Terry wrote: > …but in the abstract, few “experts” would doubt that Earth in 2121 with 3 > billion inhabitants is more sustainable, for the long run, than Earth with > 9 billion. > I don't buy that. I would prefer to see 3 billion, because I like open space, but I think 9 billion could be made sustainable in the long run, with cold fusion and other technology described in my book. Much more sustainable than now, with things like:
Indoor farms. We could grow all of our food in a small area and return to nature all the land now used for agriculture. Underground highways. Highways are the largest, ugliest and noisiest industrial infrastructure. We need 'em but why should we let them take up space? Large scale robotic-based recycling. This would reduced demand for many raw materials, especially metals. Factories underground or at geosynchronous orbits with space elevators. Why not think big? While you are at it, mine asteroids, not the earth. Eventually we can move billions of people to Mars and elsewhere. Seriously, we could support far more people with a much smaller "footprint" on nature. - Jed
