|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto wrote:
>
> So, you're implying that in about 1000 years, we will have found the
> way to get rid of, at least, 3 billion people...
But everyone now alive will be centuries dead by then. At present
projections earth's population will peak at 10,000,000,000 at most,
and then go into decline after that, as the entire world becomes
developed, and couples for the most part decide that two kids is
enough.
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3C96344E.F370880E@topsurf.com...
> Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto wrote:
> and then go into decline after that, as the entire world becomes
> developed,
Hi, do you really think it is possible?
Earth would'nt stand that.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Jacquier wrote:
>
> 3C96344E.F370880E@topsurf.com...
> > and then go into decline after that, as the entire world becomes
> > developed,
>
> Hi, do you really think it is possible?
I meant "world" in the sense that it refers to human society.
> Earth would'nt stand that.
What? Would it complain?
Regards,
John
--
Rusty is rendering!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3C98E522.4C1AF05D@topsurf.com...
> Marc Jacquier wrote:
> >
news:
> > 3C96344E.F370880E@topsurf.com...
> > > and then go into decline after that, as the entire world becomes
> > > developed,
> >
> > Hi, do you really think it is possible?
>
> I meant "world" in the sense that it refers to human society.
I understood it that way
>
> > Earth would'nt stand that.
>
> What? Would it complain?
>
Indeed It began yet
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |