Erik Aronesty writes
True, increasing health without fostering women's liberation,
education and freedom does not help the problem.

health? where did that come from?

Common sense. I didn't see where you got "wealth" from. Balanced
population is about equality, freedom, consensus, and participation -
not "wealth".

Maybe, but what comes first?
Countries seem to become more equal, free, have more concensus (dunno
about participation) the wealthier they become. More likely they all
have to improve together if they are to improve at all.

As countries get wealthier, so the women become more important.

Not if the country gets "wealthier" via income disparity.

Typically where the differences are *extreme* there are not enough
hyper-wealthy to offset the huge numbers of 'very poor'.

WE need a
new definition of the "wealth" of a country. Perhaps the average
income of the bottom 10%?

The middle 80% would be a better guide.

IE: If the top 1% continue to get wealthy,
and the rest remain the same, then you don't necessarily get a
corresponding boost in women's rights.

If the top 1% continue, then the effect is only 1% overall.
Ie, it's very small.

Although money can be seen as a "vote", wealth is a red herring.
Freedom is about improving the technology of consensus, not increasing
wealth.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want within your limitations.

Overpopulation is a result of restrictions in freedom and
resources.

Hardly. Population reductions in highly authoritarian states has been
quite successful (eg russia and china). In the former it was primarily
due to restricted wealth, and the latter restricted freedom. The other
parameters, however, improved.

It's certainly true in both these (and elsewhere in asia) that education
was seen as a means of increasing wealth, and there are quite strong
limitations on how many children you can properly educate to high school
level. Heck, the wife may have to go out to work (and so cannot have too
many kids). Once education becomes a real possibility for increased
wealth, population growth tends to drop. There are many examples from
the industrial revolution in the UK, onwards.

Of course, the problem is that our existing systems of consensus favor
extremist and authoritatian views.

Que?

Special interests who prosper in the existing plurality system will
not advocate one that arrives at broader consensus. And the broad
population have not forcibly advocated one that arrives at broader
consensus, since they don't have extreme views.

A balance is required. I would say the UK (and indeed other countries)
are not far off some reasonable balance.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.