[quote=@DarkwolfX37] >In large part because we stopped investing in it. Bleh. Anywhere as soon as our lifetimes. Not even counting the almost inevitable nuclear war coming up, not enough countries are doing renewable resource advancement, and if we get a republican president then that's a guaranteed stop in pretty much all progress on it in the us. On overpopulation, we're already starving half the world, and people are multiplying exponentially. We'll have a billion more in a generation or sooner, we don't have enough land left for housing or food, and any land we do take is further harming the environment. Again, as soon as our lifetimes we could run out of planet. The sooner we get to work making mars livable to some degree, the sooner we can go into livable planets outside the solar system, and the sooner we can stop worrying about needing to limit population. Bonus points if we can get rid of some of the class disparity across the planet so we'll have less starving or dying of disease, and perfect score if we can get a peaceful easing into anarchy like I dream of. Obviously not likely by any stretch, but hey, it solves all our problems. [/quote] This is accurate. But with a several trillion dollar debt, what do you expect? Liberals will spend it all on letting more people sign up for welfare. I don't know if you're aware of how rare Earth-like planets are. It's entirely probable that this is the only inhabitable planet in the universe, but I won't argue this since you believe in an infinite universe, while I believe in a finite one. Half the world isn't starving. Less than a billion are. The environment isn't as bad as a lot of propaganda makes it out to be. We do need to fix some of the policies, though. Deforestation being one of them.