• Krause [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    “How would you feed people then, genius?” I hear you scoff. The answer is simple; tried and tested for millennia. I wouldn’t feed people.

    LMAO

    • kristina [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      People would feed themselves instead of expecting others to labor to feed them; an entitlement that arose with industrial civilization. People would be inclined to protect the forests instead of bulldozing them for the supposed convenience of industrial food production if they picked their food directly from those forests everyday.

      They’d protect the forests with their very lives because they’d need the food that grows in the forests to survive without industrial farms, bakeries and factories outsourcing food production and then hiding the ecocide they cause just out of sight of the villages and their carefully manicured streets.

      what a terrible solution. so individualist its almost darwinian. it is also ecocidal in itself, by creating a world in which humans compete with animals, humans will kill animals. without farming, you are now competing with deer and whatever schmuck or tribe moves faster than you. theres a reason humans would go out and kill various ‘pest’ animals and predators: their existence demanded it at the time, for better or worse. the only way to buck this trend is with proper technology and planning. lets also just forget how many plants you need to feed a family sustainably, and also lets forget how much modern agriculture (and breeding, which you are taking advantage of when you grow these supposedly ‘natural’ plants, which oftentimes cant grow without perfect soil conditions given how altered they are, fuck lets forget that many forests have a severe dearth of any native food edible to humans) multiplies the productivity of plants, this plan is inherently genocidal. there is also a mention from ziq that seems to imply that complex forest ecosystems of the past were naturally more productive than agriculture. but why, then, did humans begin to cultivate plants? for funsies?

      also, people do get tied up with literal family trees and demand protections of forests, this is common in most societies that are not settler-colonial and heavily urbanized

      • Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Social darwinists seem to forget that selfish species go extinct quite frequently

        Also your big bad predators. Wolves, lions, bald eagles, all endangered. Any animal can end up that way. Humans too if we fail to manage our environment correctly.

        • kristina [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Also the idea that ancient forests were more productive for humans gives off Christian brain worms vibes

          Like yeah we should just get naked and eat apples forever and laugh at God for telling us not to talk to snakes. That’s how this reads to me

          • Nagarjuna [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, ancient forests were more productive, but it’s because humans were collectively managing them, which is something we could actually do in a civilized world…

              • Nagarjuna [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Folks don’t talk about that a clusterfuck food production is. Our current population levels are based on extractive agriculture reliant on finite inputs, which is actively killing insect populations. It’s killing us long term.

                But the alternatives like managed forests and grasslands or agroecology can’t feed the number of people currently on the planet, at least not with our current inefficient distribution where half of all food is destroyed.

                We need a lower population, and i don’t mean this in a eugenicist way. We need levels of development and social welfare where people don’t need to have kids to survive. We need access to contraception and reproductive healthcare to the point where people people are having kids out of concious choice. We need avenues for care and community outside of the family. We need education that challenges pro-natal ideologies.

                Like, you can’t just talk about food.

        • DamarcusArt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s obviously because those species were just all beta males and not alpha chad rugged individualists like me.

      • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is inherently genocidal because subsistence farming has pretty low carrying capacity, and hunting and gathering even lower. Abandoning industial agriculture means starvation for 90% of world’s population.

      • privatized_sun [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        entitlement

        explicitly using the same words as neoliberals, typical millennial anarchist

        so individualist its almost darwinian

        read Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid for the truth about evolutionary fitness

        • kristina [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree with kropotkins synopsis here for evolutionary fitness, but yeah the argument of entitlement to other people’s labor is fucked, you can’t say that and in the other breath claim to care for people with disabilities

      • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        People would feed themselves instead of expecting others to labor to feed them; an entitlement that arose with industrial civilization. People would be inclined to protect the forests instead of bulldozing them for the supposed convenience of industrial food production if they picked their food directly from those forests everyday.

        ‘Slash-and-burn agriculture’? Never heard of it.