> 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 agricult

> 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.