3 ms·
We have an abundance of resources, and ship things like food and medicine all over the world. But because of shitty leaders access is the issue. So the only way
by matwood 3y ago
We have an abundance of resources, and ship things like food and medicine all over the world. But because of shitty leaders access is the issue. So the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally.
> If it's clear that there's plenty to go around you can just abandon a bad leader.
If only it were that easy.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago> the only way to address the issue is to get more resources sourced locally. I don't know about "only", but I agree that that's the best move: Fewer labyrinthine dependencies, more providing directly for yourself and your neighbors. But isn't the difficulty of that proposition a direct function of population density? If "locally" means 1000 people on 100 acres, that's a lot different than if "locally" means 10000 people on 10 acres. --- To put it differently, premises: 1. The planet can sustain 100M of us 2. The planet cannot sustain 100B of us 3. There is uncertainty about whether the planet can sustain 8B of us Conclusion: The safer direction for our population to go is down.