🚀 go-pugleaf

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!
> 
>         -- AK
> 
> --
> adam.kippes@pobox.com
> PGP keys available from servers