> At 14:15 5/5/98 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >What could possibly be more important than happiness (except of course
> >survival)? Wouldn't a life devoid of positive stimulation ("happiness") be
> >utterly pointless?
> >
> >As for the economic matter: automate to the max with as ultimate goal
> >free-for-all production of anything, while reducing the population (a
> billion people
> >is more than enough, and a tenth or a hundredth of that would be fine too).
> >Quality over quantity. That's the *rational* course of action, anyway.
>
> The process of reducing the population is one that brings nightmare
> possibilities. How do you go about acheiving this? Remember that creating a
> family and raising children is one of man's greaest pleasures..
And don't forget that some of us disagree.
In my opinion, the only reason that a mere three and a half billion
people appears sufficient for the human population of earth, is
because most of those people don't reap the benefits of living amid
large numbers of free people.
Once we correct that problem, we'll probably want at least ten
billion.
And some of us don't particularly want to stay on earth.
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227