Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, at least for the time bing, the Great Plains are somewhat necessary in order to supply the world with mass quantities of wheat and corn.
The problem, though, is irrigation, especially in the western portions of these states. There are reports that the Ogallala Acquifer is slowly, but surely, running out of water. This will determine the future of agriculture on the Great Plains, along with the equally slow, but steady, decline of the small town on the plains.
That irrigation percentage in Nebraska is highly elevated and definitely not sustainable in the longer term- even with the deeper stratfied depth of the Ogallala Aquifer in the area.
Western Civilization peaked in the 1980s and other Civilizations are not ever going to cut the mustard. We have witnessed a peak akin to the period 200BC - 400AD. Although the UN has forecast overall peak world population ~ 2050AD (and the US sooner) all indicators hint at an even more aggressive inflection and move into decline. De development is already under way. By the 22nd century a new Age of Migrations is likely. So, the loss of settlement will be a lagging indicator of civilizational failure.
This is a good point. Sparsely populated isn't the same as unpopulated and there are some micros in the area that apparently are stable, same population as in 2000, or even somewhat growing.
[url]
[url]
[url]
[url]
Hence part of why I was tempted to say "maybe some" or the like.
Yes, believe it or not, some people do actually live out here.
No-one will even notice if we give North Dakota back to the Native Americans, we can just give the Interstate 29 part to Minnesota.
Except for people who eat food or use oil
Just because there aren't a lot of people on the ground doesn't mean we aren't still going to town on the land growing a lot of crops, raising livestock and pumping out oil.
That irrigation percentage in Nebraska is highly elevated and definitely not sustainable in the longer term- even with the deeper stratfied depth of the Ogallala Aquifer in the area.
I agree.
A crop like corn, which needs a decent amount of rainfall, is best suited to states like Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and yes Nebraska, but it must be EASTERN/CENTRAL Nebraska; western NE, most of Kansas, North Dakota, etc, are too dry for corn, and those areas are planted with wheat, which is less water-dependent.
I have noticed on maps of Nebraska that there is significant corn acreage in western Nebraska, no doubt propped up by the Ogallala Acquifer. This can't last much longer..
A crop like corn, which needs a decent amount of rainfall, is best suited to states like Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and yes Nebraska, but it must be EASTERN/CENTRAL Nebraska; western NE, most of Kansas, North Dakota, etc, are too dry for corn, and those areas are planted with wheat, which is less water-dependent.
I have noticed on maps of Nebraska that there is significant corn acreage in western Nebraska, no doubt propped up by the Ogallala Acquifer. This can't last much longer..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
question?
