Bill, It's not 1:1, it's a statistical correlation.
You actually claim that the more people there are living in poverty the more likely they will be to drop their attachments???? Edgar On Nov 28, 2012, at 10:37 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > You line of reasoning assumes that all people have attachments. > > I contend that this is not so, and I contend that even if the vast majority > of people do have attachments they can drop them. > > That is why I do not believe there is some 1:1 relationship between the > number of people and suffering (which is due to attachment). > > ...BIll! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Duuuh! The more people the more attachments and since the carrying capacity > > of the Earth has ALREADY been exceeded the more suffering per person... > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > Not necessarily. The amount of suffering (in the Buddhist sense)is not > > > dependent upon the number of people. The amount of suffering is dependent > > > upon attachments. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > RAF, > > > > > > > > Yes, the coming population crash will certainly massively increase the > > > > amount of suffering in the world... > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:07 PM, R A Fonda wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11/27/2012 4:46 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Needs to spend a bit of time not doing in order to live as we can > > > > >> live! > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Wu Li ... yet again a concept I was recently discussing with > > > > > Edgar, in regard to the (on my view, imminent and inevitable) > > > > > population crash. > > > > > > > > > > RAF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
