• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      That’s not because there are too many people. That’s because the incentives are set up wrong.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          If people in a city starve, it’s not because there are “too many people in one place” - it’s because the people who has control of the food distribution systems of that city chose to let them starve.

          Pick a famine - Irish, Bengal, Ethiopian, the current ongoing one in Gaza… you name it. All preventable. All of them not prevented because the people who had control of the food distribution system saw fit not to prevent it because doing so didn’t serve their interests.

          It has absolutely nothing to do with there being “too many people in one place.”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              18 months ago

              It is very discouraging to see someone with a presumably functional brain make an argument like this. Back in the 80s this could be written of as simple ignorance - but not today, when we have the information available at our fingertips.

              There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine.

              So how do you explain the very same kind of genocidal colonialist wars of the previous three centuries when there were a whole lot less people around?

              These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes

              Colonialism is not merely a “territorial dispute.”

              Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth.

              No, genius - it wasn’t. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing “overpopulation” myths.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  18 months ago

                  Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it’s an influential factor.

                  You have, so far, made absolutely no case that “overpopulation” was a factor in any way whatsoever. Period.

                  It seems to me that you think a community becomes “overpopulated” as soon as anything bad happens to them - which is pretty much the shittiest take I’ve ever seen when it comes to this myth.

                  but it’s basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun

                  You don’t know a lot about the subject matter involved in this conversation, do you?