by VMarcHart » Wed 02 Jul 2008, 09:59:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'W')hy not assume the standard of living will fall to 1/3 of it's present value (or less) instead of assuming the population will fall to 1/3rd it's present value?
K, I envision a combo; fall in standard of living and in population. Definetely the former first, but unquestionably followed by the latter. If we look at recent natural catastrophes, ie, Katrina, California fires, Kansas tornadoes, Mississippi River floods, we witnessed people losing their standard of living "live", and then the casualty reports. When it hits the fan, there are both kinds of losses, and technology can only do so much.