Andy Cap wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:44:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


*shrug*. Too many people, too few resources. Welcome to the real world.


Hmm... I'm quite aware of the real world. It was me who recently mentioned that
the ONLY real answer is that the world's population should be cut in half, not
be increased by 75 million/year, which is simply unsustainable. Why should those
on comparitively low incomes be forced back into the 18th century , whilst the
better off simply shrug their shoulder and continue in their profligate way?


Why should those on better incomes who have carefully NOT had children,
be required to take care of the spendthrift poor who copulate like
rabbits? And so end up equally poor and miserable?

I wouldn't start claiming moral high ground if I were you. People
standing with their noses in the air on moral high ground are and easy
target for a Kalashnikov.


Anyway the answer to your question is 'because they didn't build nuclear
power stations when they should have, and they did build enough
surveillance systems and weaponry to make themselves the top dogs'

If you don't like it, get into a relatively high income. If you can't.
think of it as evolution in action.

You are then obviously of no value to society, so why should your life
be preserved in preference to any other?


;-)

Andy