Re: Salinger's world

AntiUtopia@aol.com
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 21:02:41 -0400 (EDT) 

In a message dated 8/11/99 7:58:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, stray@well.com 
writes:

<< Um, I don't know exactly what you think my post said, Jim, but you seem to
 have totally missed the point. This is probably at least partly my own
 fault, so I'll make an attempt to elucidate things a bit...>>

Nah, I'm pretty confident in my reading ability, but what I was addressing 
were the premises behind your post rather than the comments themselves.  
Here's an example...
 
<< Secondly: No, I am not mistaking the world's resources for America's
 resources. I don't see where you get that from at all.>>

Here's a quote from your original post -- 

<<Today, the world's resources could be used to feed the hungry and aid the
sick, but instead it's used largely for luxury consumption.>>

It's kinda off to think that the WORLD'S resources are being used largely for 
luxury consumption.  You can only think that by projecting the spending 
habits of Americans onto the whole world.  I promise you the poor in Mexico, 
India, and China (together making up far more than the population of the US) 
do not spend their resources Largely on "luxury consumption."  They spend 
what little they have on survival.  

If you want to talk about "world resources," then do so.  But don't mistake 
American spending habits for world spending habits.

<< If anyone is guilty
 of this mistake, it would seem to me to be you. You seem to agree that the
 world's resources could in theory support its inhabitants. Well, I was
 saying no more than this.>>

That's good.  So why are people starving?  Oh, wait, that's right...Ethiopian 
desert farmers are too busy buying Sony Playstations to spend money on food, 
right? :)

<< Oh yeah, with the addition that in practice this
 is not the case. (Surely we're not in disagreement here either?) Much of the
 resources are instead used for other things, notably luxury and warfare --
 in the rich countries (including but not limited to the U S of A) as well as
 the poor.>>

Right :)

I don't think that's factually correct, that's the point of our disagreement. 
 
 
 <<Thirdly: I'm glad to see you get all defensive about your own affluence --
 that's healthy, it happens to me all the time -- even if my post didn't
 really much call for it.>>

If you think my disagreement with you is defensiveness, it's not :)  I don't 
feel threatened.  I don't feel very affluent, either, although I know I am 
compared to most of the rest of the world

Jim