Back to Ted

  • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you have anything to contribute? I’m trying to have an actual discussion about policy.

    I think the profit incentive is important in maximising yield, do you have anything to add to this as to why I may be wrong? Or are you just going to signal me as an other so that others just switch off and get defensive.

    I think it’s kind of ironic that some claim to want the world to see things from their point of view but then immediately attack those who question their views or try to understand. This just suggests to me you’re more about signalling to your in group than growth in ideas and discussion.

    • the_q@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s to discuss? We live in a society that you’re describing and it’s awful for most people. You defeated yourself.

      • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is a lot to discuss. I’m discussing about why I think communal style living/economics don’t scale well. You think it does, there are reasons we both have our opinions and maybe we could actually learn from each other rather than you viewing me as someone to be defeated.

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

          You’re wrong though. You’re saying the way it isn’t can’t work while living the way you’re describing and it not working. No discussion is needed.

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

            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.

            • the_q@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world
                    cake
                    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.

                • the_q@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.”