and where did that bring you? - eviltoast

Back to Ted

  • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              taking into account real geopolitics"

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

              • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year 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.