• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

If you think you have it bad...

However, since people are also dying everyday, the goal would be to achieve population stability (i.e: one birth=one death). Ideally it would be to go into negative numbers for a couple of decades, then achieve stability.

This would allow us to make the most out of our current resources, without additional movement from the metro areas. Thus keeping the metro areas nicer due to the tax base staying in the area, and being able to support local infrastructure.

There is really the clincher. Resources.

The Sahara has loads of open space. Put in a spread out multi-million population city there and see what happens....

Food and water are limiting factors to consider.
 
people clumping up near resources and (perceived) economic opportunity makes sense. over population is, IMHO, a big source of world problems. unfortunately, trying to control people's procreation is currently viewed as particularly evil. i don't know if china still has official policies about it, but things went very badly for baby girls when they first tried it.