Seems reasonable. I don't favor legislating anything either, but sometimes I wonder about incentives. Like 3 and fewer kids can still count as dependents and tax deductions, but not above that. I don't know what the number would be. America's smallish population is not really a world population issue in the end, EXCEPT for the resources an American consumes, on average, versus other people in the world.
I'm not surprised given all of the problems that the PRC's aging population is starting experience. The one child policy is something that seems like a good idea in theory but is fraught with a lot of problems implementing. At the moment our economics and social safety net just isn't set up yet for a declining population. I think until we can get practical robots to help care for our elderly and continue to keep the economy going to support elderly as they are unable to be productive, large decreases in replacement population will be a problem for any country.
Defensive? You consider me a defensive-minded poster? lols. oh, and btw: saying AC caused a population boom in Houston, must also simply say it caused a boom everywhere in the South. Your point here is not really an argument about cultivating deserts. Nice try, though. The true history of Houston was Galveston was a booming city because it was a significantly perfect port town, and Houston mainly grew because of being a Port town, not a humid city that only needed AC to thrive. Such a stupid idea of yours. Have some respect for yourself, and don't be so stupid in your posts. You really should just stop arguing with me on this subject, and bow out.
You never disproved the fact that there is tons of land to put additional people on. That was my point. You haven't even come close to disproving it.
Ummm, well, I don't think you've actually proved anything, yet. But cheers for patting yourself on the back, claiming you have. I wasn't trying to disprove anything about whether our rate of population is sustainable. I was just making a joke about your point we only use 3% of Earth's current land. The joke was about uninhabitable land, whether economically or physically. But you had to get all defensive about it, and with stupid arguments. But if you insist on continuing, let's start by you explaining what exactly you have proven so far in this thread. Umkay. And if you need an concrete topic,,,let's start by you clearly explaining how much land humans can effectively and affordably inhabit ... and I suggest you back off the 3%/97% ratio. Maybe tone it waaaay done. What do you think? And since you are focusing on the Saharan desert...why don't are also start with that.
Texxx and HeyPee are both wrong, in my humble opinion. Anyone ever hear of the Baby Boom? Houston was hit over the head with it during the '50's and '60's. Sure, AC made Houston more bearable, and oil provided fuel (no joke intended), but the real driver of Houston's population "explosion" was the post-WWII Baby Boom. Veteran families were looking for inexpensive places where there were jobs. AC helped make Houston livable for those not used to the heat (like Native Houstonians are used to it, including this one), with folks from areas like the Northeast and the upper Midwest ordinarily stunned by temps in the 90's finding relief in air conditioned homes and shopping malls (I grew up close to Gulfgate and still have dim memories of it being constructed - the Gulfgate Mall made history as the first big air-conditioned shopping mall), with oil helping to provide jobs for the working/middle classes that didn't have a college education. Those jobs were, and are, high paying jobs for people who didn't finish college, or were too busy with life to go. Of course, huge numbers of WWII vets did go to college (and bought homes) in Houston on the GI Bill. Houston and a lot of other places in this country. The GI Bill was one of the most successful government programs in the nation's history. If people are looking for a driver of the American economy after WWII, including Houston's, you need look no further than the GI Bill, proof that government programs aren't inherently "evil," like some ignorant folks might have you believe. China? How nice of their oligarchy to "let" China's people have two children. Golly, aren't they groovy.
How am I wrong? I actually didn't say anything about the AC "boom". I said the AC "boom" happened everywhere in the South from Florida to California, so I don't get the point about Houston. The point about Houston is the origin of Houston was due to Galveston being a successful port city. It was destined to be developed, unlike the Saharan desert.
My post was directed more at Houston's growth than the growth of "the world." I thought it was pretty obvious.
And here's another joke. You aren't going to win the Game of Civilization unless you build your cities next to resources.
I think that depends on the difficulty. I've played normal many times and won 96.7% of the times regardless of where I was placed on the map. I will focus on expansion first (3-4 cities), domestic upgrades, then science. I literally have no military and will get invaded a lot, but will use my cash to purchase military units and usually successful at defending off the attack. After getting ahead of all the other countries in science, I'll work on military and start slowly taking over each country one by one. I never ally with the cpu or trade with them and bump up the cpu to like 7-8 on a small map.
