3 ms·

> Food is not just laying around on the ground in most cases I can go foraging / hunting right now and find food, not enough to live off, but in a time before

by dktoao 4y ago

> Food is not just laying around on the ground in most cases I can go foraging / hunting right now and find food, not enough to live off, but in a time before land ownership and mass population explosions, there would have been enough... Which... is the entire point of the article. So are you arguing for the premise of the article then?

bhhaskin 4y ago
Unless you have a time machine you can't unwind the clock.
kodyo 4y ago
Foraging and hunting for sustenance is work. Author proposes giving people stuff without work.
baggy_trough 4y ago
The premise of the article would make more sense in a time before the mass population explosions you mention. Of course, those explosions could not have happened without the productivity gains from private property and free markets, along with science and other innovations. In some sense most of our very lives are due to the systems the author believes makes us "a planet full of assholes".
grumple 4y ago
...foraging and hunting is harder work than anything done by people complaining about not getting money for free from society as though the rest of us owe them our labor.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  False premise, assuming that anyone in favor of UBI does or has done zero hard work.
Sevii 4y ago
There isn't enough 'natural' food production to support 7 billion people with foraging and hunting. The premise of the article is bad. You don't have rights that don't make sense in the current era. Today it is impossible for everyone to stay alive without highly technologically complex industries with extremely high capital requirements producing the food we eat. We live in an era where for most people if the government runs out of foreign exchange you end up with a famine.
- dktoao 4y ago
  You make the exact same argument as the article and then call the premise of the article bad... I'm not sure what to make of that.
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> but in a time before land ownership and mass population explosions, there would have been enough. That's certainly not true in the sense that modern agriculture allows for population densities that foraging/hunting lifestyles couldn't even dream of supporting. Also, tribes were very territorial about land and fought over it frequently. And people of the time were far more susceptible to changes in the environment: https://qr.ae/pr2Ah3https://qr.ae/pr2Ah3 https://qr.ae/pr2Ah3https://qr.ae/pr2Ah3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxEuXM_0eY&t=110s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxEuXM_0eY&t=110s North American tribes were much smaller in number because they could support far less people per square mile. The Cherokee tribe, one of the largest east of the Mississippi, for instance, numbered around 20,000 in 1690, a paltry number compared to the size of the Aztecs or Maya, which numbered in the millions. From the article: The thing is though, this isn't that far from what we actually did here on Earth centuries ago. Land used to exist without a monetary cost to access it. That was the natural way of things prior to the private property system and monetary system. We created poverty as we know it this has to be the most disingenuous take on poverty I've ever heard. Most of human existence has been a struggle just to not die of hunger or exposure to the elements. Poverty in western nations today is worlds apart from that. Also, from the article: We all would have inherited land, or at least free access to it, but in the process of creating civilization as we know it, we became dispossessed of our natural inheritance Our natural inheritance is subsistence living amidst the constant threat of war, conquest, slavery, and the capricious whims of mother nature and lady fortune. Basically, the strongest survive and might makes right.
- dktoao 4y ago
  I think that by the time we had organized tribes fighting over land we were well into the dominant species / civilization / cooperative resource gathering phase. Thus it isn't really an argument against the main point of the article. So... I'm really confused.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    That's a very non-standard view. Animals fighting over territory is quite common even in arbitrarily small groups, so why do you think conventional thinking - that these are hardwired behaviors present in every animal from crabs to primates and so were present in human nature from the beginning -- is so wrong, and your own views that these are only learned behaviors are correct?

by dktoao 4y ago

bhhaskin 4y ago

Unless you have a time machine you can't unwind the clock.

kodyo 4y ago

Foraging and hunting for sustenance is work. Author proposes giving people stuff without work.

baggy_trough 4y ago

The premise of the article would make more sense in a time before the mass population explosions you mention. Of course, those explosions could not have happened without the productivity gains from private property and free markets, along with science and other innovations. In some sense most of our very lives are due to the systems the author believes makes us "a planet full of assholes".

grumple 4y ago

...foraging and hunting is harder work than anything done by people complaining about not getting money for free from society as though the rest of us owe them our labor.

anigbrowl 4y ago
False premise, assuming that anyone in favor of UBI does or has done zero hard work.

Sevii 4y ago

There isn't enough 'natural' food production to support 7 billion people with foraging and hunting. The premise of the article is bad. You don't have rights that don't make sense in the current era. Today it is impossible for everyone to stay alive without highly technologically complex industries with extremely high capital requirements producing the food we eat. We live in an era where for most people if the government runs out of foreign exchange you end up with a famine.

dktoao 4y ago
You make the exact same argument as the article and then call the premise of the article bad... I'm not sure what to make of that.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

> but in a time before land ownership and mass population explosions, there would have been enough. That's certainly not true in the sense that modern agriculture allows for population densities that foraging/hunting lifestyles couldn't even dream of supporting. Also, tribes were very territorial about land and fought over it frequently. And people of the time were far more susceptible to changes in the environment: https://qr.ae/pr2Ah3https://qr.ae/pr2Ah3 https://qr.ae/pr2Ah3https://qr.ae/pr2Ah3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxEuXM_0eY&t=110s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxEuXM_0eY&t=110s North American tribes were much smaller in number because they could support far less people per square mile. The Cherokee tribe, one of the largest east of the Mississippi, for instance, numbered around 20,000 in 1690, a paltry number compared to the size of the Aztecs or Maya, which numbered in the millions. From the article: The thing is though, this isn't that far from what we actually did here on Earth centuries ago. Land used to exist without a monetary cost to access it. That was the natural way of things prior to the private property system and monetary system. We created poverty as we know it this has to be the most disingenuous take on poverty I've ever heard. Most of human existence has been a struggle just to not die of hunger or exposure to the elements. Poverty in western nations today is worlds apart from that. Also, from the article: We all would have inherited land, or at least free access to it, but in the process of creating civilization as we know it, we became dispossessed of our natural inheritance Our natural inheritance is subsistence living amidst the constant threat of war, conquest, slavery, and the capricious whims of mother nature and lady fortune. Basically, the strongest survive and might makes right.

dktoao 4y ago
I think that by the time we had organized tribes fighting over land we were well into the dominant species / civilization / cooperative resource gathering phase. Thus it isn't really an argument against the main point of the article. So... I'm really confused.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  That's a very non-standard view. Animals fighting over territory is quite common even in arbitrarily small groups, so why do you think conventional thinking - that these are hardwired behaviors present in every animal from crabs to primates and so were present in human nature from the beginning -- is so wrong, and your own views that these are only learned behaviors are correct?