rabble wrote:I think using the word "choose" implies that you had a hand in making the decision.
I'm still not sure I'm following this. Are you agreeing with me or DCB?
People choose to be greedy, whether it's our natural tendency as a species (which I think it is) or not. When you pursue wealth at someone else's expense (which is what we're talking about), you clearly could choose not to do so.
And certainly political views are man-made, not natural, constructions. Not sure how anyone could see that one differently, but I'm open to hearing arguments.
Uncle Fester wrote:I noticed you left out the issue of WATER, not only for human consumption, but also for agriculture and sanitation.
I would absolutely include water among those things which everyone should have access to.
Uncle Fester wrote:You claim there is "plenty of land," but ignore the human footprint -- the amount of land required for each person to have enough food, potable water, and sanitation.
I'm not ignoring anything. There is plenty of water on the planet too. Too much of it is, unfortunately, taken for granted by those who have the most easy access to it, and ends up wasted. Lots of ways we can curb the amount of water we currently use and plenty more ways we could access water which is currently unusable if we applied ourselves to that task. We don't, because it's not cost-effective. Which is what I said earlier: we have our heads up the ass of the free market at the expense of basic human necessities and dignity.
Uncle Fester wrote:You claim the government can feed everybody...
I didn't claim that. I said there's more than enough food in the world for everybody, which is a demonstrable fact. Pretending it's not true is your choice, but it doesn't have any bearing on the facts at hand (which were provided upthread in Snoqueen's link.) And I certainly never said it was the sole responsibility of the U.S. government to feed everybody, so the statistics you quoted are pretty much irrelevant to my argument. But if you want to talk about the U.S., by all means, as we're a shining example of greed and politics preventing us from doing right by our fellow humans. We're in debt because our priorities are completely out of whack, not because there isn't enough "stuff". We'd rather fight unnecessary wars than feed our citizens. We'd rather spend hundreds of millions to incarcerate people than to educate them. We'd rather continue policies which promote further damage to the environment then seriously invest in and promote cleaner and more sustainable energy sources. And so on.
Uncle Fester wrote:You don't mention a thing about the desirability of living on an overpopulated planet. You could probably stuff 50 people into your house and find enough food to keep them alive. But would you want to live this way? Could you live this way?
This argument again presumes that either there's not enough room and resources currently or that there won't be sometime in the near future. I maintain there's no good reason to believe this is so.
Plenty of room, plenty of resources, plenty of "stuff" to go around. It's just not going around, it's circling the drain of the free market.
And let me be clear: I'm in no way opposed to capitalism. It's wonderful for most stuff. But it's clearly failing when it comes to the basics.