Jostein and Subash, Of course you are right. Living standards do not have to follow resource consumption or happy living. The traditional issues with living standards are life span and infant mortality. In other words, having enough resources to avoid death and disease. In my book, this is having a higher/happier standard of living. Regards, Bob S.
On 12/26/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Subash! > > I used those terms specifically for their loaded content. :-) > > And you're absolutely right, of course. > > Jostein > > > On 12/26/06, SJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:55:14 +0100 > > "Jostein Øksne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The Big Issue is really the big gap in logic between: > > > 1. granting all the world the same level of living standard as the > > > "first world" countries, and > > > > jostein, much as i agree with most of your logic, i feel the need to > > butt in with the fact that 'living standard' does not necessarily > > equate to 'living happily' and that 'first world' is, in spite of the > > pompousness of the wording, by no means, an ideal... > > > > regards, subash > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
