Reply to comment
check on increasing population?
October 14, 2008
by Anonymous,
1 year 6 weeks ago
Comment: 32395
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
I do not like the idea that we are to rely on desperate poverty to 'check' the increase in population. When it comes to economics, there is no conservation of mass (i.e. money). Given the correct environment, wealth can be grown, it does not need to be distributed. I would argue that the correct environment would include creative AND productive people, which I personally feel is created by education as opposed to genetics.