It may just be me, but I never found it offensive if someone brings a little passion to an
argument. Besides, I don't think Ron Gedney's post was accusatory. But, be that as it may
...

But with respect to the other arguments put forward by Erik,

"Let's face that the world is over-crowded with humans ..."

I will grant the the freeways in Northern California are over-crowded with humans (and
cars) at rush hours, but I am not prepared to accept the idea that the WORLD is
"over-crowded with people". That is purely a subjective position - I find nothing wrong
with that (in fact, every morning on the freeway I lament the fact that there are too many
people - but that is a matter of selfishness and convenience - not a valid statement with
respect to the earth's carrying capacity), but there has never been a standard for what
the "correct world population" should be. All the predictors of global catastrophe from
over population have been wrong - repeatedly, ALWAYS.
However, if someone has the new figure handy perhaps it can be shared with all of us.

During the Middle Ages there WAS "over-crowding", not because of the number of people in
an absolute sense, but because the available technology did not allow the earth to
adequately support the quantity of people then existing.  Centuries ago, the inhabitants
of Europe cut down the natural forests to support a "small" population, rivers near and in
cities were open cesspools where human and household waste was thrown untreated, the air
in cities was unbearable. Disease was rampant. The overwhelming majority of people were
undernourished because the available land and available technology could not grow enough
food to support them. Forests were obliterated in the search for new land for agriculture
to feed the population. In prior centuries, whales were nearly hunted to extinction;
dozens of exotic birds were made extinct in Hawaii, long before Europeans first visited
those islands, in order to make ceremonial garb for the local chieftains. So, even a small
population can make a large impact on the environment.

"...and that the rich parts of the world, including Europe and the US of A, are using by
far the largest amounts of mineral fuel and minerals available to the world."

This ignores the fact that "the rich parts of the world" also give back to the rest of
the world. That energy is used to manufacture goods and provide services that benefit the
entire world. Who would suffer more if the "rich" countries cut their energy and materials
use by 50%, the rich countries or the poor?

"Unfortunately, the majority of the 6 billion people world population live in poverty,
struggling with the problem where their next meal will come from." That may be true, but
it has nothing to do with Europe or the US. The rest of the world was in poverty even when
the US and Europe were in poverty. Their poverty is not the result of anything that is
happening in the US or Europe.  The world presently grows enough food to adequately feed
every human being on this planet and if anyone is going hungry it is because the
governmental institutions under which they live either cause or perpetuate poverty.

Erik suggests that global poverty is caused "To a large extent because the rich nations
keep so much for themselves and are not willing to share the available goods/food more
evenly over the world ..."

It is not clear if the cause is attributed to the outright theft of the poor nations'
resources or the failure to pay a "fair price" for the poor nations resources. I am not
aware of any nation engaging in outright theft of another nation's resources, so if
someone can point it out I would be glad to research it. If the idea is that the rich are
not paying a "fair price" then one has to determine what that "fair" price is. Here we
believe the market sets the fair price, but I understand that opinions can differ in that
regard.  However, since I am not of unlimited resources, if the shirts that I buy, which
are made in China, were to double in price because someone said that that was the "fair
price" I would no longer buy those shirts. I would buy them from the fellow  or country
who is prepared to give me the most value for my limited resources. After all, if I have
to pay more for those shirts from China, then I have no money left to spend on fruits and
vegetables from Mexico and Central America, so who benefits?  All right, so maybe I can
afford more expensive shirts AND vegetables but then I can't take that extravagant
vacation photo safari trip to Kenya. Of course the local economy in Kenya will then
suffer, but you can't have everything.

Also, someone needs to explain the phenomena of Singapore and Hong Kong, which have NO
natural resources, except human capital. Yet they have managed to create tremendous wealth
for virtually all of their citizens and residents. Parts of Africa and the territories of
the former Soviet Union contain some of the greatest natural resources in the world, yet
they were hardly centers of opulence and material extravagence.

I also suppose one can make the argument that "Even though the rich do not cause poverty,
it is their obligation to share and the failure to share is perpetuating poverty or making
it worse." all right, I'll buy that, I have nothing against charity. But perhaps a major
part of the problem is that some people wait around for someone else to "share the wealth"
with them when they would be better served creating their own wealth and not being
dependent on others.

The so-called "rich countries" have managed to utilize earth's resources in a highly
efficient manner and have managed to CREATE wealth where there used to be poverty.  They
have done this through technical innovation created by human capital.

Chuck Dolci