Here Lizon, let me show you how one THINKS while they read.  Let's read the following paper, shall we?

http://www.prb.org/pdf09/64.2urbanization.pdf

I will stop and quote something when we come across something of significance, and then state additional analysis of the facts presented in the reading which correlate via logical association with other knowledge I (but I very much doubt you) have.

1.

"By 2030, according to the projections of the United
Nations Population Division, more people in the
developing world will live in urban than rural areas;
by 2050, two-thirds of its population is likely to
be urban.1 The world

"If we can't accommodate the basic needs requirements of the poor today, how the @$@# do you think we'll be able to accomodate them over the next generation?"

That is assuming that these cities do nothing to expand their resources and capacity. However this isn't the case. Historical data proves otherwise. We will be able to accommodate those people and then some. Furthermore as populations become more urbanized population growth starts to decline slightly. The analysis there fails to take that into account, and there really is no way to measure it.

"In other words, one can argue that it is because governments calculate budgets based on these faulty 'averages' rather than actually determining the real extent of the situation for the urban poor alone that results in health and education to be perpetually underfunded, as well as a shortage of private health care and education, making them inaccessible to those people who need them the most."

Which really doesn't mean anything, conditions in the rural areas are worse considering their case mortality rate is higher. It doesn't matter if it's averages over the total population or not. In terms of the total population in the urban center vs the total population in the rural areas. People live longer in the urban areas. This means as the infrastructure of the cities begin to grow to the point in which it CAN accommodate it's total population life expectancy will increase across the board.

"Even our academics are too #@%-ing lazy (or scared) to get off their fat asses and get out there to the small cities / settlements (even those settlements of 20,000 people are URBAN) and collect the data.  They'll only bother going to the big cities of developing countries, and only if there are 5 star hotels to stay at, and probably delegate everything from their hotel rooms, never setting foot out of the lobby, most likely."

They also focus on the cities because that's where most people live and it's where most people will live in the foreseeable future. I also find it rather amusing that because you can't find data to support your claim it becomes the researcher's fault fornot getting it. That's probability the funniest thing I've heard all day.

"Our academics construct data that does not take into account the actual increased costs associated with urban dwelling.  They might look at, for instance, a rural farmhand who earns $30 a month, and an urban dweller who earns $100 dollars a month, taking thus as a measure of standard of life, when in actuality, the urban dweller spends more than $200 to feed his / her family and is actually going into debt every month, whose family also happens to be suffering from chronic illnesses directly resulting from unsanitary living conditions in the slums, health problems (s)he cannot have remedied as (s)he cannot afford to pay for medical services. "

This is an assumption on your part with no practical data to back it up. A counter argument though would be that rural areas don't have access to medical facilities at all. It's a much different story when one can't afford medical treatment and when one doesn't have it at all to begin with. Course I don't put much relevance into personal opinions.

"All this is in contrast to the rural dweller is easily able to save $10 / month because (s)he gets her food and lodging for free, and whose family experiences none of the chronic illnesses faced by the urban slum dweller family.  Why don't these academics who are responsible for determining the actual, valid, sound facts of the matter, doing the job they are payed hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do?  I'll answer that.  In some cases, they are probably paid NOT to do their jobs; not to figure out the real situation of the urban poor, because if it ever got out that the system IS failing and, moreover, is doomed to fail..., well, I'll let you THINK about that."

Again you are under the assumption that this is true. In which case you have nothing to back up that claim what so ever. This is your opinion, not a fact. Stop trying to make up "facts" in order to support your claim. Making up stuff out of thin air is a sure sign that you really are getting desperate to prove your case.

"In essence, how the poverty line is determined for the urban poor in developing countries is fudged, BECAUSE it is modeled after the methods for determining the poverty live in developed countries.  Thus, in order to determine the actual poverty line in developing countries, ALL data we currently have would have to be adjusted to account for costs not factored in by poverty line calculations of developed countries: cost of education, cost of health care, cost of drinking water, cost of "protection" pay-offs, etc., which makes utterly horrifying the fact that the poverty line in developing countries is calculated even "less than [the] three times the cost of food" as calculated by developed countries.  DO YOU GET IT YET, LIZON?  I suppose not.  Let's continue..."

Yes and Elvis was abducted by aliens and currently resides at a Casino in Atlantic City. -.- Having fun with your conspiracy theories?

"The urban dwelling poor pay more for their food than the rich.  With multinational intensive agriculture corporations purchasing owning and operating their own farmlands and factory farms, and with these multinationals implementing strict controls over distribution, trucks coming into the city with food no longer stop on the outskirts and let the urban poor market and distribute the food-stuffs from small, family-owned grocery stores anymore."

Most farms are privately owned by individual families. At least here int eh states and most of the western world. The distributors are separate businesses from the farms, they buy form local units and sell those goods to retailers. Some of the larger retailers own their own distribution companies and work through them, but the actual farms are privately owned.

"What has happened is they have been cut-out of the supply-chain, and food is marketed first to the urban elite in supermarkets like Costco and Walmart, and, increasingly, street-vendors' or small grocery-store owners' only supply of product is the same multinational corporations, and thus, paying the same price as the urban elite, these vendors have no choice but to mark-UP the price after transporting product sell to the urban poor of outlying areas.  The urban poor have little choice but to buy the marked-up priced goods, too, as they simply lack the resources (i.e. a car) to transport quantities of goods from city-center-located Walmarts and Costcos themselves."

ROFL! It's called supply and demand and bulk buying. Large retailers like Walmart and Cosco often have the lowest prices out there. I should know, there's a local meat market by my house and their often higher than Walmart down the road. ^.^ Plus there are Walmarts here on EVERY CORNER! Their like weeds, almost as bad as Starbucks, ok those are far worse but you get the idea. Retailers want to be as close to their customers as possible. Since your talking about Cosco and Walmart that would mean your thinking of the States, well if that's the case then 79% of our population is urban elite then...man those elitist, who do they think they are? That poor 21% majority don't know what their missing.....oh wait.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm

"Does your jaw drop, Lizon, when you read this?  No.  Because you're a twit, who can't assimilate knowledge."

Let's look back at something else we have studied.  According to our nice power point presentation, 49% of urban dwellers in Mumbai live in a slum, remember?  Now, this study says that 80 percent of NONSLUM urban dwellers are living below this FUDGED poverty line.  Are you as bad at math as you are at critical thinking?  Let's go back to grade 2 math for you then:

If 50% already live in slums, 50% don't, right?  Now, of those 50% who don't live in a slum 80% of them live below the poverty line, what percentage of total urban dwellers of Mumbai live below the poverty line, hmmm?  Show me you have aren't a grade-school student and answer it, or #%#-off.

If you really think you're up to it, you might consider the following:"

Assuming of course the power point presentation is correct and that the data gathered are from the same or similar sources. Unknown really, would have to find other references. And it really doesn't change anything really. As I've stated repeatably, these conditions are expected and hardly surprising.

"I'm sure you would be motivated (based on your clear biased - and flawed - intellectual agenda) to assume that not ALL people living in a slum are living below the poverty line.  Good luck finding that information out, though.  LOL.  Ever been to Mumbai?"

No I haven't. I know people form there though. And of course that means you probably haven't been there. Usually when people ask "have you been there" in a spiteful manor means that they've never been there themselves and are trying to make a pointed argument to cover up their own inability to produce facts.

"The REALITY of the situation is, Lizon, when you see past the BULL#@% propagated by the fudged data presented by the establishment, there is no clear distinctive advantage to being either of the rural poor or the urban poor.  THIS state of there being no clear benefit of being of either group is the issue here.  It is indicative of the failure of this grand experiment of so called "westernization".  The fact that there is no clear advantage to it makes "westernization" in its current course an embarrassing failure. And the west should be embarrassed.  I doubt you are, though, of course, because, the vast majority of westerners remain oblivious, apathetic, and uncaring.  They have no idea of their PERSONAL culpability for this failure, either."

History proves you wrong again, which I will elaborate further. You consistently look at how things look now,a nd don't look at how they'll look 100 years from now. Your too narrow minded to view things on that scale it seems. Which is disappointing.

"DON'T YOU DARE LABEL ME A SOCIALIST YOU @#$% HYPOCRITE."

Yes and caps make you sound more intelligent how? And you are a Marxist. You haven't provided any evidence to show how your ideas are any different from a Marxist and the similarities are striking. ^.^

"Don't you get it?  By comparison to the urban poor living in developing countries YOU are the communist.  YOU live in a society with FREE health care, FREE education, unions, pensions, etc."

I have free healthcare!? Where, I want to see it? Unions? Pfft, useless things, I was in one once when I was younger, saw no benefit to it. I'm currently not part of one and I like it better. And apparently you never saw the price of college tuition here. o.O

"I'm simply speaking out against the INJUSTICE "westernization" is perpetuating in the developing world."

No you are speaking of your flawed opinion based on assumptions that have no facts to back them up of a perceived conspiracy by the "elitist" to hold you down. Humm, sounds pretty Marxist to me, you keep looking at the "Urban elite" as the bad guys keeping the "poor masses" down. I said it once and I'll say it again, you would have made an easy recruit for the Bolsheviks for the 1917 Russian Revolution.

"It has NOTHING to do with communism or socialism or anything of the sort."

According to your terminology it does. ^.^

"It has to do with MORALITY, and HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, ALL the things western thought supposedly holds dear, all the things our vets supposedly fought and died for."

And we have gotten as close to it as possible than anywhere else on earth. Which means we're doing something right.

"Don't you DARE ridicule their sacrifice by labeling the person who speaks out AGAINST the CLEAR injustice of what is happening around the world now as a communist. "

But you are a Marxist. Prove yourself otherwise and that assumption may be re-considered. But as it currently shows, you are a Marxist tot he bone and darned proud of it.

"If you live in a society with free healthcare, or free education, YOU are the communist by comparison.  Give your head a shake already.  Wake up!"

God I wish I had those, would be nice. Too bad I got to pay for everything. Meh!

"Now, I am not claiming the west is perpetuating this injustice.  I am claiming this "westernization" isn't a correct lable.  In fact, to label it "westernization" dxoes INJUSTICE to all western thought stands for."

Westernization and Capitalism aren't perfect. But they'll due for now until we reach our next economic stage, which should be in oh about 150-200 years, give or take a century.

"You insult YOUR culture by claiming it as such."

I'm defending my culture. -.-

"What is happening is tyrannical, oppression of the poor by the conniving, corrupt elite of those developing countries, who then go and claim it is "westernization" as an excuse for committing what is virtually genocide against the poor, and they are laughing at the west all the way to YOUR banks. "

*sighs* You and your conspiracy theories again. Seems you need a brief history lesson.

""Westernization" it is NOT.  And if you believe that is what it is, well, then, there is nothing more to discuss with you brainwashed commie."

Yes it is. And time for a history lesson for the little Marxist. ^.^
--

Now I've stated over and over again about the developing urban centers are currently at a stage 2 phase, let me use some historical data to show what exactly is going on.

Let me use NYC for example. Here is the source for their population data, keep in mind of the time frames for these as the USA was a MUCH different country back then. We were "developing" still.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/1790-2000_nyc_total_foreign_birth.pdf
From 1840-1860 the population of this city grew by 260% from 312k to 813k. This is the first imigration era.

Then from 1890 to 1910 you have an increase of 310% from 1.5m to 4.7m.

From that historical reference lets look at Mumbai form 1981 to 2001. It's population grew by 198%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_Mumbai

Rio de Janeiro grew by 214% from 1950-1980 (a 30 year period btw, my other comparisons are 20 year periods) from 2.3m to 5m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro#Population_growth

Tokyo 1900-1935 an increase of 316% from 2.01m to 6.36m
http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview03.htm

Narobi from 1969 to 1995 an increase of 355% from 509k to 1.8m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairobi#Population

London from 1851 to 1891 an increase of 235% from 2.3m to 5.5m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London#Population

Karachi from 1972 to 1998 an increase of 272% from 3.4m to 9.3m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi

The point of showing these reference links is to cement the legitimacy that rapid growth of urban centers and the subsequent problems that arise from them are not uncommon in human history. Despite this happening over and over again throughout human history. Somehow we managed to get by. Somehow these urban centers grew to meet their populations needs.

Note: I mixed in first world cities with 3rd world cities to show historical comparisons. I omitted the Tokyo growth from 1945 to 1960 specifically due tot he fact it was being rebuilt from WW2. I figured that would be skewed data. I also omitted Karachi from 1941 to 1961 as this was when Pakistan broke away form India and massive migrations ensued. I'm trying to show natural Stage 2 progression, not artificial.

Now I know what your going to say.

"But conditions today are FAR worse than what they were back then!"

I would suggest you look up some history. Look up a book called "THE IRISH IN AMERICA" by John Francis Maguire, it was published in 1898. It talks about the poor living conditions that the Irish immigrants faced in NYC at the time. Chapter 11 is very interesting. Here I'll link it for you:

http://www.libraryireland.com/Maguire/XI-1.php

You will find that the conditions described there are very similar to those that you find in developing countries (and in the 1890's the USA was very much still developing).

The point I'm trying to drill into your thick skull Xeno is that there is historical precedence for the conditions that people currently live in in many developing countries and their urban centers. There is also historical data that shows what happens to this urban centers over the course of decades and centuries.

I was trying to pull data on ancient Rome and Giza but the data there only shows growth every 100 or 1000 year intervals. Both had their slums though this is known.I'm sure if I were to contact historians in Rome directly I could find more precise data (those Romans were quite the record keepers) but that would require much too much effort on my part. ^.^

Furthermore there were civil corruption and high crime in NYC during this time period as well. Lots of it, it was rampant. But once again, after looking at things through the prism of history you can see how things eventually got better over time. I'm sure it will be the same with the developing world over time. History has a habit of repeating itself. ^.^

And a word of advise, don't blame researchers for not getting the evidence you want to prove your point. >.< I don't think you realize your much you were embarrassing yourself with those comments.

Reference Note: In the "western" world the term Ghetto is used instead of Slums. So if you want to research poor living conditions in western cities during their rapid growth states you would have to use that term instead to pull relevant data.

--

Now what all this means in terms of this argument is this.

1. Any data you pull up describing the "horrible" conditions that people live in now does not change the argument that those conditions run parallel to the conditions faced by cities all throughout history. And there is NO evidence that suggests that the outcome now will be any different from what has happened in the past. Trying to pull more and more data to show how bad things are actually reinforces the historical precedence. So there really is no point in wasting your time pulling more information in that regard.

2. Again looking at historical precedence there is every indication to believe that these cities will reach their stage 3 maturity in 50-100 years. This seems to be the common time frame for most cities in countries around the world. Again, the cities of today are following the same pattern of cities form the past. There is nothing to show anything out of the ordinary. So trying to argue that we won't be able their continued population growth really is only an assumption when history shows those cities will be able to handle their populations.

Your argument that conditions are so bad we must do something immediately to improve them.

My argument is that these conditions are the result of these urban centers natural growth to maturity and that if history proves us right (which it hasn't failed so far) these urban centers should be fully mature in 50-100 years. Thus things will turn out very well in the end without having to take any drastic action. Interfearing in the natural growth and maturity of these urban centers is bound to do more harm than good. Let things pan out their way their supposed to pan out and things will be fine.

xeno,

Stop pretending. You are a commie.

I want to get into the resource scarcity debate:

Look, Malthus made his first predictions about overpopulation and the resource crunch 100 years ago.  When he first proposed the theory, he believed the problem would be food scarcity.

Since that time, however, technological growth proved him wrong.  The primary reasons were threefold:
A: Malthus didn't factor in the multiple stages of production in final goods production, and the fact that even tiny changes in a society multiply in effect.  Some examples:
Trade between nations allows nations with particular climates to grow the most efficient crops for their region, and trade them abroad, rather than attempt to grow inefficient crops, maximizing production.
Pesticides, fertilizers, and mechanization of farming had similar results.

Then you have phase 2: Distribution.  The quicker food can be moved around, the further out it can be shipped.  That helps multiply the effects of international trade, mentioned above.  In addition, it simply means that regions far away from food sources can access food.
Some example advances here: Highway development, refrigeration, and the development and standardization of both supermarkets (central distribution centers for food within urban centers) and the distribution networks.

The point is, though... that a technological advance doesn't necessarily need to be in the field of food production in order to result in a net increase in food.

For example, take the refrigerator as an example.  Before the refrigerator, milk would spoil sooner.  At the distribution level (supermarket), it means stores would have to restock their supplies much more often, while still maintaining enough to satisfy the people.  This creates the possibility for huge amounts of losses due to short term buying habits.
At the individual level, it creates two inefficiencies.  First, and most obvious, food gets spoiled quicker, so people have to dispose of it before it spoils (overconsume).  Second, it means people need to purchase food in smaller quantities (there's a reason why a two liter bottle of soda is cheaper than the equivalent in cans.  Larger quantities means easier and cheaper packaging and distribution of goods).]

B: Malthus thought technology grows at a linear level.  THAT IS WRONG.

Let's go with a few examples first:
Moore's Law.  If technology was linear, Moore's law would be debunked.  But it's proven, time and again, to be the defining principle regarding computer development.
Aircraft.  (Don't count hot air balloons here, because that developed under a different and much simpler technological path).  It took hundreds of years to understand the basic science of flight (in theory, I could extrapolate this for as long as humans envisioned the possibility of flight.. which would bring this timeline back to at least since Greek mythology).  Once flight started becoming an applicable science, many people from across the world started producing prototype aircraft, until we had the Wright brothers in 1900.

Now, here's the trick: Once you overcome the basic hurdles of a technology, traveling further along that technology is no longer an issue of understanding and overcoming basic technical issues.  Now it becomes an issue of seeing how far technology can utilize natural science.  Aircraft construction was no longer about how to actually get off into the air.  It became an issue of how to make bigger, faster, better airplanes.  It took hundreds of years to come up with a basic airplane that traveled for one minute. 

Fifteen years later, the planes were improved to have long enough range and flight range that they were usable during WW1.  They used machine guns to fight each other, and dropped hand grenades or bricks for bombing operations.  Most air operations were on the main front, due to limited range.

Ten years later, a single-person plane crossed the Atlantic.

Fifteen years later: Another war.  The planes had much thicker hulls.  The aircraft range was enough for Germany to bomb the hell out of Britain.  Unlike their predecessors in WW1, these planes (even fighters) carried much heavier payloads, allowing Germany to blitz Eastern Europe.  (Wars have an interesting way of showing humanity how much it has evolved technologically since its last war...).

Now come to today.  We have civilian airliners, able to transport well over 150 people (sometimes much more) across continents, or even worldwide.  Aircraft travel at many times the speed of sound.  Some classes of military aircraft can fly high enough into the atmosphere that the pilots literally need to wear spacesuits due to the lack of oxygen.

When we try to develop a new technology, humans always fall back on the information they already know when developing new ideas.  A person with a Ph.D in physics is more likely to make an advancement in technology than some high school student, because the guy with the Ph.D has more background knowledge.  In the same way, when a society knows more about the world around us, it has more information to fall back upon in creating technologies.  We're no longer inventing.  We're perfecting, which is simply much simpler.

C: Malthus assumed population growth rates were constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

Look at the map at the top right.  Notice something?  In the US, Japan, and Western Europe... population growth is extremely small.  Less than 1% population growth.  That means, in order to satisfy the resource needs of the population, these countries need to only increase production by 1% per year.  That's really not too much.  In fact, in some European countries, populations are completely leveling off, and some are even slightly declining.

There's a simple explanation: opportunity costs of children.  In agrarian communities, children are economic assets, since they can work in the farms at relatively young ages.  Thus, parents are encouraged to have more children in order to get more workers in the field.  In industrialized societies, however, children go to school until they're 18, then college, freeloading off their parents the whole time.  They're an economic cost to their parents.  In short, from a pure economic perspective, raising a kid is a terrible investment.  Go start a small business or something.

Now I want to take a moment and discuss future technologies.  Lizon started on this, but I want to expand here with some less conventional technologies.

First, Lizon brought up one issue I want to expand upon: nanotechnology.  Lizon mentioned that nanotechnology has huge potential implications in medicine, which is most likely true.  However, he missed one of the most revolutionary theoretical technologies proposed by such scientists as Eric Drexler: the molecular manufacturer.

A brief explanation: Picture the replicator from Star Trek.  The concept was that if we can move atoms, one by one, into particular formations, why can't we utilize it on a larger scale, manipulating billions of atoms, one at a time, to create finished goods from the ground up?

It's not bullshit: Credible scientists have started conducting research in the field, and even some private companies have begun attempting to develop the technology.

I'm not saying this is definitely the future of technology.  However, it's an example of how technology can further expand our resources.

If you take some time to look into the field of nanotechnology, it's quite an interesting and extensive field of study.  Lizon and I have only scraped the surface on the issue of nanotechnology.  But the ability to manipulate atoms, one at a time, holds enormous promise.  It's one area in which we could see a massive revolution in the way our society works.

Here's another one that you, xeno, have mentioned yourself: robotics.  No, I'm not talking about artificial intelligence just yet.  Just simple robotics.  Factories, accounting services, and hundreds of other menial tasks either have been taken over by automation or have been made much simpler due to automation.  As physical labor is taken over by machinery, it leaves a higher percentage of humans to work in fields of innovation, such as the arts and sciences.  That alone is a launching point for an enormous growth in technology due to the increase in the percentage of total resources a civilization is putting into the growth and application of technology into society.

Time for a third example: Space.  Why can't we mine the moon?  Or even build a colony there?  It's not possible now, granted... but it's not outside the bounds of scientific possibility.  And science should have already proven that if something is within the realm of possibility, human innovation will eventually make it a reality.

"molecular manufacturer"

I'll be honest here. I don't see this technology being used in your everyday home. There simply is no need for it for the most part. I suspect they will be useful in the large scale manufacturing field and such. The only way I can see this working is that people will order an item online or go to a retail store. Look at samples on the showroom, pick out what they want and it's manufactured right there in front of them on the spot and either pick it up there or have it delivered to their home. I mean how often do you buy new furniture, plates, pots, or pans? And lets be honest, there's something about going "Shopping" and seeing a product first hand that you can't duplicate with online shopping. Sometimes you want to see how that chair looks in front of you and take a seat before deciding to buy it.

"Time for a third example: Space.  Why can't we mine the moon?  Or even build a colony there?  It's not possible now, granted... but it's not outside the bounds of scientific possibility.  And science should have already proven that if something is within the realm of possibility, human innovation will eventually make it a reality."

Actually there's nothing really useful on the moon other than Helium 3 and Silicone. The moon is important in terms of simple logistics for the time being. That is until we develop more efficient reaction drives for inter-solar travel. The moon offers the perfect platform for large scale space manufacturing projects. I think it's easier to build something in micro-gravity instead of no gravity at all. Don't have to worry so much about inertia ruining your day.

The biggest gold mines though are going to be the Jovian satellites and the Asteroid belt. Even Mercury has more to offer than the moon due to it's high metal concentrate.

Though at the rate we're going we won't be seeing any of this for at least 200 years. >.< I don't wanna wait! I want my spaceship now! *pouts*

> Lizon wrote:

> "molecular manufacturer"

I'll be honest here. I don't see this technology being used in your everyday home. There simply is no need for it for the most part. I suspect they will be useful in the large scale manufacturing field and such. The only way I can see this working is that people will order an item online or go to a retail store. Look at samples on the showroom, pick out what they want and it's manufactured right there in front of them on the spot and either pick it up there or have it delivered to their home. I mean how often do you buy new furniture, plates, pots, or pans? And lets be honest, there's something about going "Shopping" and seeing a product first hand that you can't duplicate with online shopping. Sometimes you want to see how that chair looks in front of you and take a seat before deciding to buy it.

1: Okay, fine.  That's still a massive change.  If you agree the technology is possible, then there's no disagreement that the implication is a massive increase in production capability.
2: Most people who talk about the technology argue it would be used with the online shopping model.  After all, the system would somehow need to have access to blueprint codes for up to date models, and a system modeled after the modern Internet would probably work very well.
3: Some people still like handmade furniture.  It doesn't mean the industrially produced furniture industry is a flop. 
I'm granting that there will be some people who would rather have their shopping experience, rather than just producing their stuff in some little machine at home or something.

However, the two can run hand in hand.  Modern society has its handmade furniture and industrially made furniture stores.  Industrially made furniture is cheaper.  Handmade furniture is considered higher class.  It would probably be the same with molecularly manufactured versus conventionally manufactured goods.

"Time for a third example: Space.  Why can't we mine the moon?  Or even build a colony there?  It's not possible now, granted... but it's not outside the bounds of scientific possibility.  And science should have already proven that if something is within the realm of possibility, human innovation will eventually make it a reality."

Actually there's nothing really useful on the moon other than Helium 3 and Silicone. The moon is important in terms of simple logistics for the time being. That is until we develop more efficient reaction drives for inter-solar travel. The moon offers the perfect platform for large scale space manufacturing projects. I think it's easier to build something in micro-gravity instead of no gravity at all. Don't have to worry so much about inertia ruining your day.

The biggest gold mines though are going to be the Jovian satellites and the Asteroid belt. Even Mercury has more to offer than the moon due to it's high metal concentrate.

Though at the rate we're going we won't be seeing any of this for at least 200 years. >.< I don't wanna wait! I want my spaceship now! *pouts*

Key words: "at the rate we're going."  See my rant above about exponents. 
As for the moon thing... at the very least, there's land.  Xeno said we wouldn't have enough land, which is one thing you usually can't build.
Besides... there may not be a damn thing useful on the moon... but that would be the most awesome two-week tourist destination ever!  Bam, we have an economy!

The 'quality of life' the majority of humans will experience in the near future is the issue; the quality of life the majority of humans currently SUFFER is the issue.

"Almost half the world

Godwin's Law!  I win the debate!

For Lizon,

"there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

Lolzy

Lizon = pwned, again

http://xkcd.com/261/

First, you'd want to add cost of providing for dependents, so let's say at least double  your 0.97 figure.

Yes, we'll have to at least double your figure BECAUSE you forgot housing (the only cost a couple could really consolidate). 

You forgot housing because the first item that you thought was the cost of renting housing was actually only the cost of electricity. But, of course, you didn't see that because you only see what you want to believe.

Anyway, rent is about $100 a month:

"Housing - Rent, 1 Room (monthly/app.160sqft)    Rp5,000.00    $100.86"

So, first, we'll double your 0.97 to 1.94, and then add 3.60 to your daily total, which brings us to a total of $7 / day for an individual with one dependent to own a one-room apartment with air-conditioning.

Let's say the dependent is a pregnant woman.  When she has a child, this would add another, what, 0.97 to our 7$?

So, now we're basically up to 8 dollars / day.

The new mother can't work for, what, a minimum of 6 months? - about 3 months before birth, and, at least, 3 months after.

But, then, of course she has to start earning something to pay back her family and friends / micro-loan bank (they had to borrow money to pay the hospital bill - which you didn't include in your analysis, of course).

So now she needs to gets a job, and aspires merely to earn half of what her husband makes.  She hopes to earn 3 dollars / day, and, with her husband earning 6, they can pay their monthly costs of 8 dollars a day and still even save 1 dollar a day.

They can afford to live in their own 1 room home (by the way, it isn't a 1 bedroom apartment like you have in the west).  'One room' apartment actually means just 1 room.  No bedroom, no livingroom - it basically means studio).

They can afford to take care of the child and hire a baby-sitter to watch the child while they are both at work.  Oops.  There goes their dollar a day they could have saved, though.  Hmm...

What to do?  There's no daycare or anything like that where she lives.  They are running low on savings, and so they really have no choice but for her to work and then pay for a baby-sitter - just to make ends meet.

She chooses to work.  Who knows?  Perhaps, if she does a good job, she may get a raise after a few months.  Maybe, just maybe, if either of them gets another dollar a day somehow, they will then be getting 10 dollars a day, together.  Perhaps then they can start saving for their child to go to school!

If they save just dollar a day for 4 years, maybe, just maybe, they will be able to afford to send her to a 'kindergarten'.

"middle-class American bungalow and back yard"

I think that's more suburb then city.

You even know it is suburban.

"their own home suburban bungalow with backyard"