ABSTRACT
Words used define thought, structure analysis, and influence conclusions. So ‘Population’, ‘Resources’, ‘Environment’ and ‘Development’ go with ways of thinking which point towards certain conclusions. The thesis of this note is that normal analysis which starts with these words leads all too easily to misleading prescription; that normal professional thinking about PRED has been part of the problem; that people, so often treated as a residual, should on the contrary be the starting point; and that both ethically and practically, putting the priorities of poor people first can achieve not only their objectives but also those of professionals and policy makers concerned with PRED.
