I have to agree on this in theory. I would warn, however, that many systems are insufficiently complex when too specific, or insufficiently specific when vague enough to be sufficiently complex. Which approach would you take? A highly specified system (like communism or socialism)? Or a low specificity system (democracy or anarchy)?And I'd use the 'system' to make it happen knowing full well that using the system reinforces the system. It is also the one certain peaceful mode of changing the system.
"More or less evenly" around resource clusters, or more or less evenly within cities between farms, or each person individually spaced approximately equally?A steady-state population spread out more or less evenly across the globe with water, food, and shelter available to all. Human connectedness depends upon meeting survival needs, safety and security needs.
Assuming that not every human feels connected to every other human in the same way, and family grouping clusters will exist, and farms will have to exist between population groups, how exactly would this even distribution be effected? Does this entail reproduction limitations? State schools? Vertical vs. horizontal distribution?
What approach to environmentalism are you taking then? Bringing water to areas where there was previously no water would result in massive environmental imbalance, the widespread extinction of low-water flora and fauna, the mass extinction of wild and migratory animals, a massive increase in planetary cloud cover from increased land surface evaporation, dramatic shifts in rainfall, lord-knows-what extent of seepage into ground water reserves, liquification of surface soils...Consequently, the first order of business is to work on the global water supply, i.e., making the water supply global.
I can only assume then you would approach environmentalism as a globally managed environmental practice versus a bordered wild-environment practice.
Does this entail the domestication of all wild species that exist in those environments, then? Or their extermination? What about the people who live there?On the other hand, if water was not an issue in the Middle East or Africa or the Outback or the Sonororan Desert or the Gobi, then food might be less of an issue.
Including desalination? Salinity of the oceans is one of the many, many factors that keeps the environment in check, so I would suggest that widespread desalination is probably a horrible idea to make water usable. Australia has been wrestling with this for a decade. And you Americans have been taking water from us Canadians for years at an unbelievably low cost to you, and a ridiculously high cost to us. We've been wrestling with it for years. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/1999/...ter990210.htmlMy next priority is working the water purification issue to make all water usuable.