[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
...


**You have ZERO idea. None, whatsoever. Every city in Australia (save
one)
has tough water restrictions in place. Most of Australia is in the middle
of
drought. Not only can we not feed a population much larger than it is at
present, but there is not enough water to drink. Washing cars is a memory
for most city dwellers. There is not enough for that. We live on the
coast
for good reason. It's nice. There's adequate water, plenty of trees and
temperatures are more benign.

100 million people would turn Australia into a third world ********.
Australian soils are ancient, fragile and lack fertility. Few crops will
grow in most of the country.


If you had sense you'd mine the uranium and build nuke desalination
plants.

**For what? 50 years. That is a short term solution. At best. BTW: Have you
ever tasted desalinated water? It ain't that great.


Fifty years of ****ting on the ground and turning it over would make
the soil cropworthy. Once you had plants down the climate would change
somewhat.

**In 200 years, our soils have become worse, not better.


300 million people are turning the US into a Third World ********, on
the other hand, so 50 rather than 100 million population is probably a
better goal. You have a point there.

**Of course. Australia is already at bursting point. You seem to think that,
because Australia has a similar land size to that of the US, that it can
support a similar sized population. That is not the case. Australia is a
very ancient land. The US is not. As a consequence, the US has many areas of
very rich soils and far fewer areas of very low rainfall.

Trevor Wilson