meepa

I would put forth that this isn't always the case, because you can still have poverty with a small population with abundant resources. Often poverty is more a result of how well certain segments of whatever society can control the resources which are available.

Also, as someone else mentioned in the thread, poverty is one of those terms that you sort of need to define in order to really pin down your argument. Is poverty not being able to sustain your health? Or is it not having the common luxuries that the majority of those in your society already have?

It isn't necessarily about a lack of resources, but instead how those resources are distributed among the population. Often the established hold more resources than the 'poor' because it wants to, not because it needs to; ie there are certainly enough resources to go around if all aspects of the society decided to live in care-bear land and be more egalitarian.

To be fair, I didn't read the article, I just wanted to take issue with your opening premise which I decided was not an absolute truth, although in some cases it may apply.