Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Erik Aronesty · Guest

FACTS:

[1] Places with less disease, more education and higher average
lifespans
have underpopulation issues.

[2] Places torn by war, disease and death have *overpopulation*
issues.

CONCLUSIONS:

If you really care about a sustainable future, you should work to
reduce disease and increase education, especially in the areas that
need it the most.

We>ve tried eugenics and facism, and forced resource limitations via
communism. Both have failed thus far.

Both sides (facists and communists) say that they were never really
"tried correctly". And I see that.

I also see the facts [1] and [2], and I am not so blind that I don>t
see the answer to a sustainable future staring me in the face.

Oz · Guest

Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com> writes
[quote]FACTS:

[1] Places with less disease, more education and higher average
lifespans
have underpopulation issues.

[2] Places torn by war, disease and death have *overpopulation*
issues.

CONCLUSIONS:

If you really care about a sustainable future, you should work to
reduce disease and increase education, especially in the areas that
need it the most.

We>ve tried eugenics and facism, and forced resource limitations via
communism. Both have failed thus far.

Both sides (facists and communists) say that they were never really
"tried correctly". And I see that.

I also see the facts [1] and [2], and I am not so blind that I don>t
see the answer to a sustainable future staring me in the face.
[/quote]
Note:

1) Happens in well developed and wealthy countries.
2) In poor underdeveloped countries.

Conclusion: increase world wealth.

Problem: this increases world pollution.

But then, overpopulation increases removal of wild areas.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Erik Aronesty · Guest

[quote]Conclusion: increase world wealth.
Problem: this increases world pollution.
[/quote]
True, increasing health without fostering women>s liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.

To address a these global, environmental issues, one must embark on a
holistic solutions.

Oz · Guest

Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com> writes
[quote]Conclusion: increase world wealth.
Problem: this increases world pollution.

True, increasing health without fostering women>s liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.
[/quote]
health? where did that come from?

However if you meant wealth, notice that women are more highly regarded,
more equal, and earn more in wealthy countries. As countries get
wealthier, so the women become more important.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Erik Aronesty · Guest

[quote]True, increasing health without fostering women>s liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.

health? where did that come from?
[/quote]
Common sense. I didn>t see where you got "wealth" from. Balanced
population is about equality, freedom, consensus, and participation -
not "wealth".

[quote]As countries get wealthier, so the women become more important.
[/quote]
Not if the country gets "wealthier" via income disparity. WE need a
new definition of the "wealth" of a country. Perhaps the average
income of the bottom 10%? IE: If the top 1% continue to get wealthy,
and the rest remain the same, then you don>t necessarily get a
corresponding boost in women>s rights.

Although money can be seen as a "vote", wealth is a red herring.
Freedom is about improving the technology of consensus, not increasing
wealth. Overpopulation is a result of restrictions in freedom and
resources.

Of course, the problem is that our existing systems of consensus favor
extremist and authoritatian views.

Special interests who prosper in the existing plurality system will
not advocate one that arrives at broader consensus. And the broad
population have not forcibly advocated one that arrives at broader
consensus, since they don>t have extreme views.

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

Another way of putting is: statisticians, thus far, are lousy
activists.

Dean Hoffman · Guest

On 9/17/03 6:30 PM, in article
3939595a.0309171530.63f51fd3@posting.google.com, "Erik Aronesty"
<erik@zoneedit.com> wrote:

[quote]FACTS:

[1] Places with less disease, more education and higher average
lifespans
have underpopulation issues.

[2] Places torn by war, disease and death have *overpopulation*
issues.

CONCLUSIONS:

If you really care about a sustainable future, you should work to
reduce disease and increase education, especially in the areas that
need it the most.

We>ve tried eugenics and facism, and forced resource limitations via
communism. Both have failed thus far.

Both sides (facists and communists) say that they were never really
"tried correctly". And I see that.

I also see the facts [1] and [2], and I am not so blind that I don>t
see the answer to a sustainable future staring me in the face.
[/quote]
I don>t quite catch the connection to ag here. I guess statement 1
flows in part from having enough to eat. Modern farming is one thing that
frees people to do other things like research for disease cures. It lets
people build cars, computers and all those other things that have let
society advance. It helps free people from having to worry about the next
meal.
U.S. consumers spend about 10% of their disposable income on food. About
20% of that goes to the farmer. That lets people buy all the other things
that make life better.

Dean

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Oz · Guest

Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com> writes
[quote]True, increasing health without fostering women>s liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.

health? where did that come from?

Common sense. I didn>t see where you got "wealth" from. Balanced
population is about equality, freedom, consensus, and participation -
not "wealth".
[/quote]
Maybe, but what comes first?
Countries seem to become more equal, free, have more concensus (dunno
about participation) the wealthier they become. More likely they all
have to improve together if they are to improve at all.

[quote]As countries get wealthier, so the women become more important.

Not if the country gets "wealthier" via income disparity.
[/quote]
Typically where the differences are *extreme* there are not enough
hyper-wealthy to offset the huge numbers of 'very poor'.

[quote]WE need a
new definition of the "wealth" of a country. Perhaps the average
income of the bottom 10%?
[/quote]
The middle 80% would be a better guide.

[quote]IE: If the top 1% continue to get wealthy,
and the rest remain the same, then you don>t necessarily get a
corresponding boost in women>s rights.
[/quote]
If the top 1% continue, then the effect is only 1% overall.
Ie, it>s very small.

[quote]Although money can be seen as a "vote", wealth is a red herring.
Freedom is about improving the technology of consensus, not increasing
wealth.
[/quote]
Freedom is the ability to do what you want within your limitations.

[quote]Overpopulation is a result of restrictions in freedom and
resources.
[/quote]
Hardly. Population reductions in highly authoritarian states has been
quite successful (eg russia and china). In the former it was primarily
due to restricted wealth, and the latter restricted freedom. The other
parameters, however, improved.

It>s certainly true in both these (and elsewhere in asia) that education
was seen as a means of increasing wealth, and there are quite strong
limitations on how many children you can properly educate to high school
level. Heck, the wife may have to go out to work (and so cannot have too
many kids). Once education becomes a real possibility for increased
wealth, population growth tends to drop. There are many examples from
the industrial revolution in the UK, onwards.

[quote]Of course, the problem is that our existing systems of consensus favor
extremist and authoritatian views.
[/quote]
Que?

[quote]Special interests who prosper in the existing plurality system will
not advocate one that arrives at broader consensus. And the broad
population have not forcibly advocated one that arrives at broader
consensus, since they don>t have extreme views.
[/quote]
A balance is required. I would say the UK (and indeed other countries)
are not far off some reasonable balance.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Erik Aronesty · Guest

[quote]Countries seem to become more equal, free, have more concensus (dunno
about participation) the wealthier they become. More likely they all
[/quote]
It usually comes after the freedom part. Revolution -> freedom ->
participatory government -> wealth.

[quote]Not if the country gets "wealthier" via income disparity.
Typically where the differences are *extreme* there are not enough
hyper-wealthy to offset the huge numbers of 'very poor'.
[/quote]
Approximately 500 billionaires in a handful of countries-including the
United States, France, Mexico, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia--have a
combined wealth equal to that of the poorest 52 percent of the people
on this planet, about 3 billion people.

If these 500 people>s income goes up by 10%... then the "average
income" of the *planet* goes up by 5%. That>s a lot of "freedom"
right there.

My point being that average income is not a useful measure, and nor
does it correlate, in any way to freedom. Iran is a very wealthy
nation. But only for the wealthy connected families.

[quote]WE need a
new definition of the "wealth" of a country. Perhaps the average
income of the bottom 10%?

The middle 80% would be a better guide.
[/quote]
Actually, I think both of those measures are poor. There are other
measures of wealth. Availability of low-cost food is a form of
"wealth" that is often hidden.

[quote]Freedom is the ability to do what you want within your limitations.
[/quote]
Yes. But there are other more complex freedoms, such as the freedom
to organize into labor unions and the freedom to issue your own
curency.

[quote]Hardly. Population reductions in highly authoritarian states has been
quite successful (eg russia and china). In the former it was primarily
[/quote]
China has a terrible overpopulation problem. Their program is hardly
what I>d call successful.

[quote]Of course, the problem is that our existing systems of consensus favor
extremist and authoritatian views.
Que?
[/quote]
Plurality voting encourages two-party systems. Approval, Ranked
voting, and proportional representation do not.

[quote]A balance is required. I would say the UK (and indeed other countries)
are not far off some reasonable balance.
[/quote]
These countries have made a move forward: Germany, Sweden,
Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Greece, Spain, Austria,
Australia, Mexico, Portugal, Japan, Russia, Italy, Ireland, Israel,
Poland, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Brazil, Nicaragua, Norway,
Finland, Venezuela, Scotland, Wales

U.K. is a bit behind... they>re still missing "freedom of speech" as a
basic right. And they>ve got some mixed rules regarding parlimentary
versus other elections.

U.S. is the furthest behind in this regard, with a 200-year old
electorate-based system that hasn>t changed.

Oz · Guest

Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com> writes
[quote]Countries seem to become more equal, free, have more concensus (dunno
about participation) the wealthier they become. More likely they all

It usually comes after the freedom part. Revolution -> freedom -
participatory government -> wealth.
[/quote]
I>m not sure you have the same definition of wealth that I am using in
this context. Primarily I am using it as a measure of disposable income,
that it the surplus after basic needs have been met. As every dictator
knows, a country mostly comprising of people struggling to survive is
easy to control. It>s when they have free time, and money to spend on
frivolous things (like entertainment) that they have time and energy to
complain about their lot.

Offhand I can>t think of any revolution that increased freedom in the
short-medium term and none that increased wealth. Usually the contrary.

Generally freedoms were given in order to prevent outrage and maintain a
*stable* government that increased everyone>s wealth.

[quote]Not if the country gets "wealthier" via income disparity.
Typically where the differences are *extreme* there are not enough
hyper-wealthy to offset the huge numbers of 'very poor'.

Approximately 500 billionaires in a handful of countries-including the
United States, France, Mexico, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia--have a
combined wealth equal to that of the poorest 52 percent of the people
on this planet, about 3 billion people.
[/quote]
Maybe, although I think that unlikely. However drastic redistribution
hasn>t been successful anywhere I can think of. Furthermore I wasn>t
considering it globally, but nationally.

[quote]If these 500 people>s income goes up by 10%... then the "average
income" of the *planet* goes up by 5%. That>s a lot of "freedom"
right there.
[/quote]
Now you are confusing wealth and income. Not a problem, so was I.
However we need to distinguish the two from now on.
Typically wealth is held in assets, and these are valued in competition
with others of similar wealth. A bar of gold has no value to a starving
man, and a picasso is not worth $100M if redistribution means nobody on
the planet has 1M.

Similarly a weeks work by a building labourer is worth about 1000 in the
UK, but move an african to the UK and he is worth precisely the same.
Move the UK labourer to africa and he gets $(a few ).

Redistribution will not solve that, it would merely devalue many things
'of worth' and result in hyperinflation that undoes all the things you
claim from redistribution. This has been regularly seen in revolutions
in the past.

Real wealth increases, and income increases, happen when a population
gets richer together. Often disparity remains the same, but it seems to
be the way things work most effectively. Otherwise Cuba would be a very
wealthy and high income country, which it isn>t.

[quote]My point being that average income is not a useful measure, and nor
does it correlate, in any way to freedom. Iran is a very wealthy
nation. But only for the wealthy connected families.
[/quote]
They are living in a revolution, no?
Compare growthrates with, say, europe after WW2.
In any case that>s not my point. There is little point comparing
countries with a vastly differing history and at vastly different stages
of growth.

My point is that taken worldwide there is a strong correlation with
median disposable income and freedom.

There is a strong correlation when freedoms are removed, and reductions
in growthrate (see africa, korea for a bunch of good examples).

Now the question is which comes first, freedom or income.
When freedom is handed out, it generally doesn>t produce increased
income. When incomes rise, we tend to find increases in freedom.

I suspect that those governing countries where incomes are rising (and
which means the governing body is also getting wealthier) soon realise
that disruption results in decreasing of their wealth. Better to keep a
population happy and producing by handing out freedoms than to reduce
total incomes (and thus the ruling bodies slice).

That>s what happened historically in the UK, and I am pretty sure the
faster growing parts of asia and south america. Better to have 5% of 1M
than 20% of 100k.

Eventually you get to the point when it>s not in the interest of the
population to enforce more distribution because the net effect is to
decrease their income/wealth. It was tried in the UK in the 1950>s to
80>s, and it failed dismally. It>s being tried in europe now, and
failing dismally. Maximising everyone>s income/wealth (that is growth of
these) seems to demand some level of inequality, just as society itself
limits freedom by passing laws that are inherently removal of freedoms.

[quote]WE need a
new definition of the "wealth" of a country. Perhaps the average
income of the bottom 10%?

The middle 80% would be a better guide.

Actually, I think both of those measures are poor. There are other
measures of wealth. Availability of low-cost food is a form of
"wealth" that is often hidden.
[/quote]
Indeed, but I wasn>t comparing across countries, but within them.
There are a variety of measures that attempt to do just this, the
hamburger exchange rate being one (although that really excludes the
poor). What is clear is that relatively poor people in poor countries
often have a higher effective disposable income than poor people in
wealthy countries with many times their income.

I know, I>ve seen it.

[quote]Freedom is the ability to do what you want within your limitations.

Yes. But there are other more complex freedoms, such as the freedom
to organize into labor unions and the freedom to issue your own
curency.
[/quote]
These are included in the above, and neither are individual freedoms but
group freedoms. Notice that much of europe has just given up the latter;
are they now less free?

[quote]Hardly. Population reductions in highly authoritarian states has been
quite successful (eg russia and china). In the former it was primarily

China has a terrible overpopulation problem. Their program is hardly
what I>d call successful.
[/quote]
Then look at the statistics. Compare their population growthrates with,
say, india, over the last 50 years.

[quote]Of course, the problem is that our existing systems of consensus favor
extremist and authoritatian views.
Que?

Plurality voting encourages two-party systems. Approval, Ranked
voting, and proportional representation do not.
[/quote]
They bring their own problems. Take a look at israel where proportional
representation makes for weak government in thrall to minor viewpoints.
generally, IMHO, two party government - no matter how unfair - results
in better government.

[quote]A balance is required. I would say the UK (and indeed other countries)
are not far off some reasonable balance.

These countries have made a move forward: Germany, Sweden,
Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Greece, Spain, Austria,
Australia, Mexico, Portugal, Japan, Russia, Italy, Ireland, Israel,
Poland, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Brazil, Nicaragua, Norway,
Finland, Venezuela, Scotland, Wales

U.K. is a bit behind... they>re still missing "freedom of speech" as a
basic right.
[/quote]
Eh? Since when was scotland and wales not part of the UK?
As to freedom of speech, do you wish to allow racist incitement?
Otherwise, offhand, I can>t think of any limitations to freedom of
speech that are unreasonable (eg libel).

[quote]And they>ve got some mixed rules regarding parlimentary
versus other elections.
[/quote]
Que?

[quote]U.S. is the furthest behind in this regard, with a 200-year old
electorate-based system that hasn>t changed.
[/quote]
One of the disadvantages of losing the monarchy.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Edward Glamkowski · Guest

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
[quote]"Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> wrote in message
These countries have made a move forward: Germany, Sweden,
Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Greece, Spain, Austria,
Australia, Mexico, Portugal, Japan, Russia, Italy, Ireland, Israel,
Poland, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Brazil, Nicaragua, Norway,
Finland, Venezuela, Scotland, Wales

U.K. is a bit behind...

scotland and wales are part of the UK
[/quote]
I don>t know about Wales, but Scotland is allowed a great deal
of autonomy. Of course, he probably meant England is a bit
behind...

It is entirely possible Scotland uses a different voting method
for their local elections then does England. I don>t know for
for a fact that they do, I only note that it is plausible.

Jim Webster · Guest

"Edward Glamkowski" <eglamkowski@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:c49f8b5e.0309250451.4bd816a@posting.google.com...
[quote]"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
"Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> wrote in message
These countries have made a move forward: Germany, Sweden,
Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Greece, Spain, Austria,
Australia, Mexico, Portugal, Japan, Russia, Italy, Ireland, Israel,
Poland, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Brazil, Nicaragua, Norway,
Finland, Venezuela, Scotland, Wales

U.K. is a bit behind...

scotland and wales are part of the UK

I don>t know about Wales, but Scotland is allowed a great deal
of autonomy. Of course, he probably meant England is a bit
behind...
[/quote]
god alone knows why, as England doesn>t have a parliament at all, England
shares the same UK parliament as Scotland and Wales.
[quote]
It is entirely possible Scotland uses a different voting method
for their local elections then does England. I don>t know for
for a fact that they do, I only note that it is plausible.
[/quote]
As I live a mere 90 miles from the Scots border I think I would have noticed
if they had any major constitutional differences.
The main law making body with the final say for scotland and wales is the EU
parliament with the UK parliament in Westminster coming second.. Same as it
is for England. Various parts of the UK do have regional assemblies which
are elected by differing methods, some involving some PR, and then eveyone
uses some PR for the EU parliament.

Jim Webster

Edward Glamkowski · Guest

Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
[quote]Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com> writes

Eventually you get to the point when it>s not in the interest of the
population to enforce more distribution because the net effect is to
decrease their income/wealth. It was tried in the UK in the 1950>s to
80>s, and it failed dismally. It>s being tried in europe now, and
failing dismally. Maximising everyone>s income/wealth (that is growth of
these) seems to demand some level of inequality, just as society itself
limits freedom by passing laws that are inherently removal of freedoms.
[/quote]
The income inequality, in a society with sufficient freedoms,
allows those on the bottom to dream of getting to the top.

It>s that dream of social mobility that induces people to
work harder and produce more. They do it for themselves,
but it has the side effect of boosting everyone else swept
up in the process (i.e. those who become employed by it).

[quote]Indeed, but I wasn>t comparing across countries, but within them.
There are a variety of measures that attempt to do just this, the
hamburger exchange rate being one (although that really excludes the
poor). What is clear is that relatively poor people in poor countries
often have a higher effective disposable income than poor people in
wealthy countries with many times their income.

I know, I>ve seen it.
[/quote]
Wha... ?

The poor (though not necessarily the homeless) in the US
commonly have TV, radios, cel phones, cars, etc. They
(often including the homeless) smoke cigarettes, drink
alcohol and do who knows what drugs.

Are you saying the Chinese peasant making $1 a day has more
of these things then american poor people do?

Or is the US just the exception that proves the rule? :-p

A lot has to do with how you define "poor", eh?
Poor only relative to others in the same country?
Poor according to some absolute scale?

Can we compare the $1 a day chinese peasant with a person in
the US earning only $1 a day? Even though it is literally
not possible to earn so little as $1 a day in the US?

[quote]Hardly. Population reductions in highly authoritarian states has been
quite successful (eg russia and china). In the former it was primarily

China has a terrible overpopulation problem. Their program is hardly
what I>d call successful.

Then look at the statistics. Compare their population growthrates with,
say, india, over the last 50 years.
[/quote]
Chinese population control methods have been quite effective,
it>s true.

But I wouldn>t say China had an overpopulation problem, per se.
Certainly the country has enough resources and arable land to
support a much larger population then it does now.

The problem is inefficient use of resources. Maybe they like it
that way - traditional agricultural practices instead of massive
agribusiness industrial farms, for example, may be deemed as
highly desirable. But it>s not an overpopulation based on the
limits of the land, rather it>s based on the limits of what is
socially desirable and acceptable.

It>s like when people in the US complain about overpopulation
here. WTF? There>s SO MUCH empty land in the US, it>s mind
boggling. And I don>t mean out in AZ or NV, but even in
places like VA, SC, NC and other environmentally pleasant
locales. You can literally drive 300 miles across western
Virginia and see only the occassional farm. I>ve made the
trip myself. More than once.

There>s room enough in the US to average ~80 people per square
mile. Where I>m originally from in NJ averages 600 people per
square mile and it is a sleepy, quiet suburban town with no
noticeable overcrowding at all. The AVERAGE population density
in NJ is around 1200.

China>s present population density is ~360 people per sq. mi.

There>s certainly physically space enough for everyone.

[quote]U.S. is the furthest behind in this regard, with a 200-year old
electorate-based system that hasn>t changed.

One of the disadvantages of losing the monarchy.
[/quote]
The problem with complaining about a 200 year old electorate based
system that hasn>t changed is that we>re one of the oldest democratic
styled governments presently in existance. With a proven track
record like that, why take the risk of screwing it up royally?

If it ain>t broke...

I know you (Erik) are trying to argue that it *IS* broken, but
if that were true we likely wouldn>t be having this discussion!

If anything, we need to regress back closer to what once was,
since we have lost some of the original character and intent.
Obviously not things like slavery, but, for example, I think
the XVII amendment was a horrible idea.

Oz · Guest

Edward Glamkowski <eglamkowski@angelfire.com> writes
[quote]Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com> writes

Eventually you get to the point when it>s not in the interest of the
population to enforce more distribution because the net effect is to
decrease their income/wealth. It was tried in the UK in the 1950>s to
80>s, and it failed dismally. It>s being tried in europe now, and
failing dismally. Maximising everyone>s income/wealth (that is growth of
these) seems to demand some level of inequality, just as society itself
limits freedom by passing laws that are inherently removal of freedoms.

The income inequality, in a society with sufficient freedoms,
allows those on the bottom to dream of getting to the top.
[/quote]
That is so in the US, and certainly seems so from what I have seen in
asia, and even parts of n.africa. What>s more they are working like
stink to get there, with varying degrees of success.

[quote]It>s that dream of social mobility that induces people to
work harder and produce more. They do it for themselves,
but it has the side effect of boosting everyone else swept
up in the process (i.e. those who become employed by it).
[/quote]
That is my view.

[quote]Indeed, but I wasn>t comparing across countries, but within them.
There are a variety of measures that attempt to do just this, the
hamburger exchange rate being one (although that really excludes the
poor). What is clear is that relatively poor people in poor countries
often have a higher effective disposable income than poor people in
wealthy countries with many times their income.

I know, I>ve seen it.

Wha... ?

The poor (though not necessarily the homeless) in the US
commonly have TV, radios, cel phones, cars, etc. They
(often including the homeless) smoke cigarettes, drink
alcohol and do who knows what drugs.

Are you saying the Chinese peasant making $1 a day has more
of these things then american poor people do?
[/quote]
I did say 'relatively' poor.
As an example many call centres in the UK have moved to india.
They employ graduates, and from my contact with them, they are pretty
smart and efficient.

Now call centre payrates in the UK are very low indeed and most would be
classified at the bottom of the UK payscale. In india, I am assured,
they pay about 25% of the UK rate and have queues of well qualified
graduates waiting for jobs. The reason being that 25% of the UK salary
buys you a fine lifestyle in india.

That>s a particularly good example, but in many places there are farmers
who consider themselves 'middle class' but who probably don>t sell more
than $1000 or two of produce a year. This (over a period) gives them
what they consider a fine lifestyle, with TV, mobile phones and some
sort of transportation. They feel quite 'well off'.

[quote]A lot has to do with how you define "poor", eh?
Poor only relative to others in the same country?
Poor according to some absolute scale?
[/quote]
Poor is only ever at some relative scale, as is rich.
Even modestly rich=poor people in the west live in conditions so
superior even henry VIII (literally) couldn>t even imagine them.

[quote]Can we compare the $1 a day chinese peasant with a person in
the US earning only $1 a day? Even though it is literally
not possible to earn so little as $1 a day in the US?
[/quote]
You can, but I doubt it achieves much.

[quote]It>s like when people in the US complain about overpopulation
here. WTF? There>s SO MUCH empty land in the US, it>s mind
boggling. And I don>t mean out in AZ or NV, but even in
places like VA, SC, NC and other environmentally pleasant
locales. You can literally drive 300 miles across western
Virginia and see only the occassional farm. I>ve made the
trip myself. More than once.
[/quote]
In england it>s VERY hard to find anywhere where you can>t see a house.
If it weren>t for the odd tree, that is.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Oz · Guest

Edward Glamkowski <eglamkowski@angelfire.com> writes
[quote]According the http://www.statistics.gov.uk we have the following
breakdowns as of 2001:

England: 49,139,000 people vs. 50,356 sq miles = 975
Wales: 2,903,000 people vs. 8,019 sq miles = 362

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/
Scotland: 5,062,011 people vs. 30,418 sq miles = 166
[/quote]
and you previously quoted:

==================
You can literally drive 300 miles across western
Virginia and see only the occassional farm.

There>s room enough in the US to average ~80 people per square
mile. Where I>m originally from in NJ averages 600 people per
square mile and it is a sleepy, quiet suburban town with no
noticeable overcrowding at all. The AVERAGE population density
in NJ is around 1200.

China>s present population density is ~360 people per sq. mi.
=================

So
england has three times the population density of china,
wales has the same population density as china,
and scotland has half the population density.

or
england has 12 times the population density of US,
wales has 4 population density as china,
and scotland has twice the population density.

Hmmm.

We are a tad overpopulated then ....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Michael Saunby · Guest

"Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:$GSgJXA14Fd$Ew78@btopenworld.com...
....
[quote]
So
england has three times the population density of china,
wales has the same population density as china,
and scotland has half the population density.

or
england has 12 times the population density of US,
wales has 4 population density as china,
and scotland has twice the population density.

Hmmm.

We are a tad overpopulated then ....

[/quote]
Beats being under-populated, try comparing with figures for places such as
Australia and Africa to see the poverty that comes with large spaces and
too few people.

Michael Saunby


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture Forum
Page 1 of 1