Neil -
(I'm not trying to be needlessly argumentative, I just want to understand
your point and why you support it.) Now that I've posted a disclaimer,
here are my comments:
Neil Rest <NeilRest@TEZCAT.COM> replied to me:
>Anne V Stuecker <avs5@JUNO.COM> replied to me:
>>Wouldn't a more sound plan be to see that everyone has what they need
and that the world has no use for terms like "rich" and "poor"?
>"rich", "poor", "affluent" are to a great degree subjective.
I understand this, but I want to know what _you_ mean to say when you use
the word "affluence" to describe the solution to overpopulation.
>In my opinion, the overall evidence is completely convincing: Within
>two generations of universal material security, population growth would
>not only stop, but slight shrinkage would be likely.
"Universal material security" does not, to me, imply affluence. It means
that, as I said, everyone has what they need. Please define your terms
for me. Also, what is your source for this datum?
-- Anne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:30 PDT