The most frequently heard objection to using science to make people live longer is the issue of overpopulation. Our world is totally filled up as it is, right? Well, maybe. Let’s take pause for a moment, and look at a few numbers.
The United States has about 10,000,000 km² of land. The average population density is 30/km². The earth as a whole has about 150,000,000 km² of land and 350,000,000 km² of water, for a total area of roughly 500,000,000 km². The average population density on land is 40/km².
My hometown of Burlingame, CA, a typical suburb, including some very large houses, has an average population density of 2,000/km². The housing unit density is about 1,000/km². It is a calm suburban town, and certainly isn’t overcrowded.
New York City has an average population density of about 10,000/km². While it could be considered somewhat crowded, many people love living there, staying for the entirety of their busy and urban lives. Hong Kong has a population density of about 6,000/km², but despite this, is considered one of the greenest cities in Asia and has devoted 40% of its land to Country Parks and Nature Reserves. The population density of San Francisco is also about 6,000/km², and it is very pleasant to live here.
Population density by country:
So it turns out that if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km², and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km², with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone. This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km² of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km² of land).
Five primary obstacles to this 100 billion-person population scheme are colonizing the deserts, colonizing the highlands, providing energy, food, and disposal of waste.
colonizing the deserts: primarily a matter of air conditioning/heating and water sources, which can also be used to grow abundant plant life. To decrease the intensity of sunlight, dozen-square-kilometer sunshades can be deployed a few km above the ground in urban areas, held aloft with solar-powered airships. For heating during the night, grilles placed beneath the streets could radiate energy gathered during the day, warm enough to create a temperate atmosphere but not so hot as to create a fire hazard. Desalinization plants can produce fresh water in gigantic quantities, to serve the needs of billions of desert-dwellers. Including agricultural and industrial uses, the average person needs about 120,000 litres of water per year, which is 12 cubic meters of water. The world’s largest desalinization plant in Ashkelon, Israel, is capable of producing 100 million cubic meters of water per year, enough for over 8,000,000 people. Drilling down to the water table could provide similarly abundant sources of fresh water. The only problem remaining would be the sandstorms, which people could endure either by wearing adequate masks or going inside when they occur.
colonizing the highlands: people assume this is impossible, because there aren’t many roads there already. But the reason there aren’t many people living there is because few roads go there, and few roads go there because few people live there. Chicken and egg problem. To eliminate this, we switch to personal flying machines, on their way to general affordability by the late-10s. Terraces can be created with simple dynamite. For altitude problems, you get injected with respirocytes, which we may see by the 2030s. As artificial red bloods cells, these simple diamond spheres will be capable of holding 236 times the oxygen per unit volume as their biological equivalents. Not only will you will able to breathe at very high altitudes, you’ll be able to sprint at high altitudes and hold your breath for minutes at a time without incident. Abundant tunneling through the mountains could also make them very fun and spacious place to live. Think of the part during Lord of the Rings when they’re wandering through the mountain caverns, but well-lit and filled with plants and animals that thrive under artificial light. Modern-day drilling techniques can remove ~50,000 tonnes of earth per day.
providing energy for 100 billion people requires different technology than our current fossil-fuel-based regime. The thorium fuel cycle, which could be implemented with current reactors, eliminates both nuclear proliferation and waste dangers, while costing much less than a uranium fuel cycle. Nuclear fusion, while it could take a few more decades to go commercial, will provide energy dozens or hundreds of times more abundant than fission reactors for less cost, using deutrium extracted from water for fuel. A kilogram of deutrium can produce a hundred million kilowatt hours of power. In the longer term, Helium-3 can be harvested from the moon, which provides much greater power output than deutrium. Chemist Ouyang Ziyuan from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, leader of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program, is making the mining of Helium-3 a major goal. He is quoted as saying, “each year three space shuttle missions could bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world.” The efficiency of photovoltaic panels is increasing, year by year, while manufacturing costs are steadily decreasing. Arrays of hundred-kilometer-wide solar panels put in geosynchronous orbit will give us enough energy to boil all the oceans in the world, if we wanted to.
to provide food, we can exploit all of the world’s arable land, about 21% of all land mass, or 31,000,000 km². We should also start thinking in three dimensions rather than just two. Vertical farming will provide us with more food than we could possibly eat, even if there were a trillion of us. Terraforming Mars and Venus into farming planets will be entirely unnecessary. We can build oceanic cities that manufacture all types of seafood cheaply, including the super-nutritional algae spirulina, which we can process into a variety of textures. Marshall T. Savage describes this process in detail in his book The Millenial Project. Dr. Martin Schreibman of Brooklyn College has been in national media in the past few months for his efforts to encourage urban fish farming, where fish are kept in carefully-regulated tanks.
disposal of waste: we will genetically engineer bacteria to break down anything organic into mineral constituents. The “principle of microbial infallability“, commonly accepted across university biology departments, asserts that there is truly no biomatter that some microbe cannot consume. It’s just a matter of diligently determining which microbes can break down which compounds, and setting them to work. For artificial compounds such as plastics, we can incinerate them in gigantic sealed autoclaves, burying the ash in km-deep caverns carved out for the purpose, or, more simply, only produce recyclable plastics and ensure that the recycling process is as efficient and waste-free as possible. For manufacturing pollution, we’ll need to employ nanotechnology and bottom-up manufacturing techniques to ensure that our products are created without releasing waste into the environment. It can be done – chemists regularly oversee reactions with no byproducts, and with positional control over our atoms in our manufacturing economy, we will make certain that none go to waste.
The above is just an outline to buy us some time before we really do fill things up. But current trends are hopeful: when women are educated and contraceptives are made available to them, the birth rate plummets. The Vatican cannot hold back the pill for long.
The above image shows that in many developed countries, the birth rate is less than 1%/year and is sometimes even negative. As the death rate decreases, the birth rate will need to decrease in synch to preserve minimal population growth. I think this is doable, and we will probably be able to decrease the world population doubling rate from once every 25 years to about once every 50 years, and then possibly once every 100 years. For those who want to breed prodigously, there is always the rest of the solar system, which has the resources to support approximately 10^25 humans, by my estimate. Nick Bostrom points out that our local supercluster could support around 10^38 individuals.
In summary, there is plenty of room for everybody.
Thanks, Michael. Well-presented.
Nicely done
this is complete bunk. 45% of the entire US converted to suburbs? 50% to farms and ‘parks’? The outcry about overpopulation was never a disbelief that we couldnt somehow find ‘room’ for people, the problem is that to do it we would have to _consume the fucking planet_. If we are unwilling to constrain our cancerous growth across the planet, we are going to lose any chance of maintaing the product of literally billions of years of history in the course of a few generations. Which is horribly egotistical. Surely we can find more efficient ways to manage our growth.
First: I am not sure if overpopulation is (or should be ) an objection to make people live longer.
Anyway, nice work there. However, the argument against overpopulation is not people running out of space to live. As you pointed out, men have, always, been highly adaptive and can find/create hospitable places for him.
The issue is about the others who inhabit the planet – The deer, lions, beavers, ants, pines, Redwoods, banyan, elephant grass, fern, etc. As the human population has increased these habitats have been incresingly converted to support humans.
Even desolate places like the deserts and aird drylands, host an amazing variety of flora & faunna. I am not too keen about the day when the Coyote, thorny devil and cacti are replaced with rats, cockroaches and the like.
By the way, I was wondering where the fields and ranches would be accommodated in your plan. And also the Yosemite park, polynesian beaches and the Himalays? Do we lose them too?
This was a pleasure to read. But I have a question…
“For altitude problems, you get injected with respirocytes, which we’ll see in the early 20s at the latest”
If we already have molecular manufacturing advanced enough to produce respirocytes doesn’t that make most of your reccomendations needlessly primitive?
For example, home mm devices could produce any sort of food…there’s no need for, say, urban fish farming, which 1) would result in pain to the fish, 2) would require space, and 3) would, presumably, be more costly than just synthesizing fish fillets.
I definitely think humans should work toward finding alternate living quarters at some point (space arks? other planets?), but in the meantime it doesn’t seem that running out of room / resources should be anything people get excited over.
There really isn’t any good argument against life extension anyway. It’s not ethically sound to postulate that we should attempt to cure all fatal diseases…except for one.
By the way, I was wondering where the fields and ranches would be accommodated in your plan. And also the Yosemite park, polynesian beaches and the Himalays? Do we lose them too?
My proposal is to leave half of all land primarily undeveloped… at the very least 30%, as 5% urban + 45% suburban + 20% arable land = 70% of space colonized.
People *like* natural beauty. But the thing is, there’s a lot of empty land that, while it has some natural life, is more or less the same as thousands of square miles just like it. You could still preserve all the species while compressing their living space by a factor of 1/2. If you see this as evil, then take your animals out into gravity-containing space stations or terraformed planets, and you can breed quadrillions of them if you’d like.
For example, home mm devices could produce any sort of food…there’s no need for, say, urban fish farming
Good point, but the intention of this article was to make it plausible (i.e., low future shock) as possible, to maximize readability to a wider (non-transhumanist) audience.
I definitely think humans should work toward finding alternate living quarters at some point (space arks? other planets?)
We should be thinking in terms of uploading, not physical dwellings. Mankind’s future is in inner space, not outer space.
There really isn’t any good argument against life extension anyway.
If a Malthusian catastrophe were imminent, that would be a good reason not to extend human lives.
If a Malthusian catastrophe were imminent, that would be a good reason not to extend human lives.
Good point. Makes a decent case for the uploading argument as well.
And you could be right about the inner space thing, but all that universe out there certainly is compelling…
I meant the energy invested does not matter as long as there is an IMPROVEMENT in ROI. Nuclear power gives better ROI than oil, period. The only reason we aren’t exploiting it now is due to intertia and high entry costs (irrelevant with government subsidies and if the environmentalists will shut up). Within a decade, solar will also offer superior ROI.
A friend of mine, who is studying engineering had projections showing that with the current technology the earth could support up to 50 billion people, and with the current rate of technological development should peak at around Michael’s figure of the 100 billion some time in the next century.
Fascinating article. My own personal opinion is, aside from uploading scenarios (which are highly desirable), that arcologies are the answer to extreme population pressures. Not only would arcologies compress large quantities of people into 3D space and reduce environmental pressures, they would be sufficiently independent and isolated from other arcologies (ie quarantined) to minimize extinction risks.
Oh, here’s an example of a proposed arcology in Tokyo that would be 12 times higher than the Great Pyramids and house 750,000 people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Try2004
Here’s my earlier post on that one megastructure:
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=24
Yes, arcologies would let us hold 10 trillion+ people, easy. I only avoided them in this essay because they tend to freak people out – they imagine that they would be like a futuristic ghetto of some sort.
Great discussion. Several points:
1. Carbon-based fuels should suffice for the next decade or two. Climactic *warming* (as itself considered separately from *greenhouse gas emmission[s]*) can be dealt with fairly cost-effectively, interestingly enough, by simply increasing Earth’s albedo by, if I’m not mistaken, a bit less than merely 1%. There are several cost-effective, practical means of doing this. Greg Benford has discussed several in various recent articles (cites not handy–sorry). “Glassfalt” and systematically increasing coastal (and islandic) fog-banks are two that come to mind. If it’s the *heat* (infrared) that’s the concern (and indeed it is), not CO2 *per se*, then raising the albedo a tad should do the trick, reflecting back out higher-frequency radiation *before* it’s trapped (“greenhoused”) after degrading to infrared. Not a panacea, to be sure. But surely a viable way of controlling global temperature *per se*. And, aside from greenhouse concerns, more CO2 in the atmosphere is horticulturally better anyway. So, with all due respect to Uncle Al (Gore)—what’s the problem?!
2. While I’m all for energy-tech diversity (diversification) (nano-solar, e.g., contiues to progress & is already “lookin’ good”…), Michael is quite right that nuke-tech is quite handily capable of supplanting (or at least supplementing) petrol over the next 5-15 yrs. (So-called) “Environmentalists” should do 2 things: Carefully study enviro-economics (Rick Stroup’s stuff and other stuff, e.g., from the PERC center at U. Montana would be a good start); and read the late Petr Beckman’s now-admittedly-a-bit-dated book, *The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear* (still readily available, btw). Recent improvements in nuke tech (which you recently showcased here, didn’t you, Michael?; or maybe it was Paul over at FutureHi, before he shut that down–or, hell, maybe both of y’all)–have dramatically increased yet further the environmental-friendliness of nuke-tech. What is needed, as usual, is for the “word(s)” to get out (thank g*d for the www), for “environmental” weenies to get-with-it (see admonishments in sentence-before-last), and for healthy competition-cum-innovation (and the on-going capital-structure optimization-on-the-fly that goes with that) to continue apace. And, fortunately, most of that does seem to be happening.
3. If MEST compression/ephemeralization is indeed what’s (meta)cosmically-developmentally going-on (and Smart & Kurzweil, in particular, make a pretty good case for this surmise), then, well before century’s end, and, indeed, quite possibly by (or perhaps even significantly before) century’s-midpoint, we will be exploring/developing femto- and, eventually, atto-tech. String/Brane theory(s), loop-gravity theory(s), as well as more exotic (meta)theory(s) of, e.g., Jack Sarfatti & Saul-Paul Sirag (among many others), point, of course, to the development of vacuum-fluctuation (or so-called zero-point) energy technologies. Indeed, more-or-less inherently, once one is dealing with femto- & atto-scale tech, one tends also to be precisely in the realm of vacumm-fluctuation stuff as well. It has been plausibly conjectured (by Sarfatti, among others) that energy (in-principle) derivable from merely 1 cc of space is sufficient to vaporize Earth’s oceans in a fraction of a blink-of-an-eye. Unless we really screw-up over the next 5-15 yrs with incredibly stupid policy crap (logically possible, of course, but fairly unlikely), then I don’t see energy *per se* being a problem. But free price fluctuations, as well as encouragement (rather than *de facto* suppression) of alt. techs (nuke, solar-of-various-sorts, other fossil-fuels such as coal, gas, etc.) should allow for fairly smooth transition(s) along the Kurzweilian Curve(s) (so to speak).
With regard to Prakash’s well-spoken remarks, again, I would encourage systematic conjecture as to when femto- & atto-tech will be feasible. Even prior to the development of such tech, systematic exploration of the possibility of exploiting vacuum-fluctuation energy should be seriously pursued.
And Anne’s right (you GO, girl!–wink): I’m also for both inner and outer—inward & outward. By the time we convert normal “it” space into “bit” “space”—we’ll have at least umpteen orders-of-magnitude even more “space” to “work with” & “do things” “in”. SO—*Both* onward-inward AND onward-outward—EXCELSIOR!
Live long, prosper, & eudaimonistically hop-&-bop, y’all…(wink)
P.S. Yeah, arcologies are fine…as long as their not conceived-of & designed as little more than humanthills!
Stupid spelling screw-up: should’ve been “…as long as they’re…” Typing fast with brain out-of-gear…
Oh, & a few more things: Again, Prakash’s concerns are not-at-all-whatsoever unreasonable. But we must remember that, unless AI & AGI hit major roadblock (if not insurmountable wall) over the next decade or two (not especially likely, at least not for any “in-principle” logically-inherent sort of reason–but I nonetheless AM open to persuasion on such a point, just haven’t yet encountered a reasonable, non-question-begging presentation of such a position or argument…), then we should see the development not only of AI/AGI, but also, as Kurzweil has pointed out, what clearly amounts to (“meat”) IA–i.e., systematic Intelligence Amplification/Augmentation of us humans & our meat-brains. And, of course, what this really implies is a more-or-less merging, or (on-again/off-again) coalescence of AGI/IA/meat-brains. Now, yeah, yeah, yeah, we may have “problems” concerning personal identity, privacy, etc., etc., *but* if we’re on-the-ball as this stuff develops (& if the weenies & bureaucrats & politicos will chill &/or get the hell outta the way…), then all this should be dealable-with fairly straightforwardly. So:
1. Rather than people having to “deal with” energy procurement/handling, etc., if we play our cards right over the next decade or 2, intelligent cybernated/robotic systems will be “doing” that.
2. And, nonetheless, even if, *per contra* because #1 immediately-above, there are somewhat less meat-people dealing with theoretical/innovative stuff, **these people themselves** will also be deeply/profoundly *augmented/amplified* (cognitive-intellectually) by other *cybernated AGI’s*.
Now, of course, this presupposes the successful development/instantiation of AGI/IA—which, in turn, does indeed presuppose & necessitate the systematic exploration/development of (meta)friendliness when it comes to such AGI. Which, in turn, implies a pretty good reason to contribute a buck or two (as/when one can afford it) to Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (Eli Yudkowsky’s think-tank-cum-AGI-development-project)…
So, support SIAI and Aubrey de Grey’s SENS project. You’ll be glad ya did (wink)…
Some interesting points there, Michael, but I believe you’re partially focusing on non-issues.
The real, sensible arguments against population growth have never been about in the short term – limitations of space merely demonstrate that no level of /proportional/ growth is indefinitely sustainable (eg: light cone issues). If resident-space were the issue, then it would be silly allocating any space to surbuban-density housing.
The problems are more to do with other resources. As an example, Australia (with its very low overall population density) is starting to struggle, population-wise, but this has nothing to do with space. The problem is water. Admittedly, there is currently a lot of wastage, and very little water-recycling. Unfortunately, we have not implemented recycling strategies early enough (they take time &/or money to implement), and the _energy_ cost of desalination is prohibitive. Nonetheless, that’s what we’re starting to do. Tapping the water table often has drastic impacts on the productivity of arable land. Could fusion solve the water problem through cheap desalination? Of course, but “fusion is 50 years away. It’s always 50 years away!”.
Similarly, adressing desert living with air conditioning… well, via arduior est; there’s always a more energy consumptive way. People have been going underground to hide from the heat for centuries.
Is there scope for increasing the population? Of course – no doubt about it. Could this planet sustain 10 billion people, let alone 100 billion people, with the rates of _waste_ common in the most industrial nations? Of course not.
You are spot on that education will bring the decreased birth/rates/ that are /necessary/ in a very long-living society. However, it is my hope that with a bit of foresight, that education might also bring about a massive reduction in waste. It really doesn’t take much to make a human healthy and happy – it really doesn’t need to come down to a malthusian crisis.
Overpopulation never really was the problem. Even with extreme longevity it’s not really a problem. The problems have always been ecological footprint, resource efficiency and energy sources.
Sure, with some serious technical wizardry–solar energy, nuclear fusion, vat grown food, we could sustain a 100 billion people on this rock but, do we really want to sacrifice all that ecological diversity and pave the planet to do so?
I suppose if we turned a dead world into a planetopolis (A planet-city.), this wouldn’t be so bad but, I think there’d be a lot of people who miss the natural splendor of the Earth.
As a long term plan, we need to provide as many incentives as possible for people to leave the surface of the Earth and let the planet go wild again.
Overpopulation certainly is a problem, because reproducing populations grow exponentially, while the amount of space we can colonize only expands polynomially. The fundamental mathematical disjoint can only be remedied by lowering population growth to a polynomial function.
Michael,
You have a point; I over simplified. I can’t argue with that.
But let’s remember that as long the death rate exceeds the birth rate, population will decrease.
Even with extremely longevity, people may still occasionally die from trauma, war, social unrest, etc. With extreme longevity and good standards of living, the economic incentive to have children isn’t as strong.
On the other hand, technology is slowly giving us lots of other ways to reproduce aside from the ancient one. Maybe that will skew things in favor of the birth rate again. I don’t know.
I suppose it depends ultimately on personal feelings. One wonders how many people in a future of enormous lifespans and high standards of living will want to have lots of kids. I guess personal egotism, religion or political ideology might play a part here.
And please understand that I’m not downplaying the problem here. With our current technology, assuming it remains unchanged, it will be impossible to bring everyone up to the standards of living enjoyed in the post-industrial world. There’s just not enough energy and greenhouse gases will spike.
That’s why it’s imperative for the post-industrial world to improve its energy efficiency and move to carbon neutrality as quickly as possible.
Population pressure is bound to increase as time goes on, and the rate at which humans can replicate will be nothing compared to what machines can do.
To support larger human populations many technological and a few social changes will be needed. On the technological side using a combination of bioengineering and robotics I expect to see fully automated forms of agriculture appear, requiring little or no human intervention. Also we will be forced to relinquish our ongoing love affair with fossil fuels, and take a serious look at alternatives. I expect solar panelling to become ubiquitous and even compulsary in some countries with regard to the construction of new housing.
Ultimately we will be forced to look for resources elsewhere out in space, although I expect this to be many decades away (perhaps in the next century).
“World has tapped just 18% of oil supplies”:
http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=157340
Oil industry experts have made all sorts of predictions over the last few decades. It’s possible that there is a lot more oil down there, but I think the truth is that nobody really knows how much is left. I wouldn’t like to get too complacent about oil remaining a cheap source of energy for the remainder of my lifetime.
Bob: Points **VERY** well-taken. However, coal & natural gas, especially coal, should suffice to supplement oil for a long-enough period (my own personal GUESStimate [as I'm admittedly NOT at the strategic/operational *cutting-edge* of any energy subsector]: 15-25 yrs) for other tech(s), e.g., significantly-more-efficient solar techs of various sorts, as well as nuke, to techno-economically cost-effectively “click-in”, as it were.
Plus:
1. In terms of fossil-fuels generally: we now have (reasonably cost-effective) tech which “cleans” it up fairly admirably. Coal, e.g., can be thermodynamically/ecologically reasonably efficiently liquified, and/or utilized in various modes. It no longer need be,
as the late Roy Childs once put it, “bow down to sooty smoke-stacks”!
2. Depending on relative-prices/costs over the ensuing years, various solar techs are already beginning to look cost-effective & feasible, *relative* to fossil fuels, and thus there will continue to be ongoing systemic (system-dynamic) reasons for entreprenurial innovation and drive-for-ever-more-efficiency(s), which in turn means *de facto* diversification. Now people tend to think that the overall capital *structure* (by which I mean in a Mengerian sense, vis-a-vis “lower order” capital goods and ultimate consumer goods) as deeply enmeshed with a currently overwhelmingly primarily fossil-fuel-intensive techno-structure—and, of course, so far it indeed has been—we have been, to some extent, fossil-fuel tipsy/giddy over the last 10 decades or so. This, however, is now poised to begin to change. If the public can come to know the FACTS, if rent-seeking, prop-up-the-obsolescent-industries cronie capitalism can be curtailed, and if free-price-fluctuation(s) market processes are *minimally* (if at all, ideally) hampered & f***ed-with, and if the enviro-weenies will actually study enviro-economics (hey, wow, what-a-concept; ya think?…) the energy *base* of the capital-structure should, fairly smoothly/efficiently (efficient both in economic *&* thermodynamic terms), come to be much more diversified and almost-certainly nowhere-near so fossil-fuel-intensive as it has heretofore been.
3. Vacuum-fluctution energy-extraction is still, in the long-run, the best bang-for-buck. While I don’t advocate much (if, indeed, ANY) subsidization (which is obviously distortive in terms of relative-price/cost calculation), one can nonetheless hope that we may eventually (albeit, perhaps, several decades hence) reap a harvest of genuine energy ABUNDANCE (with the nanotech &, eventually, femto-tech-&-beyond to go with it).
4. And, since redundancy is (info-theoretically [wink]) more-or-less a good thing: Albedo, albedo, albedo. When it comes to the whole “climactic change” & “global warming” bally-hoo: We *MUST* *distinguish* between climactic (temperature) *warming* and the accumulation in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases (whether the latter stem from natural processes or human-caused). The *main* (if not, indeed, more-or-less ONLY) reason greenhouse gas(es) increase/accumulation is at all especially problematic is due to the “greenhouse EFFECT”—which is **what**!?!?—the trapping-(reflecting- back)-of-*degraded-infrared*-energy back to the surface—RIGHT?!?! So—to bounce-off a Clinton-era catch-phrase—”it’s the temperature, the heat, the *infrared*, stupid”!—NOT the greenhouse gas(es) in-&-of-&-by-themselves! What you want to do, then, is to see to it that less (high-energy) electromagnetic radiation reaches the surface to degrade to infrared, which then–indeed–*can* be greenhouse-trapped and thus cause a planetary climactic temperature increase. And how does one do that?! Simply raise the planet’s albedo by a mere 1% (if not, indeed, a bit less!). That’s it, folks. THAT will *solve* the heat problem—dead in its tracks. Then the question becomes: Are there cost-effective/inexpensive, already-known, more-or-less “off-the-shelf” and ready-to-deploy tech(s) which can systematically/straightforwardly accomplish this?! And—guess-what?—the answer is YES (see also my original adumbrative discussion of this earlier, above).
5. We don’t even know the ontological specifics of **POST**-humanity. By which I mean (among other things) will(/*need*) there even *be* any evolutionary/developmental-advantage *selection-pressure* to produce or throw-off “offspring” or progeny. There obviously was for Lucy and Clarence-the-CroMagnon. But will there be for *post*humanity? Is there any in-principle or *a priori* reason(s) to think so? Offhand, I can’t think of any. But this, I’ll allow, is, perhaps, an *open* question. But my 2-cent intuition is that there isn’t any inherent selection-pressure to “procreate” for post-humans—at least not in any sense remotely similar to what we *humans* know & experience. The need(s) to nurture, to mentor, even to “have kids” (at least is simulation), can be met w/o incurring exponentional-expansion-vs.polynomial-expansion Malthusian problems. Recycling (a fixed population–by current standards unimaginably **HUGE**, probably, but more-or-less fixed nonetheless—of) people as children is one possibility…Think Farmer’s *Riverworld* along with Clarke’s *City & the Stars* (or his earlier version, *Against the Fall of Night*) along with Iain Banks “Culture” as well as John Wright’s interesting variant in the *Golden Age* trilogy. Then expand upon all this by several tens or hundreds (or indeed thousands) of orders of magnitude. Then you’ll have a barest inking (sorta-kinda) of what I’m getting-at, as a cultural/institutional background. Within such a context, why can’t we just recycle ourselves as “kids” (if there’s any need/urge/desire to do so). Bizare? Outlandish? Well, no, not especially. Isn’t this more-or-less the Hindu as well as Buddhist (purported) ontology(s) anyway?
SO…Malthusian population problem? Fundamentally, theoretically, in-principle, yes: IF we “procreate” “as usual” or some ontolgically similar varient. The exponential-vs.-polynomial fundamental mathematical/ontological “hard problem” remains. But, pragmatically/practically, I really don’t anticipate “population” being a problem—at least not necessarily.
Wonderful Blog, Michael. Wonderful Post(s). Wonderful discussion. THANKS so much to my colleagues and fellow-discussants. THANKS for letting me contribute/expound. As a good Popperian (more-or-less) I invite response/critique.
Best wishes to all, and to all a good night…(wink)
One of the best resources for this is the book “How Many People Can the Earth Support” by Joel Cohen [1]. It goes into much greater detail (445 pages with 50 pages of notes) than is discussed here. Being published in 1995 it is somewhat dated but since discussion of these topics became quite active in academic circles in the 60′s and 70′s there is a significant amount of material on the topic. Indeed, Appendix 3 of the book documents over 60 studies, the first in 1679, making estimates of the “real” population limits. Since the actual population limits are tied closely to technology assumptions it is rather pointless to engage discussions of a specific number such as “100 billion”. Better would be to discuss which technologies are required and when in order to deal with specific types of problems that growing populations may produce — or whether population expansion will cease or ultimately even decline (making the design and/or production of technologies to deal with 100 billion biological humans rather pointless).
1.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Many-People-Earth-Support/dp/0393314952
100 billion was just a rough number for the purpose of this post… which was maximized for mass digestability, not accuracy.
It is never useless to engage in discussions, because every discussion brings new ideas to people and gets them thinking about these issues for the first time. Not everyone is as aware about everything as you are, Robert.
If I got 10,000 new people to come to this page, it would be a triumph… not a failure because it wasn’t perfectly accurate. Jeez.
Thanks, Robert, for this reference; hadn’t heard of it. Since the topic is a “hot” or “current” topic, we might hope that a 2nd, *updated* edition for, say, ’07, might be in the works. Even setting uploading & off-planet expansion aside for the nonce, 10-15 billion seems not unreasonable, and as spreading real wealth/income increase reduces pressure to breed-like-rabbits, we may well level-off at, say, 7.5(ish)-10 billion within the next, say, 6-24 yrs.
[And Michael, I empathize with your remarks as well---wink.]
Wow. You’re exuberant. In comparison, I’m somwhat of a wet blanket, though I’ve done some speculating recently on my blog. http://amssolarempire.blogspot.com/2006/09/vernes-cannon-part-i.html
A few comments:
I agree totally that overpopulation is barely the problem it’s made out to be. Misanthropy, more than anything drives it. No one wants to live around “people”. However, for as long as people can produce more than they consume economically, nations will grow wealthier due to population, not poorer. And that trend doesn’t start levelling off until you begin hitting actual (not imagined, like most to date) resource constraints. Trade and industry become multipliers to the effect.
In any case, I’m all for living as long as ethically possible (not stealing organs from other people, ect)
I’m happy to see someone advocating nuclear power. When you evaluate it next to many popular “alternatives”, such as biodiesel, it seems the one of the only things that can provide energy anywhere near that degree of scale. (Some would contend solar, but the efficiency still stinks for silicon panels, they’re highly energy expensive to manufacture, and you’re not paving millions of square miles with gallium arsenide)
Earth moving aircraft? Hauling around thousands of tons of dirt is best done on the ground, unless you plan on blowing arbitrary amounts of aviation fuel, and have a tireless maintenence staff.
Putting respirocytes in people’s blood? In 20 years? You’re certainly cutting the work out for the medical community.
I’d actually like to see arcologies. It sounds like they could indeed compress a whole lot of city. They’d need to be designed for the actual demands and needs of the city, however, and not according to someones idea of an elegant vision (I can too easily imagine it being turned into an art project about the way people are “supposed” (by whom?) to live).
“Arrays of hundred-kilometer-wide solar panels put in geosynchronous orbit will give us enough energy to boil all the oceans in the world, if we wanted to.” How many arrays would that be, I wonder? I’ve investigated solar sattelites due to my interest in space, and I guarantee you, any one such sattelite is not going to be that powerful. But that’s okay. Only Darth Vader needs that kind of power. :-P
“For artificial compounds such as plastics, we can incinerate them in gigantic sealed autoclaves, burying the ash in km-deep caverns carved out for the purpose, or, more simply, only produce recyclable plastics and ensure that the recycling process is as efficient and waste-free as possible.”
Plastics, being organic (mostly CHON), when incinerated will break down into CO2, H20, nitrogen products, ect. You can save your underground caverns for nuclear waste.
I’m a nanotechnology sceptic, as previously explained on my blog. Here you have nanotechnology concieved as magic grey goo that can do anything. Manufacturing without waste? Every single process produces waste of some sort. It’s thermodynamic necessity. However, with enough energy to blow, you can recycle most waste products below the level of your primary energy source fuel. (You couldn’t use an oil plant to generate hydrogen, for example, or a nuclear plant to undo the atomic decay processes that power it) We could probably do that now, with arbitrary amounts of energy to throw around. And you’d need the same minimum energy, even if you used nanotechnology.
Side note: I’ve always liked the distribution of city lights as you cross the US, how you have that nice non-uniform spacing. It’s almost a time-lapse photo of the evolution of our transportation technology. Same with our state boundaries.
Where will we be in 2106? Consider where we were in 1906 and in 2006:
1906 population 1 bn
% living in predictable comfort 10% (100 mn)
2006 population 7 bn
% living in predictable comfort 20% (1.4 bn)
2106 population predicted 14 bn
% living in predictable comfort 40% (5.4 bn)
All we need to do is keep on keeping on.
The earth is robust and capacious, rather than fragile and narrow. Humankind is infinitely inventive and diligent.
However, we must remove atmospheric carbon from the global economy, just as we removed horse manure from city streets: the 1895 prediction was that New York City would be swamped with horse output by 1920, at the then-current rate of traffic expansion. It didn’t happen.
There is definitely a problem with overpopulation. There are too many people on the earth, and we should aim to cut that number in half. Then we would use half of what we’re using now in terms of resources. We’d have half the waste. We’d need half the foood. We’d require half the natural products (wood, water, etc.) that we require now. Think of the reduction in stress on the earth! The issue really comes down to: we’d also have half the consumers. That equals less business, less need for the millions of plastic products we seem to need now; less of a need for cars, houses, boats, etc. See how this is working out? Businesses of the world want more people so that they can produce more=sell more. Overpopulation is a critical problem but it is not getting the attention it needs because it serves some people very well to have lots and lots of consumers.
I see a few problems with the Panglossian views on population growth:
1) Future technologies that will reduce the environmental impacts of assorted industrial processes are future technologies. The air in China continues to get worse. Poachers continue to kill assorted species in Africa and South East Asia. We have other bad trends going on.
2) Technological advances don’t always get used in ways that make things better. People didn’t use improved fuel efficiency to drive higher mpg cars. They used that boost in efficiency to drive bigger cars with faster accelerations longer distances. Our improved productivity could just lead to our building even bigger houses, bigger driveways, more tennis courts, lawns, etc.
Similarly, industrialization of China is giving the Chinese the buying power to wipe out lots of species in other countries. Never mind that their herbal folklore about assorted glands and cartilage from other species is mostly wrong. They buy the stuff and cause animal deaths by poachers anyway.
3) The people who want to live in NYC have different preferences than the vast majority. Most people really don’t want to live around high densities of other people. So towers that reduce our footprint on the ground sound like neat theoretical solutions to those who propose them. But in reality most people don’t want to live in towers.
Very well stated. People get very paranoid over such natural/small things.
thanks but that was not what i was looking for
i think that people need to get over the fact that they have a small yard and realize there is still tons of room in the world
ИнтереÑненько, откедова Ñто чудище вылезло?
To the writer and suppoerters: It’s not about the room stupid…plus, all those technological and advanced solutions you talk about, guess what? not here or not being applied. Meanwhile, countries like Haiti have less than 1% of their original forrests left, and their primary source of energy is charcoal, people live on subsistence agriculture and land is in process of desertification, and women have on average five kids, and that’s the reality.
Hello,
I’m doing a presentation at school on the effects of over population. I think this piece is really good, but I can’t use a blog as a source. Where did you find the information that you refernced in your article? Thank you for the wonderful information!
Simply want to say your article is brilliant. The clearness in your post is simply impressive and i can assume you are an expert on this field. Well with your permission allow me to grab your rss feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the effective work
Oh well done.
and where will the money for all this come from?
your pocket perhaps?
so you are saying that if we converted 100% of the earth’s surface to either food or habitation, we’d have enough for 100 billion people.
sounds great, except for the fact that we would cause almost all other life on the planet to go extinct if we did this.
also, if this scheme happened worldwide, there would be literally billions of people who would be forced to move against their will into these supercities.
this isn’t even dealing with the problem either, building larger cities and farms simply delays the problem, and when the population finally does reach it’s limit, what is there to do?
oh, but I’m sure your magical science fiction technologies will save us all, so it won’t be a problem…
Oh. My. God. It’s called satire, people. Ever hear of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”? No? It’s a satire written in 1729 about solving the problem of over population in Ireland by eating Irish children. Wikipedia it. And Wikipedia ‘satire’ while you’re at it.
Having said that, you write good science fiction, Michael. Hope you make some money at it.
This is the most ubsine article ive ever seen, listin to how the entire article is about how happy people are where they live, it dose not discuss the issue of how we treat the planet, how we over use and waste resources, 8 billion in the us. come on thats stupid. not to mention how they theroys on how we will live on the sides of mountians and shit, thats so impracticle im sorry but your entire article is far fetched and bias.
1915 – 1.8 Billion people
2010 – 6.8 Billion people
Past 95 years – 5 Billion people
Next 500 years – 32 Billion people or more
Problems – Poverty, starvation, global warming, hole in the ozone layer, crime, pollution and land destruction
Solution to problems – “STOP CREATING BABIES”!!!
The stop making babies crowd is sill. The UN predicts the global population to peak at around 10 billion.
Europe and Japan have had subreplacament fertility for a long time. China has the one Child policy. The Middle East dully follows in our footsteps as does Mexico and almost all of Latin America.
India is currently a high growth region, but this is projected to change soon.
The only real problem are exceptions to the rule Haiti and well the whole bloody continent of Africa. Fortunatley things like the reliable birth control that you only take once a year (male and female) will probably help even them stabilize.
Energy, plain and simple : SSPS
http://khanneasuntzu.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/the-acronym-everyone-should-know/
What makes a place like Japan thrive and a place like Nigeria or Pakistan flail isn’t its population density (India and Japan are the same in this respect), it’s the kind of people that live there. Children don’t go hungry in Japan because the Japanese have a superior temperament. We won’t have to worry about more than a few Nigerians becoming immortal, just like we don’t have to worry about them building automobile suburbs and driving the price of oil up. Genetic modification will become the domain of those that can afford it for whom it doesn’t raise moral and ethical issues that outweigh its benefits.
I would love to see this perspective at The Global Summit II in SF, Nov. 8-10, 2010. We have a whole “Global Citizen Solution Council” on Population & Environmental Scarcity.
Please contact me to get involved/ learn more: +1-310-392-6909 / http://www.theglobalsummit.org / msj@theglobalsummit.org
Sincerely,
Melanie St.James
Chair, The Global Summit II
I find in reading those sites that say that population problems are a myth that their evidence is very sparse and inconclusive. Recently I read Book 1 of the free e-book series “In Search of Utopia” (http://andgulliverreturns.info), it blasts their lack of evidence relative to their calling overpopulation a myth. The book, actually the last half of the book, takes on the skeptics in global warming, overpopulation, lack of fresh water, lack of food, and other areas where people deny the evidence. I strongly suggest that anyone wanting to see the whole picture read the book, at least the last half.
The outdated fertility replacement rate of 2.1 is also clarified.
we need more …………..
Michael,
This is a joke, right? One of those “Tongue in cheek” things to make us think, right? Sounds like a bio-engineering experiments. As long as we all agree on how to get enough water and oxygen out of this system (without too much C02 and other waste products) we will all be alright. Should we give it try? Who is in charge of making the boundaries?
No, it’s not a joke. I’m in charge of making the boundaries. (I thought that was a silly question so I’m giving it a silly answer. :)
Thanks, thats very useful to know! I must admit I’m a bit of a failure in the kitchen, but I’m trying my best to learn. Admitting iis the first step right!? I promised to cook something for my wife this weekend for the first time – very exciting! I found some really simple recipe at this site, seems to be designed exactly for people like me, which is fantastic! Anyway, thanks for your tips, I’ll be sure to bookmark this site to read more later.
for me, over population is not really a problem…this became really a problem cause the people on the society always defend themselves to the government..they have to stand at their own..
In theory your idea works, but only for a mass of zombie-like people who will simply bow down to your whims of moving where ever you please. Many people are stubborn and will not move. I personally enjoy my place of living. Not to mention the fact that all of these ideas would cost vasts amounts of money, so much money that it is practically inconceivable to put this into motion. Whereas, if we did something simple like teach people about contraceptives and ask that no couple have more than two children, we wouldn’t have to do all of this extreme revamping of the planet Earth. It would cost considerably less to educate people than to move them all over the globe and build vertical farms.
Overcrowding no problem problem with overpopulation is that there won’t be enough water for everyone.
At the moment enough food is produced for whole human population, but people in Africa,Asia,South america and some countries outside these continents are starving because of western companies need for profit and to keep prices high they rather throw away food than sell it cheap in underdeveloped countries. Also about overcrowding how are you going to produce enough food for everyone 20 years from now if 70% of people live in metropolies?
You’ve to propose this to main le web website, it really is truly really ok
Great review! This is exactly the type of blog post that needs to be shared around the web. Shame on the Google for not positioning this article higher!
And what will all these billions of people do?
Hello, Neat post. There’s an issue with your website in internet explorer, would test this? IE still is the market leader and a huge component to other people will pass over your wonderful writing due to this problem.
Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite reason appeared to be on the internet the easiest factor to keep in mind of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while people consider issues that they plainly do not understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and defined out the entire thing with no need side effect , other people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thank you
I was very happy to seek out this internet-site.I wanted to thanks to your time for this wonderful read!! I undoubtedly having fun with every little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.
There are a few MUST HAVEs on my list. My iPod shuffle (I need my tunes), hat (right now its an UA hat, so Id love to try a different one), and my water bottle. I have to have water on me at all times.
I believe that avoiding packaged foods will be the first step to help lose weight. They can taste excellent, but prepared foods have very little nutritional value, making you feed on more just to have enough strength to get through the day. When you are constantly ingesting these foods, converting to cereals and other complex carbohydrates will let you have more vigor while taking in less. Good blog post.
I was suggested this website by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post is written by him as no one else know such detailed about my problem. You are incredible! Thanks!
I’ll right away grab your rss as I can’t in finding your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Kindly allow me understand so that I could subscribe. Thanks.
Hey generally there, You have inked a great job. I’ll surely digg it and for me suggest for you to my close friends. I’m sure they shall be benefited because of this site.
Hello Internet Admin, I realized that your On-Page SEO is not that great, for one you do not use almost all three H tags in your post, also My spouse and i notice that you’re not utilizing bold or even italics properly in your SEO optimisation. On-Page SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION means more now than ever since the new Google bring up to date: Panda. No lengthier are backlinks and pinging as well as sending out there a Feed the key to getting Google Pagerank or Alexa Ratings, You now NEED On-Page SEARCH ENGINE MARKETING. So what’s good On-Page SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION? First your current keyword must can be found in the name. Then that must appear in the URL. You must optimize your current keyword and make certain that it features a nice search term density of 3-5% inside your article with relevant LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing). Then you should spread most H1, H2, H3 tags within your article. Your Key phrase should include your 1st paragraph and in the last sentence of the page. You really should have relevant using Bold as well as italics of your keyword. There must be one internal connection to a page on your own blog and you ought to have one particular image through an alt tag which includes your search term…. wait there’s much more Now suppose i informed you there were a simple WordPress plugin that will does every one of the On-Page SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION, and automatically for you personally? That’s correct AUTOMATICALLY, just view this 4minute video for more info at. WordPress Search engine marketing Plugin
Thanks a lot for providing individuals with a very superb possiblity to discover important secrets from this site. It is always so great and also full of a great time for me personally and my office mates to visit the blog at least 3 times in a week to read through the newest tips you will have. And indeed, I am just at all times impressed with the very good tactics you serve. Some 1 facts on this page are surely the most beneficial we have all had.
fix your computer
Hec’est cool de trouver quelqu’un avec les memes idées à ce sujet, je repasserait plus souvent.
This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your excellent post. Also, I have shared your site in my social networks!
Very interesting points you have remarked, appreciate it for posting . “Women have been trained to speak softly and carry a lipstick. Those days are over.” by Bella Abzug.
Greetings, There’s no doubt that your web site might be having web browser compatibility issues. When I look at your web site in Safari, it looks fine however, when opening in I.E., it has some overlapping issues. I simply wanted to provide you with a quick heads up! Besides that, fantastic website!
I just love reading your writing, you display the greatest sound.
home during my house but I can nearly accept a considerably much less messy life style whether or not it had been everything like sporting small jogging sneakers. In the part most of these normal athletic shoes appear sneakily slim and glossy, nonetheless they offer almost everything toes need to have to own with no extra padding. The structure permits you to management your organic electricity and likewise versatility although jogging. The actual Adidas Adipure is created with extending cloth to mix having a base alongside with employs tooled midsole-outsole development. These attributes make sure you can don the actual shoe right after a finish and so they offer a right expertise. Probably the most well-liked factor with regards to minimal athletic footwear is certainly not it feels as though I am with out shoes although the defense the boot supplies. I love the feeling but ‘m pleased for that difficult anatomically spherical outsole in which allows me getaway cruise in excess of sidewalk, monitor, boulders and much more. I wouldn’t could wish to do by getting barefeet, yet it’s basic during these training sneakers. Moreover they provide extra grip for almost any ground predicament. They offer us any added increase to go farther and likewise boost our jogging instances. I’ve located that these sneakers are best for toes in almost any issue. They are light upon aching ft and i also could place them on for the entire day without soreness. These men and women support any ft no matter whether one typically demands specific sneakers you aren’t just because they fit for you personally to along with imitate the person’s foot. My spouse and i physical exercise as soon as or two times per week and they are generally resilient adequate to always result in the journey beside me. Whether or not I am planning for a go walking or maybe instruction for a race, I normally use my personalized reputable Adidas Adipure shoes. They could be modest working footwear however they give a biggest quantity of longevity and luxury. Piste operating is currently ever more common along with newcomers may well locate it a great deal much more intriguing and beneficial in comparison with normal street working. Trail operating can provide you with extreme cardiovascular coaching that a lot of highway working aren’t in a position to. The actual inclining as well as climbing down from acquainted with path operating gives interval along with bodyweight education which could income body needing bodyweight reduction and muscle mass tissue sculpting.
Hi, Neat post. There’s a problem with your web site in internet explorer, would check this… IE still is the market leader and a large part of folks will leave out your great writing because of this problem.
thank you for all your efforts that you have put with this. Very exciting information. Humanity is actually acquiring every one of the right technology for all your wrong causes. by Rich Buckminster Larger.
Sorry for my English.You made some good points there. I looked on the internet for the subject matter and found most people will approve with your site.
Thank you for this. Thats all I can say. You most definitely have produced this into something thats eye opening and critical. You clearly know so significantly about the subject, youve covered so several bases. Excellent stuff from this part with the internet.
Likely to commence a business venture around the refers to disclosing your products and so programs not just to individuals near you, remember, though , to several potential prospects more by way of the www often. earn funds
Hello, you used to write fantastic, but the last several posts have been kinda boring°K I miss your super writings. Past few posts are just a little out of track! come on!
I have been reading out some of your stories and i can claim clever stuff. I will definitely bookmark your blog.
Your blog is incredible dude. i really like to check out it everyday. incredibly nice layout and content material “
I came across this internet web site and I really should say I’m definitely overjoyed at what I’m seeing. I really like how you are able to truly feel such really like and such encouragement just on the website alone.
Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the net the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get irked while people consider worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks
I agree, but we all need to appreciate that adding Solar on their house is an asset which could increase the longer term worth of their building if / when they decide to sell. With the environment the way it is going we are not able to disregard any product or service that supplies free energy at no cost to both the customer and more importantly the world!
I love reading an article that will make people think. Also, thank you for allowing me to comment!
I almost was going to call it a night but but thankfully I found your post, god reading and thankyou for the info. shaved off some time and effort. I think i’ll have to come back inthe morning and study this one further its a little late now :) thanks!
I believe this is among the most important info for me. And i’m satisfied studying your article. However wanna remark on some normal things, The site style is perfect, the articles is in reality excellent : D. Excellent process, cheers
I’m impressed, I need to say. Really rarely do I encounter a blog that’s each educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Your concept is excellent; the issue is something that not enough persons are talking intelligently about. I’m very happy that I stumbled throughout this in my seek for one thing regarding this.Useful info!
I was very pleased to find this web-site.I wanted to thanks on your time for this excellent learn!! I positively enjoying each little bit of it and I’ve you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.more tips i found on !!!
You need to take part in a contest for among the best blogs on the web. I will recommend this site!some tips here!
I was very happy to search out this web-site.I wished to thanks for your time for this excellent learn!! I definitely enjoying each little little bit of it and I’ve you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.some tips here !!!
Oh my goodness! an incredible article dude. Thank you Nevertheless I’m experiencing problem with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody getting identical rss downside? Anyone who is aware of kindly respond. Thnkxmore tips i found on!
After I initially commented I clicked the -Notify me when new feedback are added- checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the identical comment. Is there any means you can take away me from that service? Thanks!
After research just a few of the blog posts in your web site now, and I truly like your means of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website listing and will be checking back soon. Pls take a look at my site as effectively and let me know what you think.
You know there are so many people out there who just keep their knowledge for themselves. I am happy that you decided to share yours. There will be amny commenters who will simply criticize but you dont have to worry abt them. Just keep on sharing.
fantastic submit, very informative. I ponder why the other specialists of this sector don’t notice this. You should continue your writing. I am sure, you’ve a great readers’ base already!
Aw, this was a really nice post. In idea I want to put in writing like this moreover – taking time and precise effort to make an excellent article… but what can I say… I procrastinate alot and certainly not appear to get one thing done.Useful info!
Your home is valueble for me. Thanks!…Useful info!
There are actually a variety of particulars like that to take into consideration. That may be a great point to bring up. I supply the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you convey up the place the most important thing will likely be working in sincere good faith. I don?t know if greatest practices have emerged around things like that, however I am positive that your job is clearly recognized as a good game. Each girls and boys really feel the affect of just a moment’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.
I used to be more than happy to find this web-site.I wanted to thanks in your time for this glorious learn!! I definitely enjoying every little little bit of it and I’ve you bookmarked to take a look at new stuff you weblog post.Useful info !!!
you’ve got an important weblog right here! would you like to make some invite posts on my blog?
I discovered your weblog web site on google and test a few of your early posts. Proceed to keep up the excellent operate. I simply extra up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking ahead to studying extra from you later on!…some tips here!
Aw, this was a really nice post. In concept I wish to put in writing like this moreover – taking time and precise effort to make a very good article… however what can I say… I procrastinate alot and in no way appear to get one thing done.more tips i found on!
There are some interesting cut-off dates in this article but I don’t know if I see all of them heart to heart. There’s some validity however I will take maintain opinion till I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we want extra! Added to FeedBurner as well
Spot on with this write-up, I truly assume this web site wants far more consideration. I’ll in all probability be once more to learn way more, thanks for that info.some tips here!
Hello just wanted to give you a brief heads up
and let you know a few of the pictures aren’t loading properly. I’m not
sure why but I think its a linking issue.
I’ve tried it in two different web browsers and both show the same results.
magnificent publish, very informative. I wonder why the other experts of this sector don’t understand this. You should continue your writing. I’m sure, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!
Hey! ?’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 4! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the excellent work!
Feel free to surf to my weblog ::
Hi! This is kind of off topic but I need some help from an established
blog. Is it very hard to set up your own blog? I’m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty fast. I’m thinking about creating my own but
I’m not sure where to begin. Do you have any points or suggestions? Many thanks
It’s very trouble-free to find out any matter on web as compared to textbooks, as I found this article at this site.
These are truly wonderful ideas in regarding blogging.
You have touched some pleasant points here. Any way keep up wrinting.
Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It actually used to be a entertainment account it.
Look complex to far introduced agreeable from you! By the way, how could we
communicate?
Excellent way of explaining, and pleasant paragraph to
obtain facts concerning my presentation subject,
which i am going to convey in academy.
Wonderful, what a blog it is! This blog presents valuable data to us, keep it up.
Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something.
I think that you can do with a few pics to drive
the message home a bit, but other than that, this is magnificent blog.
A fantastic read. I’ll definitely be back.
I have fun with, lead to I discovered exactly what I was taking a look for.
You’ve ended my four day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye
Attractive portion of content. I just stumbled upon your website and in accession capital to say that
I acquire actually loved account your blog posts.
Anyway I will be subscribing for your augment or even I achievement you get entry
to persistently fast.