🚀 go-pugleaf

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. 

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.


> >
> >         -- 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/