>With 6% of the world's population and 90% of it's wealth, it is
>irresponsible to dismiss agroimerialism's unequal distribution of goods
>as, "oh, the poor aren't THAT poor."


The problem is in what you define as "90% of the wealth."  Most of thse
claims about the consumption of wealth by the industrialized nation is
based on questionable assumptions.  The most important fact that is most
often overlooked is that almost all of that wealth was created and was not
taken from anyone.  The most irresponsible assumption is that the world's
resources are this one big pie that some people get pieces of and some
don't.  What's wrong with that is that most of the pie is made by the same
people who eat it, who also turn around and make more pie when the first
batch gets old or starts to run out.

Most resources are by and large created, not pre-existing things that get
used up and go away.  Those which are not created are much more abundant
than we often think, and more importantly, alternatives exist for them for
already, or will be developed in time.

>The truth is  O U R  poor arn't
>that poor.  But if one looks at almost any other nation in the world, we
>see missery on a massive scale.  Don't you ever see those "Save the
>Children" commercials?

Of course!  And this is exactly what I'm talking about, because THAT is
what real poverty is--and it is very nearly nonexistent in the
industrialized, modern nations.

Furthermore, it is irresponsible not to acknowledge that those "Save the
Children" kids you're talking about are NOT poor because the industrialized
nations MADE those nations poor.  They most certainly did -not-.  What you
see on "Save the children" is the normal living conditions for humanity all
throughout recorded history.  They are living, by and large, how most of us
lived prior to the industrial revolution.

Every nation which has successfully fought its way out of the kind of
abject poverty did so by industrialization and modernization and trade and
(ultimately) democracy.  These remain the only things which have ever
offered long-term solutions to these problems in most nations.

>        The world will continue to survive.  Humanity may be come out in
>tact.  But at the rate the Industrial revolution is going, we may -undo-
>the event that caused our biosphere to be oxygen bassed.  We may, as a
>biosphere, go back to a chemosynthetic mode of existance.  Humans are not
>chemosynthetic.

Too much of what's said about ecological destruction is just plain wrong,
and most of the worst ecological destruction is wrought in the 2nd and 3rd
world nations, not by the most advanced industrialized nations.  And it is
the industrialized nations who will most likely provide the solutions to
these problems.  Especially if we can avoid the temptation to blame and
demonize those solutions (which is, unfortunately, what most
"environmentalists" do).

There can be no mistaking that there are serious problems to be addressed,
and some of them are being addressed wrongly.  But that's a more
complicated discussion.  Ultimately I believe that the western
industrialized nations not only represent the most positive apex of human
achievement, but that they represent the best hope for -all- of humanity.
You, clearly, disagree.  Well that's fine.  You continue to spout your
philosopy and I'll continue to explain why I don't agree, and everyone else
can ignore us or pay attention to us, as they please.  :-)

 -=-=-

Once in a while you get shown the light/
 In the strangest of places if you look at it right   ---Robert Hunter

http://www.syndicomm.com/esmay