Not entirely true. Much of my response was not statistical. Here's more:
I don't consider fundamentals of human behavior to be tangents, but
postulates.
A.M. seems to be interested in developing what seems to ba a Fabian vision of
well-mannered perfect(able) abstractions. Wow. 6+ billion and counting,
surely
a tall order? Well, not if one makes the proper simplifying assumptions.
It's a bit like the old joke whose punch line goes "assume a spherical cat..."
Or like Lenin musing aloud to his crowd, "What is to be done?"
NOTE: No, A.M., I am not calling you Lenin. OK?
I'd love to help engender a world where people respect each other more.
I hope, by my agnostic vision of godliness, to make some contribution in
that wise.
But, to quote myself,
>When respect for one's fellow man is strong, arms are an utter non-issue.
>Absent that respect, what remains?
I consider the first sentence true, based on personal experience.
I consider the following question fundamental, not tangential.
There is nothing abstract about a twice-previously-raped career nurse being
accosted in a parking garage. Nothing *whatsoever*. How _dare_ anyone deny
her the power to stop her assailant?
Sorry, I guess the present day is just an unpleasant hypothetical.
I'm sure glad that nurse is only in my mind.
Let's plan a perfect future world, it's so much nicer, so much realer.
Just like Epcot Center.
And regarding Wellsian technocratic "futurist" central-planning "exegesis":
Be very suspicious of anyone who tells you "I know what's best for you"--
unless you *are* a child.
MMB
(Happy Independence Day, y'all--use it or lose it)
BOUNCE WARNING: A simple reply to the above address will fail. If you wish
to send me a _noncommercial_ message, kindly substitute a hyphen for the
asterisk.