4 ms·

It seems reasonable but nobody is going to agree on what “live” means

forgotmypw17 5y ago
I'd say it means, at minimum, have a place they are allowed to shelter, and find enough food to sustain their existence.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  “Find” food, as if the food just naturally appears in the world, waiting to be found. Who produces this food? Who builds this shelter? Why do they do this? What makes them keep doing it? What would make them stop?
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    Food does naturally appear in nature. In fact, we survived the vast majority of our millenia of existence eating food that we found growing or wandering about. It's _weird_ that we've created a situation where this is no longer the case, due to overpopulation, pollution, etc.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      > In fact, we survived the vast majority of our millenia of existence eating food that we found growing or wandering about. Yes, and those that failed to do so, starved and died. This has been very common occurrence, given the very low population numbers, 3-4 orders of magnitude below current ones — had there been more food, exponential growth would have ensured quick rise in population figures. Given plentiful food supplies, human population can grow extremely quickly. For example, Massachusetts colony population has grown 15-fold between 1650 and 1770, with almost all of this growth being natural. The point here is that hunter-gatherer communities never see their figures swell 15-fold in just 120 years, and that’s because of lack of resources, mostly food. Is this the regime you are recommending we return to? > It's _weird_ that we've created a situation where this is no longer the case, due to overpopulation, pollution, etc. Ah yes, the original sin of invention of agriculture. The thing is, last 200 years is the only time in human history when we don’t have overpopulation. For most of the past history, the world has been filled with as many humans as their current technology and practices could have supported. It is only very recently that we have fewer humans than there could be, and this is most surely not thanks to the food naturally occurring in the nature.
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        Did I recommend returning to a regime? Not sure where you pulled that out of. I'm talking about the historical facts that shaped our evolution. I humbly suggest that you try not to jump to strawman arguments so blindingly fast. > For most of the past history, the world has been filled with as many humans as their current technology and practices could have supported. ... No. Not remotely true. Where do you pull these sweeping and bizarrely false statements from?
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        > Did I recommend returning to a regime? Not sure where you pulled that out of. What was then the relevance of talking about abundance of food in prehistoric times? > No. Not remotely true. Where do you pull these sweeping and bizarrely false statements from? This has been widely known for centuries. Charles Darwin for example talks about it in “The Origin of Species”, not even as something novel, but rather as one of the basic assumptions about his theory of natural selection. In fact, it is rather obvious. It is rather impossible to otherwise explain extremely low historical population figures, coupled with extremely high population growth rates possible. I mean, why hasn’t human population been 7 billion in 10 000 BC already? Your answer must necessarily involve “lack of ability to produce enough sustenance”. Then, why hasn’t it been even 1 billion? Or 100 million?
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    In the Western world, there is currently a mind-boggling abundance of food, with double-digit percentages being discarded. With regards to shelter, it often does not require building in many places. What I am advocating for is allowing people to stay in public spaces if they are comfortable with it.

I'd say it means, at minimum, have a place they are allowed to shelter, and find enough food to sustain their existence.

xyzzyz 5y ago
“Find” food, as if the food just naturally appears in the world, waiting to be found. Who produces this food? Who builds this shelter? Why do they do this? What makes them keep doing it? What would make them stop?
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Food does naturally appear in nature. In fact, we survived the vast majority of our millenia of existence eating food that we found growing or wandering about. It's _weird_ that we've created a situation where this is no longer the case, due to overpopulation, pollution, etc.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    > In fact, we survived the vast majority of our millenia of existence eating food that we found growing or wandering about. Yes, and those that failed to do so, starved and died. This has been very common occurrence, given the very low population numbers, 3-4 orders of magnitude below current ones — had there been more food, exponential growth would have ensured quick rise in population figures. Given plentiful food supplies, human population can grow extremely quickly. For example, Massachusetts colony population has grown 15-fold between 1650 and 1770, with almost all of this growth being natural. The point here is that hunter-gatherer communities never see their figures swell 15-fold in just 120 years, and that’s because of lack of resources, mostly food. Is this the regime you are recommending we return to? > It's _weird_ that we've created a situation where this is no longer the case, due to overpopulation, pollution, etc. Ah yes, the original sin of invention of agriculture. The thing is, last 200 years is the only time in human history when we don’t have overpopulation. For most of the past history, the world has been filled with as many humans as their current technology and practices could have supported. It is only very recently that we have fewer humans than there could be, and this is most surely not thanks to the food naturally occurring in the nature.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      Did I recommend returning to a regime? Not sure where you pulled that out of. I'm talking about the historical facts that shaped our evolution. I humbly suggest that you try not to jump to strawman arguments so blindingly fast. > For most of the past history, the world has been filled with as many humans as their current technology and practices could have supported. ... No. Not remotely true. Where do you pull these sweeping and bizarrely false statements from?
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        > Did I recommend returning to a regime? Not sure where you pulled that out of. What was then the relevance of talking about abundance of food in prehistoric times? > No. Not remotely true. Where do you pull these sweeping and bizarrely false statements from? This has been widely known for centuries. Charles Darwin for example talks about it in “The Origin of Species”, not even as something novel, but rather as one of the basic assumptions about his theory of natural selection. In fact, it is rather obvious. It is rather impossible to otherwise explain extremely low historical population figures, coupled with extremely high population growth rates possible. I mean, why hasn’t human population been 7 billion in 10 000 BC already? Your answer must necessarily involve “lack of ability to produce enough sustenance”. Then, why hasn’t it been even 1 billion? Or 100 million?
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  In the Western world, there is currently a mind-boggling abundance of food, with double-digit percentages being discarded. With regards to shelter, it often does not require building in many places. What I am advocating for is allowing people to stay in public spaces if they are comfortable with it.