To: TimF who wrote (706 ) 1/15/2007 8:46:19 PM From: Frank A. Coluccio Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1267 Interesting piece, Tim. Re: "at least half the world's population will likely not participate fully" -- unless his crowd finds better ways to spread prosperity along with better health to poor countries." Which states what? That universal prosperity is possible? Perhaps better health is possible without sharing wealth. (The term "prosperity" could use some defining, but since it wasn't in the opinion piece, it's too late to second guess the author now ;) California's recent call for mandatory health coverage comes to mind. But I have to ask, Is it sound to assume that the whole world - barring none - could possibly participate equally in the distribution of wealth, or in what we're calling prosperity? Or, would the quality of prosperity be lost to such an eventuality due to its very definition, being a quality that is relative, at best? Similarly, are there forces at work, however subtle, that work against the spread of universal prosperity? I submit that there are, despite the denial and feigning that takes place to the contrary by many who enjoy it. Witness the fear and chagrin being experienced by even those in middle-class situations when they learn that their relative standings in society are being threatened by the offshoring of jobs to Islands off India and the Philipines, where previous have-nots, for the first time in recorded history, now have a chance to do some catching up. Possibly a primary cause of this centers on the world not being a single nation state, or a sphere whose population is governed equitably with regard to both obligations by its citizens and the elusive prosperity they seek. Then again, what would be the fun in that? Or, more to the point, such a world would attempt to defy human nature, and those renditions of the world have never lasted for very long. FAC