Yes. And here we are, importing people and building on every available plot of land.Another manifestation of gross overpopulation in the UK is that an acute water shortage is looming:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47620228
But rather than do something sensible like strive to limit our population to a more sustainable level, the emphasis will be very much on discouraging water use.
Obviously the cost per cubic metre will go up substantially and all new-build houses will presumably be equipped with a shower-room rather than a bathroom.
Control the population growth and you won't need the new build houses.
Another manifestation of gross overpopulation in the UK is that an acute water shortage is looming:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47620228
But rather than do something sensible like strive to limit our population to a more sustainable level, the emphasis will be very much on discouraging water use.
Obviously the cost per cubic metre will go up substantially and all new-build houses will presumably be equipped with a shower-room rather than a bathroom.
Yes. And here we are, importing people and building on every available plot of land.
Such things do help, but they have to be managed.
I have a couple of hundred gallon of rainwater in butts. Use it mostly on the plants (I have a water meter) in summer.
But the biggest consumer of water in our home is the toilet. 9 litre per flush.
The water from the butts is quite suitable for that purpose and could be set up to supply the toilet.
Another project .
INT21.
Look on the bright side. Regional Australia is pretty uniformly "white-bread". At least migrants might get some decent restaurants going out in the bush. On the other hand, from what I understand, the real problem is Australia's water supply, which is erratic. How many gallons of fresh water does a human consume to keep them fed and clean every day? Has your government considered that?G'day Myth. Our federal government is importing 160,000 migrants every year, and is now trying to make it a prerecquisite that to get residency here, the new Australian and their family must live in a regional area for a specified time. Regional and remote areas are not amused.
The predicted rise in global population is mainly caused by older people not dying sooner
Such things do help, but they have to be managed.
I have a couple of hundred gallon of rainwater in butts. Use it mostly on the plants (I have a water meter) in summer.
But the biggest consumer of water in our home is the toilet. 9 litre per flush.
The water from the butts is quite suitable for that purpose and could be set up to supply the toilet.
Another project .
INT21.
Look on the bright side. Regional Australia is pretty uniformly "white-bread". At least migrants might get some decent restaurants going out in the bush. On the other hand, from what I understand, the real problem is Australia's water supply, which is erratic. How many gallons of fresh water does a human consume to keep them fed and clean every day? Has your government considered that?
your butt water (sniggers), is just so much better for plants I reckon (sorry 21...school boy humour has never left me).
vital for our compost heaps! We dug one of them out into the raised beds we (re)built last year and it was lush!
Salted cave cockroaches in Thailand - bloody Yum!View attachment 15694
If this is true wouldn’t world food prices being a leading indicator? Food costs would be rising as environmental constraints reduced supply and population growth increased demand.
So it is incredible that within a generation food costs have dropped so dramatically in India and China, countries that at one time were frequently on the brink of famine. Environmentalists who campaign against agri-tech advances have argued for population reduction rather than increased food production. Fortunately policy-makers have taken the humane option and have better fed bigger populations as a result.
https://order-order.com/2019/08/08/climate-crisis-populism-versus-data-food-production/
maximus otter
Without oil, coal and gas, a population of 7 billion would quickly become unsustainable. There's always the chance that it might run out (OK, Britain has loads of coal, but some other countries don't). That might be the real reason for trying to limit population size.After all, without petrol and diesel being readily accessible, many farms would cease to be viable, and often the finished product is subsidised.
Without oil, coal and gas, a population of 7 billion would quickly become unsustainable. There's always the chance that it might run out (OK, Britain has loads of coal, but some other countries don't). That might be the real reason for trying to limit population size.
Most of us will have died by then.Population should start to decline between 2050 and 2080 --we'll see if we can make it that long. My bet is probably not or not well.
I guess we won't be "seeing" but that is probably a good thing!Most of us will have died by then.