Race for the Arctic - hot war in no longer frozen hell?
 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...604338,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...579265,00.html

The future looks exciting. Natural ressources are a prime argument why to expect wars in the future. Different to my usual, more relaxed stand regarding Russia, here I would agree that one needs to keep them under tight surveillance - not as if western powers wouldn't also aggressively push into the Arctic, but still...

As opposed to limited resources not being a factor in the wars of the past?

Don't many people think we live in an age of peace and big wars between the major powers have become unimaginable? western-Eastern-Chinese wars over borderlines and ideologies - are unlikely,sure. Wars between these powers over gasfields and sweet water reservoirs and oil - that is something different.

Such wars in the future are not a given. But they are a reasonable possibility of how the future could turn out. Hot proxy wars about these and other ressources, all three of them, already are being fought, in Africa (ores), South America (genetic and pharmaceutical ressources, oil, ores) and the Middle East (sweet water, oil).

All the better reason to stop our rampant population growth.

It seems that every argument comes back to overpopulation.

Of course. Overpopulation is behind most of our problems, for example that race to the Arctic resources. Would we need them if there were only 100 million humans in the whole earth? Obviously not.

Many of the current thrid world countries wouldn't see poverty and hunger at all if their population had a reasonable size. But they don't, and there do many problems begin.

Sounds like pure paradise to me. Just a few more than there are living in Germany today - but scattered around all the globe - I love the mere idea of it. Fantastic. :yeah:

And many of our problems - would just solve themselves.

"be fruitful and multiply" - if so many absurd things today can be charged as hate speech, I wonder why this crime against humanity (that's what that statement in my view is, and nothing else, for all the suffering and dying and misery that comes directly from it and means doom for hundreds of millions) does not get rated as hate speech, too. Control of population size is key to all and everything else. Without it, you can forget all idealism and plans and aid projects and technological progress, it'S not a question of "if" crisis from uncontrolled birth rates occur, but only "when".

But even if the Russians do have the geological evidence to justify under law the expansion of their sea border it will be refuted and denied for political reasons.

Let's wait for the geological evidence they can produce. What they have come up with so far has not found the wide acceptance of the international (non-politcal) academic community. So far, between claim and evidence there still is a huge gap, and a "war of data".

Which is an argument in favour of marriage...:rotfl:

Maybe because when it was written we didn't have the overpopulation problems we have today? Indeed had people NOT been fruitful and multiplied back then perhaps neither of us would be around for you to put me on your ignore list...

But hey, never miss a chance to slam other peoples beliefs right Skybird? :yeah:

Good point, August. Too bad SB won't know what that point was.:) I wondered, too, if Skybird would be willing to give up his place on Earth for the good of the planet? :hmmm:

Only 100 million people scattered over the Earth? I'm guessing it would be fairly primitive since there wouldn't be enough people to keep the current infrastructure functional for long.

Yeah i'm thinking 100 million is pretty small. Maybe 2.5 - 3 billion would be a more realistic number that would allow us to continue living in the 21st century.

Sounds awefully repressive, Skybird. And is certainly against our nature.

I find it funny that the same lefties who cry about overpopulation are the ones railing the loudest against measures that would help control the population (war, famine, disease, etc.).

I'm pretty sure that your ideas of repressing speech and population controls would be human rights abuses, as well, Skybird.