1431
and where did that bring you? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
164 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Back to Ted

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 years ago (13 children)

You need to define what you mean by not working.

Of course discussion is needed. How else do you expand your mind and thoughts without discussing things? I don't take your views as being inherently true in much the same way you don't take mine, that's healthy and normal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Inequality, poverty, starvation, suffering, war... C'mon, man. These are issues that don't need to exist, but do so in order to keep certain people in power. It's all part of the machine.

    You don't need to discuss whether the sky appears blue because we know how sunlight interacts with our atmosphere. The same is true for this issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    I would argue the primary cause of all of these problems is that we live in a world of finite resources. I think all of those things would still be problems under any political system we tried to implement. If there was plenty of resources for everyone we would just multiply until that wasn't the case any more.

    I reject the notion that we could rid the world of these things, the entirety of human history provides empirical evidence that backs me up on this. I think it's fantastical to think we could rid the world of these things, all we can do is try to reduce the impact as best we can in the limited ways that we can as individuals and as a society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    We produce more than enough food to feed everyone. Even if you say something like logistics is an issue, we could still feed everyone in the developed nations at least, but we don't. That's a choice.

    Climate change is much more of a practical issue than starvation and poverty. We already have solutions for starvation as I said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    We don't have solutions for starvation at all on a global scale and we do try to feed everyone in developed nations that's why countries have welfare. I agree the welfare safety net should be stronger generally, but I don't think people starving to death is a widespread issue in developed nations. The homeless are much more likely to die due to lack of shelter or drug issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    We have enough food and we have a global shipping industry that is very efficient. So why can't we feed everyone again?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    It's clearly because we haven't had a socialist revolution. That would sort all logistical and societal problems out forever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    That's what I am trying to tell you. There are no logistical problems we don't have the capacity to solve, it's simply not profitable to do so. Feeding the poor who can't pay you isn't profitable so it doesn't get done.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    There is thinking there are no logistics problems we can't solve and then there is actually solving them taking into account real geopolitics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    taking into account real geopolitics"

    So you admit then that the problems are political, not practical in nature?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Geopolitical, as in a combination of political, cultural and geographical.

    I don't think noting the problem is partially political is enough to say it's easily solveable.

    I think we're coming at this from a different philosophy, you see politics as something that is easily changeable, I see it as a product of environmental and cultural positions. Changing the entire world's politics is a nigh on impossible task.

    You see geopolitics as a variable, I see it as a constraint on the actual variables.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    What's finite about seeds?

    Yeah a lot of your responses are basically "I'm going to disregard this because it doesn't fit my view."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •