Rob Schaap wrote:
> Sorry, Tom - wasn't actually being nasty at all. Don't accuse you of
> anything. [clip]
>
> >If Milton knows what I think he knows he also understands that a general
> >reduction in food supply for a population as a whole OVER TIME results in
> >population slowing without killing anyone or causing dislocation or
> >starvation.
>
> Still reckon ya gotta watch those universal truths, Tom. Taking a few
> calories out of Manhattan, Wimbledon or Canberra would have a very different
> impact than if it were done in provincial Bangladesh, Chad or Liberia,
> I'd've thought.
>
> >BTW, if we are going to "not feed" anyone, I'd start with
> >fat-cat diners at the Cordon Bleu. Why did you assume I'd start with
> >starving innocents?
I have had little time lately for this list and I have not followed this
thread, but on this exchange I have a comment to make. *Any*
policy (on anything) proposed at any time will be carried out by
those who have power, or the most power, and no policy should
be proposed that does not take this into consideration.
In class society power and a rich diet go together. So any policy
dictating a reduction in caloric intake can only be directed at
those who are already deficient in calory intake. Such a policy
would make sense under the dictatorship of the proletariat,
but to propose it seriously for consideration in a capitalist
world is outrageous, even as an item for discussion.
Carrol
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
