Originally posted by mrwiffler
You air head. People already grow food. The point is you can't say that "we will never starve".
Let's say you lived in Ethiopia and said this just before millions starved..."hey everyone, food is free, all we have to do is plant some and we'll
be ok."
Doesn't work like that. There are BILLIONS of us. The only reason you probably wont starve is because you probably live in the west.
You are very new to utopian idea's, I can tell. It is good to see someone being positive but me going and planting a bit of food AIN'T going to help
if the world turns to sh#t and the west is forced into starvation.
Whenever information or data is presented there are what is known as outliers. They are the special instances outside the norm. If I say the sky is
blue, someone could say WRONG, the sky is sometimes light blue, sometimes a grayish blue, sometimes even a little purple, don't tell us the sky is
blue, you have to define which kind and point out EVERY variation or you are misleading people! Does that make the sky not blue by pointing out
outliers? The reality is there are no absolute truths, not in a world full of variables and statistical outliers. It's fun to argue sometimes,
howevever everything people say could require a footnote pointing out, "well, it's true unless this happens". Tell someone you are going to a
grocery store and will be right back, "well, unless my car breaks down". I'm going to sleep, "unless of course I get a pain in my side and
can't".
I've debated and have argued many points in the past and the leading argument against statements is someone pointing out an outlier. The other is
someone nitpicking on semantics on an area where there is agreement but people just would rather argue than stop and say LOOK WE BOTH AGREE. I never
said people wouldn't starve, we are in agreement that there are people starving in Ethopia. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, you are stating
something I agree with and are presenting it in a way as if I disagree.
Here's is where your information stops short, yes they are starving, yes some more may starve and die. They are an outlier.
Areas high in government perpetrated genocide will have a tougher time. I never said it would be easy for everyone, some will having living
conditions that make it more difficult. As in the case of the somalian pirates who were in the news, countries and people were dumping chemical
wastes in their water and overfishing in their area water. People were raiding and stealing from the somalians. The same goes for areas in Africa
that depend on poor labor for diamond mining. Their land has diamonds in it yet they don't lay claim to it, instead they are slaves to help others
lay claim to it. Resources and land have been stolen from people throughout the history of the world, often being followed up with genocide and
murder. Do you think the people in Ethiopia and Somalia have always had these starvation problems? NO, or they would have died off a long time ago.
Here is the fascinating thing, you look at people as the problem. As if plants and animals are smarter, animals have caught on to this free food
thing. What Ethiopa lacks is leadership that harnesses the power of their people. They have hands, they have feet, don't understimate the power of
groups. If there are millions of them, there are millions of possibilities. Like someone else stated, WITH WHAT LAND? THE LAND YOU ARE ON BELOW YOUR
FEET. Your theory is based on an idea that since people in Ethiopia are dying, overpopulation leads to starvation without any recourse. Well, they
each have hands, they can plant, harvest and defend their land and protect their people. There are photos of these starving people with full
vegatation and greenery in their areas.
[edit on 29-10-2009 by Colopatiron]
