🚀 go-pugleaf

klaatu wrote:
> 
> Chris wrote:
> >
> > Adam Kippes wrote:
> > >
> > > In <36603EED.884DD247@earthlink.net>, Chris <lightpony@earthlink.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Was there less poverty when there were fewer people on this earth?
> > >
> > > > > > Maybe not...but it was less widespread.
> > >
> > > > > What does that mean? Until not so long ago, there were (compared to today)
> > > > > very few people on earth and virtually all of them were dirt poor.
> > >
> > > > It means less people = less of anything - wealth, poverty, cities,
> > > > roads. You name it.
> > >
> > > To put it as politely as possible... you are a fatuous idiot.
> >
> > To put it slightly more politely - less still = less. I can see where
> > getting wasted by such a basic yet elegant principle would cause you
> > some discomfort. but I'm guessing who or whatever you are channeling
> > about relative levels of global poverty can consult Ramtha or some other
> > multiple life deity for a check on absolute levels of poverty by epoch.
> > The best you're going to get on today's model is that the poor have more
> > consumer items - but if one measures poverty by lack of domicile or meal
> > (the only real measures) it becomes evident that less total people =
> > less poor people. I don't know of any society ( and melissa's ex. of
> > China was apt) that has bred itself up from poverty on raw numbers. Do
> > you?
> >
> > Now try and put on a happy face - I'm going back to my prayer mat!
> 
> Enjoy yourself there. Look at the whole thing from the futurist prospective,
> when in about 20 or 30 years they have finally gotten around to true
> self-metaprogramming nanotech, it won't _matter_ how many people there are,
> because the Engines of Creation will be quite capable of converting damned
> near anything into damned near anything.

Oh I'm guessing you've heard the nano tech guy on Art Bell....

> But supposing we don't go that route, and also don't Blow Up The Big One. As
> automation increases, we would do quite well to bring down the population
> levels to the point where we needn't totally rape the ecology to provide mere
> creature-comfort to a world full of drones who are needed (for now) for work
> that would be better done by robots. The ideal is a very high level of
> unobstrusive technology that essentially supports itself in steady-state mode
> while turning out very high-tech products such as medicines and refrigerators
> and teledata comtech and effective transportation _at sustainable rates with
> no planned obsolescence_. Unlimited Growth Models are obviously a thing of the
> past.

We are Borg - we will please you???

I kind of like the idea - you been reading my mind then?
 
> > >
> > >         -- AK
> > >
> > > --
> > > adam.kippes@pobox.com
> > > PGP keys available from servers
> 
> --
>     Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
>           Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited.
>   Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
>  Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
> Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow.      http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/