What does biophysics have to do with knowledge about the economic distribution of the world's wealth?

That's like saying my husband must know a lot about literature because he has a PhD in math. Or I must know all about biophysics because I have an EdM in education.

"a village of only 100 people, there would be: 60 Asians, 14 Africans, 12 Europeans..."

Is this some sort of new math?

I believe, Amy. After being totally po'd over someone violating your copyrights, you are not going to copy an entire article. Good job.

Part of this is right, and part of this is wrong, but the biggest part of it wrong is the assumption that all these poor people can be anything else. Second largest is that those poor people had no part of the dire things cited. Hey - they voted for those other guys to do that!

We fool ourselves constantly with the phrase, "All men are created equal". That's a flat-out, o b v i o u s lie taken by itself; the purpose of such a phrase is to see that government can get the best out of everybody.

We routinely ignore inequalities which are uncomfortable to us. Yes, no matter how much training you have, a guy like Mike Tyson will take anything he wants from you whenever he pleases, whatever twisted idea you have about the "law" protecting your person.

Notably missing from this self-righteous citation is that a few dozen of those losers want nothing more than to be left alone to consider where Britney or Ke$ha are; others think that wealth is a fixed sum; others think that a good hourly wage can make them rich. In short, it doesn't account for stupidity as well as genetics.

You have to come to the costume party, however little you like your costume, and then you have to make something of yourself. Nobody else can do that.

Does it really matter that she picked 20-year old statistics? Identical "Global Village" claptrap is still being spewed out all over the place, with up-to-date phony stats.

"The other 90 people would be watching them with deep anxiety, wondering whether the 10 can learn to get along together..."

I'm sure that's exactly what a million or so Rwandans were thinking right before they were hacked to death with machetes - whether Bill & Boris could learn to get along like Hutus & Tutsis.

Any mention of how many of them would be starving in the streets while sacred cows walked through town protected by religion and left uneaten?

Any mention of how a couple of them wanted to enslave or slaughter the other 98 but were held in check by threat of fiery nuclear death?

Any mention of how many of them wanted to trade in goods and services to build value and create profit and were seen as sources of free income by others who wanted to live off their backs?

I love this part: "I don't know if these facts are correct, but even if they are half right, it is worth digesting."

This is the centerpoint of Liberal thought. The Liberal packages statistics to support the cause. A critic points out that this or that part of the package is certainly, obviously wrong, or irrelevent. The Liberal responds that if even half of the statistics are right, then his point is proven.

This shows an expertise in spreading high-school rumors. "If even half of this rumor is true, then Mary is a ..." The people who were brainless in high school are running the country, based on research that must be "at least half right".

Second best is "My brother is most definitely not the inspiration-of-the-day type, so I figured it must be good." This is actually a faith in religious awakening. His brother hasn't said much in 10 years, so when he recommends something, it must be a revelation from God, and clearly true.

And finally, we have her conclusion: "So, what are we to do with this? In all its enormity?" She then gives no conclusion, and expressses confusion about what these statistics might mean. She decides that "merely digesting them is a step in the right direction. So pay it forward and remember the power of one."

Motto: Never let confusing or random statistics prevent you from doing what you think you want to do anyway.

It's interesting that she feels that Limits of Growth lends credibility to Meadow's argument. LOG isn't a scientific publication. It was commissioned by the Club of Rome to further their agenda. The underlying analysis has never been publicized and its predictions seem to have been tailored to a foregone conclusion. None have proven accurate.

LOG is about at the level of the Turner Diaries, scientifically speaking.

Also there were several authors, of which Meadows was one.

So where are all the russian millionaires, if the richest 5 are all americans? The richest dude in teh world is now a mexican. I've read that email long ago, but still think it's just american-self-hating-trash.

I'm assuming the rich Russians and Mexicans are statistically small enough to not count as a whole person in this village. Maybe they are like, the fingers on the number one guy or something.

"The poorest one-third of the people would receive only 3 percent of the income of the village"

There is a fallacy buried slyly in here that betrays a communist/liberal agenda in the wording: The "village" does not "generate" or "earn" any "income", that's purposely false to try influence your view of what's happening in the world --- certain individuals in the "village" create wealth by working hard to do so --- i.e. some individuals are toiling at the land, others are hard at work hammering furniture together, etc. --- some just sit around hoping for handouts and complaining and whining that they aren't as rich as some of the others in the village. That 90% of *wealth* (as distinct from *income* - the village does not trade with external entities) is created in the first place by the few whose hands in which it is concentrated; wealth doesn't really exist naturally (no, not even land --- the only 'wealth' that exists 'naturally' is the odd berry or fruit etc. --- also not minerals --- land, minerals etc. are only things that can be *turned into* wealth if you work extremely hard and smart to do so ... some of the poorest countries in the world e.g. Congo have masses of rich, fertile land either just idle, or actively being destroyed rather than cultivated).

I don't care if it's cliched or un-PC to say it, or it's one of those statements that's been painted with the vilification brush, but 'The poorest one-third of the village' are mostly poor because they don't work very hard and expect handouts.

That being said, things have changed a lot in 20 years ... we've seen major changes like the economic rise of China (400 million people raised to middle class in less than 20 years), thanks to their comparative "free"-market reforms (relatively speaking to where they were in the 60's ... China functions as what could best be thought of as a pseudo-free-market ... on paper the government owns all and can control anything it wants, in practice the average individual can trade quite freely, decide what they want to do, educate themselves, start businesses etc.), and on the other side, we've seen statist expansionism and 'looting' run rampant in the West, and starting to cripple those previously wealthy economies.

These types of e-mails may be dumb, but imagining the world as a village can be a useful metaphorical device for starting to understand how global economies work (though as always with metaphors, they can lead you astray if you're not careful).

" remember the power of one."

What does that even mean? It sounds like some feel-good Oprah movement or something.

"After being totally po'd over someone violating your copyrights, you are not going to copy an entire article."

And that means.....? The article is credited properly. Amy isn't claiming it as her own, what's the copyright problem??

I think he was commending, not complaining

How is it that there are there a total of 5 people from both the US and Canada, yet somehow there are 5 people from only the US who control 32% of the wealth?

That's some mighty fine calculation work there, Lou.