Victor Milne wrote:
>
> I don't think this resolution is at all hypocritical. It is generally the
> well-to-do, well-educated class that is most aware of ecological concerns.
>
> By the way, the fact that the US population is growing so rapidly compared
> to other developed countries is probably because there is a large number of
> poor people there, although statistics can mask their presence with the high
> per capita income in the USA. Generally, rsing standards of living are
> paralleled by a falling birth rate.
I recently heard a program on National Public Radio, where an
analyst from the Inst. for Strategic Studies (London) explained
why he thought the Russians are trying to avoid casualties
among their troops in the Chechnya action, whereas Russia
has a long history of little concern for casualties among
its troops (remember the cliche: WWII was won with American
technology and Russian bodies?). The analyst explained
that, in past, Russian families had many sons. Now often
they only have one son, and, he said, that makes
people think differently. The moral of the story is
that the value of each individual is inversely
proportional to the number of individuals.
Rising standards of living give persons higher
hopes for their individual lives, as well as causing
them to value each person's life more. This should
help us understand the meaning of actions that
aim (e.g.,) to restrict access to contraception and
safe, affordable abortion.
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
