You may be overestimating other species
Ants were doing war and slavery loooong before humans even came around
Ants do slavery …?
They do! Kurzesgast has a few videos about ants and one of them looks at a slaver ant!
I read a paper a few years ago that basically said that food insecurity is not a problem with production, but is instead a problem with distribution. The USA throws away enough food to feed another good sized country. I don’t know the exact nature of the distribution problem and whether it’s a problem of resources or something else, like s political problem.
Sure it makes sense. You got some dairy making way too much milk, how are you going to get it around the world? The fuel spent is worth a lot more than you would get for selling it. Plus it has to be kept cold. That’s why all the cheap food we eat is made pretty close by and if you are getting something imported chances are it costs more. And that doesn’t even get into what if the place is unstable which would add more costs.
The shit thing is the very people who need food the most are the ones who can’t afford it.
So yeah the food is there but getting it where it needs to be is the tricky part.
The biggest issue involves the logistics on the ground, and in places with extremely high food insecurity, there tends to be little to no legitimate government, and so getting anything done involves dealing with local gangs and warlords. It doesn’t matter how much money you have if every shipment you send will just be stolen at gunpoint and sold to fund the local thug’s next golden toilet. This is not a problem that can really be solved by throwing money at it.
… You could fund your own local gang to take over and do your bidding.
CIA tried doing that, it didn’t go too well. Probably just a skill issue I’m sure
That’s proven to be both unpopular and often having unintended side effects.
This is not a problem that can really be solved by throwing money at it.
You’ve never heard of mercenaries?
The distribution problem in 100% of famines is that some government somewhere cracks down on the free transfer of food. They either physically stop food from moving, or they provide huge financial incentives for moving food outside the famine area.
Many grocery stores give expired food to charity. You will often see a Walmart truck making deliveries to the Homeless shelter
This is a great thing. I didnt know that Walmart was doing it, I have only heard of local grocers in Europe doing this.
I know right? We may not be able to get them off the streets but we can at least keep them fed.
Remember, food insecurity Is a feature of capatilism and is designed to make people compliant, can’t revolt if they can’t eat.
Well, it’s a feature of violent power structure, which shows up in more than just capitalist cultures.
You are not wrong, but capitalism is the most violent power structures to ever exist - even a fascist will reject the idea of infinite consumption in a finite universe.
I would reply to this comment, but my corporate overlords decided to send my nation to Siberia and replace us with Russian settlers. /s
deleted by creator
You haven’t met the crows in my neighborhood.
I can’t wait to see at what the rate per kwH unlimited fusion power is going to be sold to us.
Just like solar power, the “fuel” is unlimited, but the hardware is not free.
Don’t get me wrong, undue profits WILL be made, but at the same time it’s not really free either. Gotta pay for parts/equipment and the people maintaining the reactor and infrastructure.
Most other mammals destroy their offspring if there’s a risk and there a chance of survival for themselves or a smaller amount of offspring.
They can always mate again, that baby is gonna be dead before it has the chance.
Most other mammals? Humans do this too. We’re just advanced enough to do it before it’s actually a baby.
Edit: I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. How is it that people in this thread think humans are never selfish or immoral, and other animals don’t care for their young?
We don’t leave our babies for a predator, we protect them and sacrifice ourselves since others will care for them.
We don’t kill 3 of our 4 offspring so the other can survive.
We don’t eat our young for sustenance.
Sure we cull obvious defects to prevent undue suffering, but at the same we don’t as well.
I’m talking about abortions. Plenty of people have abortions because they can’t afford to have kids or have enough kids already.
Also, people have gone to prison for killing their kids. Don’t think all humans are perfectly moral all the time. We’re still animals.
Also, plenty of other animals sacrifice themselves for their kids. Morality and self sacrifice aren’t unique to humans.
I’m talking about abortions. Plenty of people have abortions because they can’t afford to have kids or have enough kids already.
At the same time, people are also forced to carry.
Also, people have gone to prison for killing their kids. Don’t think all humans are perfectly moral all the time. We’re still animals.
At the same time, some people willingly take non-viable fetuses to term and let the “baby” suffer so they don’t themselves.
Also, plenty of other animals sacrifice themselves for their kids. Morality and self sacrifice aren’t unique to humans.
My first comment;
Most
Yes there are species that don’t kill their young, than there is hamsters who stress eat their young.
I feel like you’re talking in circles. We can at least agree that some humans kill their young, just like other animals.
Yes, but for vastly different reasons. Almost all mammals but humans destroy non-viable infants, so I don’t get what point you were trying to even discuss here?
The topic being, most other mammals would destroy their young before they died of hunger or thirst, so it’s a uniquely human issue.
If it’s not viable, you don’t need to destroy it. It’s already not viable. You also don’t know why an animal does something. I’ve seen a dog nurse a kitten before. I have no idea what it’s thinking and why it’s doing that.
My point is that you’re putting humans on some pedestal like our behavior is vastly different than the other animals when it’s not. We’re more social than other animals, but we have the same instincts and base behaviors. After all, we are animals.
I dunno. I think that not having to worry about having enough would change how people feel about resources. If it’s always going to be there, it just… doesn’t matter.
How does OP define unlimited? There’s hella diamonds but their release is controlled by a cartel inflating their value. Not unlimited surely but also not equally accessible so the price can be manipulated.
One could argue we currently live in a universe with virtually unlimited resources. It’s accessibility that is the issue.
I’m imagining replicator technology like Star Trek.
Also, since we’re talking about horrible companies, Nestlé killed a bunch of babies so…
Every spices would do that.
Even oregano?
Especially oregano! Bunch of cunts, they are.
Especially origami.
Only the sage refuse
Would?
My thoughts exactly. We willingly and enthusiastically harm and kill our fellow man in the name of convenience and/or profit.
we dont have unlimited resources so grammatically the subjunctive tense is appropriate here
I would hope the need to feed the ego as a provider would overhwelm the need for ego as the denier. That or ego just goes out of the equation if apes had unlimited access to unlimited ressources.
Read Ishmael
Halfway through as we speak!
Only in a Communist Utopia
Honestly we just need to be more proactive. It is fine to give tax breaks to the rich as long as they are actually sending most of the money saved to charity.
What is this comment lol
What ever you want it to be I guess. It wasn’t made with much rymn or reason
