Scott Stantis by Scott Stantis

Scott Stantis

Comments (7) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. omQ R

    omQ R said, about 8 hours ago

    To be fair, Canada has a stake in them lakes, too, not just the US states of Wisconsin & Michigan.

  2. piobaire

    piobaire said, about 5 hours ago

    Simple science: Species exist where they can obtain resources like water. If people want water, they should live and set up lifestyles which can be supported by the available supply.

    It doesn’t make sense to mess up one area’s ecology to support another’s.

  3. twclix

    twclix GoComics PRO Member said, about 4 hours ago

    Simple science. The human species is highly adaptable to many conditions. Rapid adaptation is the province of bacteria and humans, as well as certain other “life” forms such as viruses. We adapt using our brains. They adapt through evolutionary response to mortal stimuli. A priori, there is no terrestrial environment where we cannot live as a species. Maybe Antarctica. So this notion that we should only be living where the resources exist would have you believing that we never migrated out of Africa. And that is a view that’s not on,y obviously wrong, but is also not even remotely like simple science.

  4. cjr53

    cjr53 said, about 3 hours ago

    If the majority of the nation’s food supply is produced in California and there isn’t enough water to do it, doesn’t anyone think we all have a stake in it? (I’m not in California.)

  5. fatchance

    fatchance said, about 2 hours ago

    Yes, humans can live almost anywhere. There are some places (like deserts) that will support only limited numbers of us. I think that we are reaching the limit in some areas.

  6. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, about 2 hours ago


    It’s all a question of money and technology. California is located on the Pacific. If they WANT to they can get any amount of water they like. Expensive, yes. Controversial, yes. But possible, surely. It’s just the status quo, the same-old, same-old holding them up. They will turn into a dust-bowl before the-powers-that-be finally give the green light to save the state. Maybe these powers would like to eliminate a very liberal state, who knows…

  7. WiseOrator

    WiseOrator said, about 1 hour ago

    @omQ R

    There are a total of seven states that border the Great Lakes, not just two. Even with just the closest and largest Great Lake, Lake Superior there are three. And yes, in addition there is the nation of Canada and the sole Province of Ontario.
    Independent of that correction there is the Great Lakes Compact prohibiting diversion of the Great Lakes to any region not within the watershed and the economic, geographic, techological and topographical issues. Not the least of which is the Rocky Mountains.

  8. Refresh Comments.