> Of which 70% is water. That would put the population density per square kilometer with 13 billion people up to 68, roughly that of Ireland (which has lots of

> Of which 70% is water. That would put the population density per square kilometer with 13 billion people up to 68, roughly that of Ireland (which has lots of rural areas and farms). > But I think you'll agree that most people don't want to live in a desert, or Antartica, or on top of a mountain. The United States has plenty of mountains and deserts, but many parts of it still have vastly higher population density that the number the alarmists are worried about. The population density of California (which has deserts and mountains all over the place) is about 93. The population density of New York State (which still has quite a large amount of farms and woodlands) is about 159. Heck, the population density of Indiana, which to a first approximation is just a big corn field, is about 71 per square kilometer. That's still less than the 68 per square km that's being touted as a doomsday scenario. > Maybe nutrient-rich soil? Clean water? Wrong, and wrong. Modern farming doesn't require "nutrient-rich soil", and water shortages are a regional thing, not a world-wide thing.