Brad, I think it's more tautological than portentous.
Along with my arrival in Toronto in 1954 came Hurricane Hazel which succeeded in killing 72 people along the Humber River. These lived in houses that were flooded every Spring. Then came Hazel and it wasn't just a flood, so they died. The question then mirrored yours: "Why did these people live in such a dangerous place?" And your answer fits: "Those who have little get to inhabit the places that have the worst prospects for habilitation." Harry ______________________________ Brad wrote: >Harry Pollard wrote: > > > > Ed, > > > > The 90% which is uninhabitable is so because there aren't any people there. >[snip] > >This sounds portentious to me. > >Very similar to any jobs which go unfilled are because >no people have filled them. Now I wouldn't mind so >much if Bill Gates got to fill the $5/hour toilet >cleaning job that goes unfilled, or Putin got to >habit some part of Siberia that doesn't have any >people in it yet. But, of course, that's >not the way it works: Those who have little get to >inhabit the places that have the worst prospects for >habilitation. > >Nature abhors a vacuum. Some pathogen will infect any >healthy tissue that happens to get going. Bad money drives out >good.... > >The 90% which is uninhabitable is so because things aren't >bad enough elsewhere yet to cause persons to emigrate there, >and/or perks haven't been raised high enough to make it >an appealing tradeoff, and/or the places are quite >habitable but are private property so they >are "off limits" to habitation. > >The 90% of the universe which is uninhabitable is so because there >aren't any people there. No matter whether they have space suits or >not.... > >Cheers! > >\brad mccormick ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
