Message-ID: <339EE9CF.1D9455B8@mail.ptl.com.mt> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:09:19 +0200 From: "V. Dimitroff" <mailto:vdimitroff@MAIL.PTL.COM.MT> Subject: Re: average American's perception of the US role in the 1st To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
B. Diamond wrote: changing them) in EVERYONE'S LONG-TERM INTEREST.> Could you provide us with an example in the animal world where one
> animal or group of animals lay claim to more possessions/resources than
> others, thereby depriving the rest of the animal world?
Well, pretty much everywhere the stronger <eat> more than the weaker, and unless food is extremely abundant (it rarely is) the rest are "deprived" of this resource. Often a minority of males inseminates a majority of females - another limited resource...All this within one species; speaking of "the rest of the animal world" - old Oesopus/Lafontin fable comes to mind: Wolf depriving Lamb of..drinking water ;-)
The term "depriving" implies one was <entitled> to something: entitled by Whom? Through what Law or other "entitlement" mechanism? Wasn't the <earning>, <achieving through effort>, or <in exchange=sacrifice> the most natural and efficient, and therefore moral and fair mechanism?
> How is this concentration of wealth in the hands of the few good for "everyone's
> long-term interest?"
Probably by equating the capability to amass it to the capability to <manage> it ? "Managing wealth" could lead into further need for definitions: What is Wealth? Isn't it Value? Isn't value a quality related to <satisfying a need>? Therefore managing wealth (so that it grows - the objective of most "holders" -see my previous post) should imply also satisfying more needs and/or satisfying them better...
I will save our dear readers the boredom of empty philosophy. Anyone who refuses to accept the 80:20 reality ;-) should go ahead and implement the scenario I started my previous post with.
How about DEVELOPMENT and TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ?
Cheers, V.