Yawn. A number of factors cannot sustain this. Location, geography, resources, consumption, waste.

Simply put the impact is alarming. Even on the nukables. More energy, more products. The products today are consuming the most resource heavy productions in history, and require more products and services to utilise than at any other point. They aren't lessening with nukables, (renewable nuclear electricity) they're increasing, where any lifetime is redundant; on products like phones, computers, TVs, cars, every electronic, plastics, cosmetics, medicine, foods, products, houses, etc, into a population of increasing wealth demanding more products and services.

By geography the more population gains the more it has spread out, populating all over the planet, increasingly. Rather than theoretically at better points of management, lessening the affects caused. Any impact increasingly consumes resources affecting natural supplies, ground water, soil, trees, mines, crops, infrastructure changing that landscape adversely.

The problem of course it changes regardless. But by doubling the global population every 3 decades for the last 100 years, it has been devastating.

Unequivocally No. The population is at a tipping point. Unmanageable by every solution and system imagined. It cannot keep up with its needs and costs and towards this planet. If it does any impact will simply affect far more, rapidly.

Yawn. A number of factors cannot sustain this. Location, geography, resources, consumption, waste.

Simply put the impact is alarming. Even on the nukables. More energy, more products. The products today are consuming the most resource heavy productions in history, and require more products and services to utilise than at any other point. They aren't lessening with nukables, (renewable nuclear electricity) they're increasing, where any lifetime is redundant; on products like phones, computers, TVs, cars, every electronic, plastics, cosmetics, medicine, foods, products, houses, etc, into a population of increasing wealth demanding more products and services.

By geography the more population gains the more it had spread out, populating all over the planet, increasingly. Rather than theoretically at better points of management, lessening the affects caused. Any impact increasingly consumes resources affecting natural supplies, ground water, soil, trees, mines, crops, infrastructure changing that landscape adversely.

The problem of course it changes regardless. But by doubling the global population every 3 decades for the last 100 years, it has been devastating.

Unequivocally No. The population is at a tipping point. Unmanageable by every solution and system imagined. It cannot keep up with its needs and costs and towards this planet. If it does any impact will simply affect far more, rapidly.

Yawn. A number of factors cannot sustain this. Location, geography, resources, consumption, waste.

Simply put the impact is alarming. Even on the nukables. More energy, more products. The products today are consuming the most resource heavy productions in history, and require more products and services to utilise than at any other point. They aren't lessening with nukables, (renewable nuclear electricity) they're increasing, where any lifetime is redundant; on products like phones, computers, TVs, cars, every electronic, plastics, cosmetics, medicine, foods, products, houses, etc, into a population of increasing wealth demanding more products and services.

By geography the more population gains the more it had spread out, populating all over the planet, increasingly. Rather than theoretically at better points of management, lessening the affects caused. Any impact increasingly consumes resources affecting natural supplies, ground water, soil, trees, mines changing that landscape adversely.

The problem of course it changes regardless. But by doubling the global population every 3 decades for the last 100 years, it has been devastating.

Unequivocally No. The population is at a tipping point. Unmanageable by every solution and system imagined. It cannot keep up with its needs and costs and towards this planet. If it does any impact will simply affect far more, rapidly.

Yawn. A number of factors cannot sustain this. Location, geography, resources, consumption, waste.

Simply put the impact is alarming. Even on the nukables. More energy, more products. The products today are consuming the most resource heavy productions in history, and require more products and services to utilise than at any other point. They aren't lessening with nukables, (renewable nuclear electricity) they're increasing, where any lifetime is redundant; on products like phones, computers, TVs, cars, every electronic, plastic, cosmetic, medicine, foods, products, houses, etc into a population of increasing wealth demanding more products and services.

By geography the more population gains the more it had spread out, populating all over the planet, increasingly. Rather than theoretically at better points of management, lessening the affects caused. Any impact increasingly consumes resources affecting natural supplies, ground water, soil, trees, mines changing that landscape adversely.

The problem of course it changes regardless. But by doubling the global population every 3 decades for the last 100 years, it has been devastating.

Unequivocally No. The population is at a tipping point. Unmanageable by every solution and system imagined. It cannot keep up with its needs and costs and towards this planet. If it does any impact will simply affect far more rapidly.

Yawn. A number of factors cannot sustain this. Location, geography, resources, consumption, waste.

Simply put the impact is alarming. Even on the nukables. More energy, more products. The products today are consuming the most resource heavy productions in history, and require more products and services to utilise than at any other point. They aren't lessening with nukables, (renewable nuclear electricity) they're increasing, where any lifetime is redundant; on products like phones, computers, TVs, cars, every electronic, plastic, cosmetic, medicine, foods, products, houses, etc into a population of increasing wealth demanding more products and services.

By geography the more population gains the more it had spread out, populating all over the planet, increasingly. Rather than theoretically at better points of management, lessening the affects caused. Any impact increasingly consumes resources affecting natural supplies, ground water, soil, trees, mines changing that landscape adversely.

The problem of course it changes regardless. But by doubling the global population every 3 decades for the last 100 years, it has been devasting.

Unequivocally No. The population is at a tipping point. Unmanageable by every solution and system imagined. It cannot keep up with its needs and costs and towards this planet. If it does any impact will simply affect far more rapidly.

Yawn. A number of factors cannot sustain this. Location, geography, resources, consumption, waste.

Simply put the impact is alarming. Even on the nukables. More energy, more products. The products today are consuming the most resource heavy productions in history, and require more products and services to utilise than at any other point. They aren't lessening with nukables, (renewable nuclear electricity) they're increasing, where any lifetime is redundant; on products like phones, computers, TVs, cars, every electronic, plastic, cosmetic, medicine, foods, products, houses, etc into a population of increasing wealth demanding more products and services.

By geography the more population gains the more it had spread out, populating all over the planet, imcreasingly. Rather than theoretically at better points of management, lessening the affects caused. Any impact increasingly consumes resources affecting natural supplies, ground water, soil, trees, mines changing that landscape adversely.

The problem of course it changes regardless. But by doubling the global population every 3 decades for the last 100 years, it has been devasting.

Unequivocally No. The population is at a tipping point. Unmanageable by every solution and system imagined. It cannot keep up with its needs and costs and towards this planet. If it does any impact will simply affect far more rapidly.

Yawn. A number of factors cannot sustain this. Location, geography, resources, consumption, waste.

Simply put the impact is alarming. Even on the nukables. More energy, more products. The products today are consuming the most resource heavy productions in history, and require more products and services to utilise than at any other point. They aren't lessening with nukables, (renewable nuclear electricity) they're increasing, where any lifetime is redundant; on products like phones, computers, TVs, cars, every electronic, plastic, cosmetic, medicine, foods, products, houses, etc into a population of increasing wealth demanding more products and services.

By geography the more population gains the more it had spread out, populating all over the planet, imcreasingly. Rather than theoretically at better points of management, lessening the affects caused. Any impact increasingly consumes resources affecting natural supplies, ground water, soil, trees, mines changing that landscape adversely.

The problem of course it changes regardless. But by doubling the global population every 3 decades for the last 100 years, it has been devasting.

Unequivocally No. The population is at a tipping point. Unmanageable by every solutiom and system imagined. It cannot keep up with its needs and costs and towards this planet. If it does any impact will simply affect far more rapidly.

Yawn. A number of factors cannot sustain this. Location, geography, resources, consumption, waste.

Simply put the impact is alarming. Even on the nukables. More energy, more products. The products today are consuming the most resource heavy productions in history, and require more products and services to utilise than at any other point. They aren't lessening with nukables, (renewable nuclear electricity) they're increasing, where any lifetime is redundant; on products like phones, computers, TVs, cars, every electronic, plastic, cosmetic, medicine, foods, products, houses, etc into a population of increasing wealth demanding more products and services.

By geography the more population gains the more it had spread out, populating all over the planet, imcreasingly. Rather than theoretically at better points of management, lessening the affects caused. Any impact increasingly consumes resources affecting natural supplies, ground water, soil, trees, mines changing that landscape adversely.

The problem of course it changes regardless. But by doubling the global populatiom every 3 decades for the last 100 years, it has been devasting.

Unequivocally No. The population is at a tipping point. Unmanageable by every solutiom and system imagined. It cannot keep up with its needs and costs and towards this planet. If it does any impact will simply affect far more rapidly.