. 

    Lenin Out of the Box said, about 14 hours ago

    … as will solar panels and bottomless chai lattes. Just $5.99 each!
13. 

    Ms. Ima said, about 10 hours ago

    @Feralglance

    Never.
14. 

    Ms. Ima said, about 10 hours ago

    @Night-Gaunt49

    ‘population control’ is demanded by people that can’t share.
15. 

    Ms. Ima said, about 10 hours ago

    @Night-Gaunt49

    The earth is here to support life. The earth itself is a water covered rock circling the sun. Mother nature would rather have lower life forms eating us. We couldn’t possibly raise or lower the temperature of the earth by scurrying around.
16. Load the rest of the comments (7).