On 9/17/03 6:30 PM, in article
, "Erik Aronesty"
wrote:

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.

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! =-----