Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there's been an ongoing increase in adults ages 18 to 30 who undergo tubal ligation or vasectomy, new research shows.
i have a theory that the food shortage is a sort of example of the overpopulation at play.
The sheer fact that there are so many people in this one place, that we can produce too much food, and then not distribute it effectively, implies to me that there are simply too many people in one place for it to be effectively distributed. I.E. over populated.
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.”
that’s the thing though, it’s not people in a city starving. It’s people across the world starving. I mean sure homeless people are starving and food security IS an issue in the states. But that’s also a macro level issue type deal.
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.”
yeah, no shit, that’s not what im talking about. You could argue an abusive mother not feeding their child one night is also proof against that claim.
My point is that currently, in our collective society, globally, i do not think that our system is capable of supporting the amount of people that exist, in a functional manner. For example, if there were less people in the israel/palestine region, and the rest of the middle east, since they seem to love proxy wars so much. There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine. These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes, gaza especially is done for this reason. Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth. Again, the Bengal famine, was in part, due to an increase in population, which was unsustainable. Ethiopian famine is actually a little bit different, seems to be both in part due to war, and drought, or just drought, but it seems like another significant factor at scale was the food being grown being sold to other parties. As well as political shenaniganry. Though this was also happening during a civil war. Probably also in part, due to well, people existing over top of eachother.
But yeah no, those were absolutely preventable. Just give them food. Then they won’t starve. It’s that simple.
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.
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?
the only people who liked colonialism were the colonizers. Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it’s an influential factor.
Colonialism is not merely a “territorial dispute.”
a little bit, 90% of the time colonialism turns into a war, is because the people being colonized, would prefer to not be colonized. You know, on account of the colonialism. I don’t know if you understand what colonialism is, but it’s basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun, and claiming that it’s my home now, and that everybody in that home now works me. Seems rather territorial by nature to me.
No, genius - it wasn’t. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing “overpopulation” myths.
i’m not, colonialism was pretty explicitly a part of the reason as well. I don’t know if your eyes just glazed over at every instance of me saying “in part” or something, but i was being pretty explicit about it.
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?
“Overpopulation” is a right-wing myth.
i have a theory that the food shortage is a sort of example of the overpopulation at play.
The sheer fact that there are so many people in this one place, that we can produce too much food, and then not distribute it effectively, implies to me that there are simply too many people in one place for it to be effectively distributed. I.E. over populated.
Your theory is bad.
i mean yeah, that’s a possibility. Why though? I think there is some potentially sound logic there.
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.”
that’s the thing though, it’s not people in a city starving. It’s people across the world starving. I mean sure homeless people are starving and food security IS an issue in the states. But that’s also a macro level issue type deal.
yeah, no shit, that’s not what im talking about. You could argue an abusive mother not feeding their child one night is also proof against that claim.
My point is that currently, in our collective society, globally, i do not think that our system is capable of supporting the amount of people that exist, in a functional manner. For example, if there were less people in the israel/palestine region, and the rest of the middle east, since they seem to love proxy wars so much. There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine. These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes, gaza especially is done for this reason. Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth. Again, the Bengal famine, was in part, due to an increase in population, which was unsustainable. Ethiopian famine is actually a little bit different, seems to be both in part due to war, and drought, or just drought, but it seems like another significant factor at scale was the food being grown being sold to other parties. As well as political shenaniganry. Though this was also happening during a civil war. Probably also in part, due to well, people existing over top of eachother.
But yeah no, those were absolutely preventable. Just give them food. Then they won’t starve. It’s that simple.
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.
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?
Colonialism is not merely a “territorial dispute.”
No, genius - it wasn’t. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing “overpopulation” myths.
the only people who liked colonialism were the colonizers. Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it’s an influential factor.
a little bit, 90% of the time colonialism turns into a war, is because the people being colonized, would prefer to not be colonized. You know, on account of the colonialism. I don’t know if you understand what colonialism is, but it’s basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun, and claiming that it’s my home now, and that everybody in that home now works me. Seems rather territorial by nature to me.
i’m not, colonialism was pretty explicitly a part of the reason as well. I don’t know if your eyes just glazed over at every instance of me saying “in part” or something, but i was being pretty explicit about it.
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.
You don’t know a lot about the subject matter involved in this conversation, do you?