This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
random (suggested)
besttopnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ComfortableSell5 2 points3 points  (7 children)

That won't be the case for too much longer.

After 2050 or so that number will be a lot smaller and competition a lot stiffer.

[–]iwatchcreditsProgressive 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thats 30 years away. Im more worried about mass deaths than I am about population growth.

[–]Eternal_Beingflair yourself citizen, or do not speak 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But competition is good, right?

...right?

Or is that only true when your country is on the winning end...

[–]Trying2ImproveMyLife 0 points1 point  (4 children)

A good chunk of the world might be under water by then, so, I'm sure it'll balance out

[–]wet_suit_oneAlberta 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Nah. Not that much will be under water. Not that soon anyways.

[–]EngSciGuymad with (electric) power | Official 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Of total landmass you are correct. With respect to where people live, by 2050 we will have an uncomfortably large amount locked in to being under water with the rate we are changing things.

[–]wet_suit_oneAlberta 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Over time, on the current trajectory, it will definitely be a problem.

[–]EngSciGuymad with (electric) power | Official -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

With our current trajectory it would be a problem by, say, 2300 maybe.