Post #4510 by sano on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (62)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 3

Edited for formatting

Albaby wrote:
<<"Because we've made such amazing advances in technology compared to, say, a few decades ago we certainly can have a global economy that can support 8 or 9 billion people at a higher standard of living than today (on average) within the resources available on earth and without suffering the consequences you describe in your post.">>

This article in todays NYT explains why that if/then fails with respect to water. It also applies to energy and a host of natural resources.

"Another culprit is common to large regions of the world: a growing population whose water demands continue to rise, both because of sheer numbers and, in many places, higher living standards, increasing individual consumption."

<<"We're going to not choose to do that.">>

Nah. There's too many competing interests among the human groups to effectively manage an equitable distribution of energy and stuff.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/29/world/middleeas...

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (62)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.