At 09:15 03/08/2017, jay ginn wrote:
>Surely its pointless to debate , as many do, incl in the Green
>Party, whether population stabilisation/reduction is more important
>for the planet or (the Marxist view) fairer distribution, ie ending
>the inequality of lifestyle and consumption between developed and
>poorer countries? Both are important and we dont have to choose one
>or the other.
I would think that the two are intimately entwined. Most of the
global population growth in recent times has been in "poorer'
countries, and that has probably only been possible _because_ of the
inequality. Had the poorer countries not been poorer, but had had
equality of lifestyle etc. with those in developed countries, it is
difficult to see how the amount of population growth they have
experienced could have been sustained (whilst maintaining their
equality of lifestyle etc.).
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|