Replies

And what about the next generation, when all those people living on one acre in Texas have 2.5 - 3 children apiece? And the generation after that? What ever quality of life is theoretically available to the current number of people on earth, deteriorates with each successive generation that is larger than the one before. Remember the wonderful pioneer era in this country, when hard-working people needed only to stake their claim to 20 or 40 acres of free land, and then settle down to improving their' families' standard of living? That's no longer an option. With continued population growth, the acre in Texas won't be an option either (and by the way, that calculation assumes that all roads, farms, ranches, parks, wildlife habitats, etc. are eliminated).

Nobody is proposing that we set up texas as the sole place for the worlds population, it's an example. Do the math for the worlds land area vs. population. See how much land per person we have then.

What ever quality of life is theoretically available to the current number of people on earth, deteriorates with each successive generation that is larger than the one before.

If this were true, the quality of life would have been deteriorating for a long time as population has continued to grow. It hasn't. Quality of life continues to improve for most.

Quality of life in countries that are poor and often refered to as "3rd world" is not low because of population. It is low because of a lack of FREEDOM. Tyranny and government oppression reduces quality of life, not population growth.