Selfishness and Society

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Yep. Same old finger pointing at ugly Americans by soapbox standers, and still nothing in the way of practical, realistic solutions to be offered. Demolition, but no construction.

Sometimes destruction must precede creativity.

On the other hand, what is practical and realistic about capitalism? I see how it creates large profits for a few who choose to play by its crooked rules, and impoverishes the rest. From where I stand, corporate capitalism in no way engages practically and realistically with establishing meaningful human communities, to say nothing of offering a way that humans can live in balance with the rest of life. To call critics of an impractical and unrealistic, ultimately unworkable way of life themselves unpractical and unrealistic seems to be evading the problem. No sane solutions can be reached within the selfish paradigm. For sane solutions, we will need to broaden our scope from selfishness and even well-meaning self interest at the exclusion of community considerations, to a more cooperative model.

How's that for practical? Cooperation? Community? Concern for others and environment? Or is that too dreamy-eyed?

"You may say that I'm a dreamer/but I'm not the only one."

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

nothing in the way of practical, realistic solutions to be offered. Demolition, but no construction.

Hi juantoo. Question for you: what do you find impractical about small-scale regionalism and cooperative, subsistence-oriented economies?

Originally Posted by Pathless

industrial civilization (read: capitalism, socialism, marxism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.) out; tribalism and regionalism in.

quote in context: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...tml#post144630

I recognize that this would be a radical departure from existing social structures (such that they are) and we may need to envision some more intermediate/transitional steps if such small-scale, interconnected societies are a viable goal--but I guess my question is, do you think that small-scale regionalism within the United States is possible or desirable?

It would certainly be a change in direction from the globalization trajectory. Assuming that globalization isn't a given, or necessary, or even desirable, how does small-scale regionalism, with a focus on localized agriculture and community structures, sound to you? It wouldn't necessarily need to be a move towards isolationism. I think that communities would need and want to maintain both social and trade connections with other nearby communities. What it would be is a fairly radical departure from the global paradigm: one where the focus has shifted from global trade and maximum production and consumption to more regional trade and subsistence-level utilization of land and energy.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Yup. Tribes. I know--for some of you, that is a horrible, primitive thought which dooms us to meager lives of scraping "resources" for survival and competing vilely with other animals!

I can't help but wonder how this can be made practical for a populatiuon of 6 billion and growing. What are these hunter / gatherer tribes going to hunt, feral cats?

Originally Posted by Pathless

For you, then, I have a question: what has your experience of capitalism been like?

This enters an entirely different domain. My direct experience with capitalism is a bit mixed, but it is hard to deny the mixed blessings to civilization brought about by capitalism. Hunter-gatherers did not put a man on the moon, capitalism put several there, and sent probes to all of the planets, the sun and a comet. Hunter-gatherers did not come up with diagnostic equipment to detect and help treat (and getting ever closer to cures) some pretty nasty diseases. Hunter-gatherers did not figure out ways to make food safer and food storage safer beyond pits and clay jars (some of which by today's standards are quite toxic). Hunter-gatherers did not mechanize drudge work to free up time for play. Are there trade offs, yes, there are some. But the picture is not as bad as the "cup is half empty" crowd would have us believe.

Originally Posted by Pathless

My answer to that question is that we compete vilely with other animals (humans) for refined resources and reified abstractions (play the stock markets much?), and we are completely disconnected from nature while heedlessly consuming nature's "products."

It cannot last. That is the reality we are dealing with.

I sympathize with the disconnect from nature, but it is still a bit extreme to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Five, ten, thirty; the figures vary, but one thing is clear: we've overshot the Earth's carrying capacity. We cannot continue to consume at the levels we've become accustomed to. I know this makes people uncomfortable, but it really is the reality. Hunter-gatherer bands/tribes would be best for us and the Earth in the long run. Yes, many people will have to go (read: die). That's horrific and sad. But that is the reality we are facing.

How is this any different from war? This seems such a fatalistic view.

Originally Posted by Pathless

On the bright side, localized and regionalized communities of people who have established landbases that they take care of and which take care of them are much less likely to resort to violent wars for oil and water and other "resources." I may have a rather romanticized view of tribal life, but I maintain that tribes never bomb each other from the air for decades at a time, or impose global sanctions on other tribes. There is no way, other than an unlikely full-scale invastion, that tribe A, living in region A, can effectively cut tribe B, living in region B, off from B's landbase. Tribes have profound spiritual and physical bonds to their lands, and understand that the Earth supports them. They then act accordingly. Further, I believe that tribes have a much deeper and larger appreciation for life than industrial civilizations, which keeps them from wastefully consuming as well as from large-scale invasions and wars.

With all due respect, yes, you do have a romanicized view of tribal life. There is nothing here to indicate what you are guessing is any more than a guess. As long as bombs exist, somebody somewhere will be inclined to use them to their advantage in warfare. That is the nature of the beast. Ever read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War?" Considering it was written as I recall about a thousand years BC, it was about "tribal" warfare brought to such a fine art the advice is still taught in military academies around the world.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Industrial civilization, whether capitalist, communist, anarcho-syndicalist, socialist, dictatorial, despostic, or ruled by arcane Nintendo fanatics, is problematic for life (to put it diplomatically). It cannot and will not last. The only way it possibly could become "sustainable" is if some techno-wizard came up with a free energy machine. Quick! Somebody re-animate Nikola Tesla!! There's still hope!!! There's still time!

The good news is that planet Earth has a free energy machine--an amazing one. You may have heard of it. It's called the Sun. It's warm. It's nice. It's your friend.

The bad news for industrial civilization is that the Sun cannot keep pace with the insane demands of "progress." (Duh. That's why we've been raping the Earth for oil and coal for 150 years.)

It is "progress" that brought you the ability to communicate with others around the globe via the internet. Harnessing of energy is a complex process, we have yet to accomplish anything that remotely resembles efficiency in energy capture and conversion. But with progress we are getting better at it all the time.

Originally Posted by Pathless

So, industrial civilization (read: capitalism, socialism, marxism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.) out; tribalism and regionalism in.

Ever read Ted Kaczynski? The problem as I see it is that the solution doesn't grow organically from the problem. What you are advocating is a planetary "do-over." A huge step backward for civilization as though it is some kind of a solution. With war to curb the population. And this magically will somehow not lead to anarchy?

Originally Posted by Pathless

Uh-oh. Know much about the wild and edible plants within walking distance of your house or apartment? Know how to take down a squirrel at a distance of fifty feet?

No? Me neither. Wanna learn together?

Actually, yes I do. And I keep finding and mapping more. Everything from wild onions and pursley to pomegranets and kumquats. I feed the squirrels and the birds against such a possibility, plus I like their company. But I wonder why I should share such information with someone who wants me dead in order to take away from me what I know and own and had the wisdom and foresight to build for my family? Not share, steal. And spin the story to convince it is inevitable and for the better. Better for whom?

Like I said, show me a viable and workable solution. Global war is not the answer.

[juantoo3]

OH, I figured out the solution! Just turn everybody in the world into cannibals overnight and all will be made well, according to Pathless. The population will begin to decrease, and hunter-gatherers can eat who they kill in war. Sheesh, why didn't I think of it before? Who needs wild edibles when you can eat your neighbor instead.

I hear the glutes are the best part. Imagine sinking your teeth into a tender young ...

[greymare]

I could feed a small nation on my rump. LOL>

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Pathless

what do you find impractical about small-scale regionalism and cooperative, subsistence-oriented economies?

Didn't seem to work very well for the Neandertals. Or for the various and sundry aboriginal peoples pushed aside by colonial expansion. If hunter-gatherer tribal subsistence oriented economies are so much better, how come they didn't woop tail and force the colonials back where they came from?

Answer:

















Wait for it
























Here it comes







































Technology.
Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood capitalist.

[juantoo3]

It could even be argued that humans, as evolving animals, are simply evolving as they are meant to.

Here is where the "falling sky" syndrome does have some degree of merit: because the planet must support so many of us, then we do need to better steward the resources, otherwise we will be the agents of our own extinction.

Of course, that too may ultimately be inevitable, but at least it will be a natural course.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo,

The first step of problem solving is identifying exactly what the problem is. And without doubt the primary problem with capitalism is Greed. Capitalism had no safeguards to protect wider society from ruthless greed. That the richest businessmen pay less tax than the person who cleans their office is scandalous. And that our Governments have come to serve big business rather than the people is a crime.

I do have answers. Profits made in share dealing should be taxed in such a way that only a modest return can ever be had. Share issues should be graded according to the social value of the company. Innovative, high risk ventures that may benefit the wider community would offer the highest returns, not those that asset strip, dismantle and outsource. Local production too should enjoy a strong bias over import.

Government. Anyone seeking public office must demonstrate that they have broken all business ties, cashed in their portfolios and take an oath to serve the people first. A committee of scrutiny would constantly be looking for breaches. Those seeking public office should be those doing so only because they believe in doing all they can to help their people and country, not because its a fast way to get rich. Anyone in government found guilty of corruption or involvement in ANY other business, in person or by proxy, should face life imprisonment and have all their assets forfeited. In return they would be paid well and each party would have an equal reservoir of capital to mount its campaigns from the state. A condition of operating a media service would be the allocation of equal free time to every candidate.

Such 'career politicians' would propose, draft and implement law. Another house made up of a cross section of society, drawn like a Jury is drawn, would be the ones to vote on the proposals.

The tax regime has to be overhauled in favour of local production. There are few communities, even urban ones, in the world that are not capable, given the right investment, of producing the vast bulk of what they need on their doorstep. City farms and green rooftops can produce enough to feed most cities. And the efficiency of micro-generation devices has grown to the point where it is now a viable alternative to the power plant.

As for your points about space flight etc. Well it was the Soviets that put the first man in space, but regardless of that what is the point of space exploration at all when we fail to prevent a child dying every 4 seconds from hunger or preventable disease? What use is all the medical technology if the ambulance still drives away from a "bum" thats been torched because its clear he has no medical insurance? I do not believe that the capitalist notion of filter down to be equitable or just. Everyone one is a part of society and everybody should have an equal right to the benefits. As long as we allow the greedy power mongers of big business and their puppet governments to call the shots than we will serve them. Surely that is not the way its meant to be.

Tao

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

That the richest businessmen pay less tax than the person who cleans their office is scandalous.

Where does that happen? This to me is a case of if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes true.

This occurs in dictatorships sure, but in our democracies not really.

Now I don't know how your country works. Now there may be a year or two that someone due to massive deductions (read reinvestment in R&D, or business expansion etc. the corporation pays zilch) but in other years they pay massive.

How massive?

the stats are everywhere I googled and picked one.

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?

Source of info US Treasury

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995.

That is one percent of the people paying one third the tax paid.

In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than 53.8 percent of all individual income taxes

top five percent pay half of all tax paid

Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Ok so the amount paid has gone up faster than their income, shocker

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

Which means that the top 50 percent pays 96% of all taxes. Taxes which support the programs for everyone yes?? And we want to what charge them more.

Yes lets increase the influence for them not to make more money, if you add more taxes the incentive to earn money is decreased, and since they are paying for you and me (maybe some of you are in the top 1 or 5% I don't know) I want them to make more money and pay more taxes. I want to make more money and pay more taxes.

If I haven't said it before my goal is to give away 90% of my income in one year and still have to pay 1 million in taxes!! (ps I'm not close)

So how can we cut the taxes on the poor when they don't pay taxes? Why should we cut taxes on the bottom 50% when they are consuming 70% of the benefits yet only pay 4% for them?

And exactly why should we increase taxes on the rich when they are paying most of the taxes.

Did I say the source of info was treasury??

Who is this business man who pays less tax than the guy cleaning his office??

The campaign said the records showed Bill and Hillary Clinton had paid more than $33.7 million in federal taxes on a joint income of $109 million and donated $10.2 million to charities over the past eight years.

What did they do for that 109 million? They gave a lot of speeches and wrote three books, we bought the books, and they paid 1/3 in Federal taxes...

Do ya think he has a cleaning guy who pays more??

[Tao_Equus]

The quote about the cleaner analogy is actually from George Soros, whom I am sure you would agree is in a position to know, (estimated wealth $9billion). Who stated himself that the super-rich are ripping off everybody.

I am not going to dispute your figures yet, but I am pretty sure they are skewed. I will look further into more reliable sources.

Tao

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The quote about the cleaner analogy is actually from George Soros, whom I am sure you would agree is in a position to know, (estimated wealth $9billion). Who stated himself that the super-rich are ripping off everybody.

I am not going to dispute your figures yet, but I am pretty sure they are skewed. I will look further into more reliable sources.

Tao

I would love to hear your statistics and how they vary from the US Treasury. Ya know how I learned this stuff, by attempting to argue against someone who said the rich paid the most, by making the very same statements about them not paying their fair share a couple of decades ago and doing the research to prove someone wrong...of course then the highest tax bracket was seventy some percent! And the rich paid a lesser share. One thing proven over and over, when you lower the taxes (percentage) on the movers and shakers they pay more taxes!! (because they want to make more money)

It is always interesting when I hear about global warming and what we should do from Al Gore who manages a billion in oil stocks for his family and who uses 100 times the resources that I do. And to hear from Soros 9 billion in wealth means he's paid billions in taxes and has 9 billion left. I can see when you have more money than you can spend some strange comments but all so common is these uber rich liberals claiming they don't pay enough in taxes...there is a spot on the form to donate, duh!!

[Pathless]

". . . I have to reject the idea that selfishness is instinctive. It's come to be understood that selfishness is part of human nature, but I think that's in the context of the lives that we have now. We are so isolated that we tend to act only in our own self interest."

--Jerry Mander


Juantoo3, you've given me a lot to respond to, so this will take some time, and I'm not going to do it all at once. I want to start by addressing what you wrote here:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

With all due respect, yes, you do have a romanicized view of tribal life. There is nothing here to indicate what you are guessing is any more than a guess.

I can appreciate that, and I can provide some sources that may help you see where I am coming from, and that this "romanticized view of tribal life" might have some foundation in archeology, anthropology, and critical thinking. The most concise place that I know of to start looking at this perspective is in table form here. The table contrasts the values, principles, and foundations of technological peoples against those of native peoples the world over. Sure, to make the table, some generalizations must be made, but take a look at it and see what you think. That table is an excerpt from Jerry Mander's book In Absence of the Sacred: the Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations, from which I will also quote a few lines:

"...as Marshall Sahlins and others have pointed out..., stone-age socieities had more than twice the amount of leisure time we do today..."

"...which is the more romantic viewpoint: that technology will fix itself and lead us to paradise, or that the answer is something simpler?"

Also I want to address right now something else you wrote, your response to my question about knowing native plants in your local area and knowing effective ways to hunt:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Actually, yes I do. And I keep finding and mapping more. Everything from wild onions and pursley to pomegranets and kumquats. I feed the squirrels and the birds against such a possibility, plus I like their company.

So this is good. This is good for you and those you know and the animals around you. I think this is great, and I would only encourage you here.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

But I wonder why I should share such information with someone who wants me dead in order to take away from me what I know and own and had the wisdom and foresight to build for my family? Not share, steal. And spin the story to convince it is inevitable and for the better. Better for whom?

Okay, I want to clear this up real quick. I never, never said that I wanted anyone dead, nor did I say that I specifically want you dead or that I wanted to take away/steal your knowledge (before I kill you, presumably...?) What I did write, and what you quoted, was that bit about the planet having a population and resource crunch, and that in that crunch/crash/collapse, many people are likely to die. That was just kind of a "facing facts" moment.

Do I think there are ways to mitigate human death due to irresponsible use of machinery and the Earth's resources? Yes. Do I see widespread concern about peak oil and the general terminal state of industrial society? No. I see widespread denial.

I will not let you equate my statement of the existence of looming global catastrophe to me advocating war. I certainly am not advocating "global war." Why should I? That's already under way, and you can read plenty of my soapbox posts around these forums to get a clear picture of what I think about the war of terror.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Global war is not the answer.

Well, Amen to that.

I do think that there is tremendous potential for this planet and everything that lives on it to have a good life. I like Tao's reference to rooftop gardens. Urban agriculture seems difficult to me, and it also seems extremely important.

I'm not a fatalist or a nihilist. You can call me an idealist if you want; that label doesn't really bother me. While I am convinced that there is no way for billions of people on Earth to live in air-conditioned industrialized suburban "comfort," I am not convinced that there is no way for billions of people on Earth to live together--but only if we tone down the selfishness, the consumerism, the consumption, and the technology-worship. I should also say that I don't think six billion people is an ideal population. It would be good if that could shrink, but I'm all for people having fewer kids and paying more attention to and loving the ones that are already here--and I think that may be a good, peaceful way to start addressing the "population problem." Please do not imply that I advocate war, Juan. Have you read my posts? I would think that I made myself clear on that point in my time here.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

I would love to hear your statistics and how they vary from the US Treasury. Ya know how I learned this stuff, by attempting to argue against someone who said the rich paid the most, by making the very same statements about them not paying their fair share a couple of decades ago and doing the research to prove someone wrong...of course then the highest tax bracket was seventy some percent! And the rich paid a lesser share. One thing proven over and over, when you lower the taxes (percentage) on the movers and shakers they pay more taxes!! (because they want to make more money)

It is always interesting when I hear about global warming and what we should do from Al Gore who manages a billion in oil stocks for his family and who uses 100 times the resources that I do. And to hear from Soros 9 billion in wealth means he's paid billions in taxes and has 9 billion left. I can see when you have more money than you can spend some strange comments but all so common is these uber rich liberals claiming they don't pay enough in taxes...there is a spot on the form to donate, duh!!

You may be right Wil, we both know it would not be the first time I'm wrong. See how unselfish I am!! Giving you every opportunity to be right!! I still have to look into it myself though...you know....


Tao

[China Cat Sunflower]

Working class and poor families in the US pay virtually nothing in federal tax. Our existence is subsidized. The country needs us to carry it's workload, but it would rather keep wages low and us on the dole. The rich pay for the extravagance of their class exclusivity. It must be worth it to them.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Pathless

I can appreciate that, and I can provide some sources that may help you see where I am coming from, and that this "romanticized view of tribal life" might have some foundation in archeology, anthropology, and critical thinking. The most concise place that I know of to start looking at this perspective is in table form here. The table contrasts the values, principles, and foundations of technological peoples against those of native peoples the world over. Sure, to make the table, some generalizations must be made, but take a look at it and see what you think. That table is an excerpt from Jerry Mander's book In Absence of the Sacred: the Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations, from which I will also quote a few lines:

"...as Marshall Sahlins and others have pointed out..., stone-age socieities had more than twice the amount of leisure time we do today..."

"...which is the more romantic viewpoint: that technology will fix itself and lead us to paradise, or that the answer is something simpler?"

I took a look at the table. I even cut it out (tables are a pain) and emailed it to myself so I would have access later. After a cursory glance, I come away puzzled as to what bearing this has on the subject matter here? Differing cultural values, mores and norms are a given in comparative anthropology. Aboriginal tribes viewed concepts of economics, politics and religion differently than modern civil societies, yes, to overstate the obvious. Does that impugne that one is better than the other? That answer is subjective and can only be answered through a personal asthetic. What is beautiful to one person is ugly to another, what makes intrinsic sense to one culture is incomprehensible to another culture. That does not make one better than the other, only different.

As for "stone-age societies had more than twice the amount of leisure time we do today," I am going to say that is supposition, and I would think purposefully intended to mislead.

How long does it take a skilled artisan to flake an arrowhead? A novice?

How long does it take a skilled hunter to stalk his quarry and kill it? A novice?

How often is a hunt successful for a skilled hunter? A novice?

How long does it take to gather sufficient acorns to make enough meal to feed one person, by a skilled artisan? A novice?

How long does it take to properly pound and prepare acorn meal for storage for a skilled artisan? A novice?

How long does it take to prepare a meal for one from acorn meal by a skilled artisan? A novice?

Can you see where I am going? How long to skin the days catch? How long to make a shirt, or pair of pants, or loin cloth even? How long to construct a shelter? Gather and store clean water? On and on and on...and you mean to tell me that stone age societies had more leisure time? I respectfully disagree, based on anthropological research, particularly for a novice with no in the field skill. In an established cultural setting with history and familiarity and skill and ability, these things would take less time I can grant. But I guarantee if one were to throw a bunch of novices into the woods and left them to their own devices without any prior experience or training most would starve or die of exposure. That is one reason civil society remains so important in a modern context for the typical person alive today around the globe, because most people have "transcended" the ability to live in the wild. Camping out is nice, when one has the reassurance of returning to a warm soft bed in a constructed shelter. Living outdoors being bitten by mosquitoes every night and bitten by ants and fleas by day, and ticks and lice and assorted other insects at odd intervals continuously is not a pleasant experience. And culturally we seem to have outgrown the need to smear bear grease all over our bodies in the last couple of hundred years to deal with this perpetual problem. Besides, there aren't enough bears left to go around for 6 billion people.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Also I want to address right now something else you wrote, your response to my question about knowing native plants in your local area and knowing effective ways to hunt:

Okay, I want to clear this up real quick. I never, never said that I wanted anyone dead, nor did I say that I specifically want you dead or that I wanted to take away/steal your knowledge (before I kill you, presumably...?) What I did write, and what you quoted, was that bit about the planet having a population and resource crunch, and that in that crunch/crash/collapse, many people are likely to die. That was just kind of a "facing facts" moment.

OK, I can see where perhaps I misunderstood. So then it would seem you advocate death by starvation then? Perhaps a slow, torturous death is better than a quick, merciful one? Either way, population control is population control...

Originally Posted by Pathless

Do I think there are ways to mitigate human death due to irresponsible use of machinery and the Earth's resources? Yes. Do I see widespread concern about peak oil and the general terminal state of industrial society? No. I see widespread denial.

I see the same things you do, I simply reach a differing conclusion.

Originally Posted by Pathless

I will not let you equate my statement of the existence of looming global catastrophe to me advocating war. I certainly am not advocating "global war." Why should I? That's already under way, and you can read plenty of my soapbox posts around these forums to get a clear picture of what I think about the war of terror.

Massive casualties whether by starvation, disease or warfare is still effectively war upon the human race, especially if induced or assisted by other humans.

Originally Posted by Pathless

I do think that there is tremendous potential for this planet and everything that lives on it to have a good life. I like Tao's reference to rooftop gardens. Urban agriculture seems difficult to me, and it also seems extremely important.

While it is pleasantly evocative of beautiful moments, and would certainly go some distance in providing resources for city dwellers, three issues spring immediately to mind: the feasibility of a rooftop supporting the weight of tons of earth, getting water to it, and size relative to how many building occupants. This of course overlooks the intricacies of actual gardening such as soil structure. The square footage available on a typical 30 story highrise(in Manhatten or Shanghai) for example, is not enough to begin to seriously feed all of the occupants. Even if one had ten thousand square feet of productive rooftop, it is insufficient to feed the several thousand apartment dwellers inside. While it would assist, and certainly it may be wise if buildings were pre-engineered to take such into consideration, it will not by itself feed all of the city dwellers. There is still a net loss that must be accounted for.

And if a building is not pre-engineered to handle the increased load, one is setting the building up for structural failure with resultant loss of life.

I also have concerns of the viability of gardening 30 stories in the air. How high up can one effectively garden?

Originally Posted by Pathless

I'm not a fatalist or a nihilist. You can call me an idealist if you want; that label doesn't really bother me. While I am convinced that there is no way for billions of people on Earth to live in air-conditioned industrialized suburban "comfort," I am not convinced that there is no way for billions of people on Earth to live together--but only if we tone down the selfishness, the consumerism, the consumption, and the technology-worship. I should also say that I don't think six billion people is an ideal population. It would be good if that could shrink, but I'm all for people having fewer kids and paying more attention to and loving the ones that are already here--and I think that may be a good, peaceful way to start addressing the "population problem." Please do not imply that I advocate war, Juan. Have you read my posts? I would think that I made myself clear on that point in my time here.

I actually agree with a great deal of the words here, although I wonder if we are interpreting things quite the same? I come to a bit different conclusion, and I don't think writing off a significant portion of the world population is necessary.

I gotta go, I might get back to this some more later.