Although I don't disagree with the thesis that raising people out of poverty will result in a decrease over the long haul of the growth rate, the concomitant out come is a use of more resrouces, not less resources by the group. Although as I've mentioned in past comments to the group that as a person and as a family, my wife and I have tried to minimize our resource utilization, back of the envelope calculations indicate that we spend in joules far more energy that would be our allotment if we divide the total income (the amount of energy received by the sun) by the present population of the globe. Thankgoodness at this time that there are otheres that don't utilize their "full-share". None of the technological changes stressed by other contributors to this group will ever increase the total income to the earth, so unless we, the inhabitants of the earth, reduce our expenditures, the budget will be out of balance and not trully sustainable (particularly if we as people are broad minded enough to realize that we humans are not the only occupants and the flora and fauna also have needs that have to be met by the same income).
Cheers, Larry PS Most organismal populations are not in equilibrium with the environment, but are quite dynamic in numbers and when their numbers are too large they experience crashes that are not kind and humane, but rather nasty die-offs. I really don't want human populations maintained by those kinds of means. -- Larry T. Spencer, Professor Emeritus of Biology Plymouth State University ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
