Why is the world in 1626 + 400 still not capable of producing enough food to feed everyone?What am I missing? We have fertilizer, tractors, terraforming tools and huge farms with incredible efficiency per square meter.So why is 10% of the world still living in famine and on brink of starving to death?
>>109080293humans are cunts.most animals are cunts.I like pandas.
We are capable of producing enough food for everyone , just not everyone is in a position to buy it. You need turn your world view around. Yea, 10% of the world lives in abject poverty , but this is down from like 30 or 40 percent in the 1960s.
>>109080366fippy bippy
Logistics I guessIf companies could beam food to them for free, they wouldn't be starvingInstead it costs money to store and so they gotta go with the cheapest option which is throw it away
>>109080293we produce way more food than we need to feed everyone. people starve because we distribute it with the goal of maximising profits rather than minimizing hunger.
no one is starving to deathnon issue you hallucinated because you ingest too much reddit
We are producing enough food for everyone.However the retards in thirdie nations breed more when they get more resources.For example India's economy under British rule went 10x and they bred so much that they negated all gains into negatives.Thirdies are constantly straddling the very edge of carrying capacity and due to their inability to think in any abstract manner, their farming practices are inefficient as shit.If these people didn't breed like cockroaches there would be no problems.
the more food the more childrenit's a bit like jevons paradox
>>109080293>So why is 10% of the world still living in famine and on brink of starving to death?because they wont overthrow the people preventing them from importing foodIts quite obvious
>>109080293>communist country experiences a famine
>>109080293I can fix her
>>109080293da jooz
>>109080293Food insecurity isn't "starving to death" since most probably won't actually die, they just go hungry for a while. What you're missing is that it's for the same reason that you'd go hungry for not having a car to drive to the store. The food exists but just not immediately in front of your niggy ass.
>>109080293Usecase of feeding everyone?
>>109080293Logistics. Unfortunately there are only 4 companies handling that today which it use to to be hundreds after decades for mergers and acquisitions
>>109080293>BROOOOO WE NEED 8 BILLION PUPPERPEOPLE BECAUSE... WE JUST DO BROOOO WE NEED LIKE EVEN MORE PEOPLE BRO WE NEED AT LEAST 15 EVEN 20 BILLION PEOPLERINOThere is zero reason to preserve the human species
>>109080293Jesus predicted this.
>>109080372A lot of it is a distribution problem though. During COVID pandemic I read stories of farmers slaughtering thousands of pigs and burning thousands of tons of potatoes. That took energy to grow, process, etc, and we just wasted it because we couldn't be arsed to find somebody to take it.It kind of breaks me thinking that even in the United States there are working families and kids who don't get enough to eat. We produce enough food domestically that every child would probably be fat as hell if they were made to eat it all.Maybe that makes me a socialist, but I don't care, I still write checks to our food bank for that very reason. That's something I consider wrong, to waste food and resources that could be used by people for their betterment. Children could use that food to go to school and learn.
I want to save a nork so bad.I also share your ideals OP. There's no good reason we can't automate all of this, but we have not put the efforts and resources into it until recently.And any efforts and resources that have gone in are proprietary and anti-consumer, not a shared benefit to us all.I'm sure someone's farm is fully automated and packaged and delivered by robots, but that's for their profits, not the people.
>>109080293Sub-saharan niggers are incapable of planning for the future, and western superiority-guilt aid mostly goes to arming juntas and tinpot dictators. That or communism.
>>109082124Wow, Jesus predicted a thing that normal for the time.
>>109080293During covid, dairy farms dumped 6-15 billion pounds of milk. Every single year 8-13 billion pounds of potatoes are dumped. Globally it's somewhere between 275-595 billion pounds. The same happens with others, nobody hears about it though.
Why do dumbasses immediately go to "wasted food" as something that is at all relevant to world hunger. it isn't it never has been and it never will be. food is grown, it's not zero sum. it's cheaper to dump it then it is to ship it across the world, which you cant even do anyway. it's not fucking rocket science. nor is it our job to feed africa every time they have a drought or cant figure out how to stop having millions of kids in the desert.>it le heckin breaks my heartliterally not your problem. you want to help send them a kubota and a book on irrigation. this is a 10,000 year old solved problem btw.
>>109082785This is factual and why we shouldn't allow people to donate to africans. The problem is the psychopaths.
>>109080293It is possible. But some bllionaires want more billions instead. Nothing we can do.
>>109080293BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE COUNTRIES WANT IT TO HAPPENYou think african warlords want their people to be fed? They're a source of charity income for their silver limousines and helicopters.
>>109083098>its the heckin billionaires doing this!you are a fucking dumbass.10,000 year solved problem btw.
>>109080293>We have fertilizer, tractors, terraforming tools and huge farms with incredible efficiency per square meter."We" dont have it. Billionaires and their corps have them.It's a solved problem btw (hint: communism)
>>109080293You are missing something bigger. By feeding those who for some reason were failing to feed themselves, you are ruining the world. Because you are using up the non renewable hydrocarbons to synthesise fertilizers to grow food and feed them at your taxpayers' expense. With a big cut going to olygarchy (the infamous philanthropists and farmers like Gates and alike). What that does is the increase of illiterate people who received no education and mostly have no running water or electricity etc. They live in slums and pollute the world ocean with plastic that you ship to them at your own expense.If you stop doing that, hundreds of millions of those people will die, both from hunger and from wars for food and water access.If you don't stop doing that, their population will continue to grow, until the entire world reaches capacity. And it is pretty close, take a look at how much % of the entire planet is NOT farmland. Spoiler: not much.Then when it comes to your original question, you have the answer on your pic. Look at that girl, why is she in such a state? Why are her parents dead?Answer is simple, I can tell without looking into it. The regime killed her parents and is currently killing her off as well. Slowly, so that it would appear to be legal and non violent.That is what bolshevic death camps were, same thing Germans did, they borrowed their idea. Same thing happened in China, when they killed 50mil and same in NK. Death by exhausion and malnutrition.Same thing happened in every single communist country that has ever existed, without fail.It will continues to happen as long as communism exists. It will stop when you kill the last communist party member. Only some primitive societies will continue to suffer from random stuff, but it's their choice to live outside of civilisation and have some king and tiny tribal wars etc. I believe they should be left alone, it makes sense to interfere only if they posses guns and attempting genocides.
>>109083174Except North Korea is currently at replacement birth rates, while South Korea is importing indians to help the low birth rate.How is this not proof that capitalism is failing.
We didnt have capitalism 10000 years ago, any non-retard would know that.
>>109083276> South Korea is importing indians to help the low birth rateNever said it's not like that.> Except North Korea is currently at replacement birth ratesYou do not know. Neither do I. But remember this: 100% of statistics published by a communist state is always a lie. No exceptions. For a simple reason that even the head of their commie party is being lied to. They don't know the real numbers themselves.So it could be close to truth, it cound be very far as well.And besides that, you seem to be unaware of the reason behind death camps. It's not like they are killing everyone. They are doing targeted murder by exhaustion and malnutricion. Those who disobey the party will die. Those who are perfect slaves of the party will live on.
>>109083278The term itself is a meme. The free market existed basically always, even before people knew how to read and write.Only reason it exists is because post Dark Ages Europe was recovering slowly from all that ignorance and barbarism. But people you would call capitalists existen in Rome and Greece alright. Insurance companies existed back then as well.You can hardly blame the French for making up that term, they were very happy to be free from slavery under the king and his inbred aristocracy.
>>109080372>>109080485>>109080494>weFucking morons>>109080293Why aren't you capable of minding your fucking business and leaving others the fuck alone?>>109082785Mutt's Law outta nowhere. Why are you so obsessed with niggers, anon?
>>109083419Because global hunger is almost entirely africa you fucking retarded swamp german
>>109083440>Global>AfricaSo you're obsessed with niggers, because of global hunger. Interdasting. Starve reason to be obsessed with a group that don't affect you directly nor personally. Strange obsession indeed.
>>109083385Capitalism isn't "free markets".You can easily have free markets without capitalism and vice versa.Chinese markets are very free, yet they aren't capitalist.American markets aren't free, yet they are capitalist.You can even have free markets under feudalism, but you still won't be able to own land if you're not part of a specific social class.
>>109083475>Chinese markets are very free, yet they aren't capitalistYou are delusional. They are under control of the CCP, most of the economy is directly owned by the members of CCP.And yes, they are capitalist. Since they own the capital, they hire workers and such. What is that if not capitalism?The term is retarded and means nothing.Back when they used planned ecnomy it was still technically capitalism, since the CPP was acting like a single big corporation that owns the entire country.Not it is decentralised, but controlled and monitored. Back then it was monolithic. Both are capitalism.That is why I say it makes no sense. You distinguish it by saying that is free market and that is some retarded inbred socialist jewish nonsense.> American markets aren't freeThey are. What you are trying to say is that they are increasingly being controlled by monopolies, like FAGMAN. Here the deal: FAGMAN itself is american CCP. That is the problem. There is no "late stage capitalism". There are a bunch of commies in America trying to ruin it.Do with this knowledge what you want.> You can even have free markets under feudalism, but you still won't be able to own land if you're not part of a specific social classThat's the thing. CCP is a specific class. FAGMAN stakeholders are the specific class. And that specific class is making sure you do not have free market. You should only have food stamps, own nothing, eat bugs, you get the idea.If you cannot trade, you are not free. First thing commies ban is trade and right to own money. If you cannot sell your work and government owns the output of your labor, you are a slave. That's classic communism.
>>109083458strange*
>>109083475
>>109080293>Try to give food to poor starving people in third world country>Have to get it through dogshit infrastructure>Some places COMPLETELY lack infrastructure, and the only way to get it to them is through airdrops which is retardedly expensive and hard to do>Places where there actually IS enough infrastructure runs the problem of supply convoys getting ambushed by bandits / revolutionary groups / extremists / etc...>Your first world delivery driver who unironically had a heart of gold just got raped and executed by the same people causing the country to be a poor shithole in the first place >Instead hire locals to deliver food to avoid this>Locals steal food and sell it for profit, with none of the food getting where it's supposed to go>Delivery has to be consistent because food is both perishable and consumable so even if you manage to feed starving village 104912491 you will need to do it again next week.This is what they mean by world hunger is a logistics issue. You could feed the world quite easily and quite cheaply, but getting the food TO those starving people is literal orders of magnitude harder, more expensive, and dangerous
>>109083458>that don't affect you directly nor personallyThe fuck makes you think it doesn't affect people personally?As long as my nation sends a fucking dime over there and takes in the migrants from those nations, while also having our Western systems push the idea of "climate refugees" as a real thing, yes it fucking affects me personally.Not to mention global supply chains are in constant danger of these dumbfucks destabilizing their own societies with infinite breeding and running out of resources.
>>109083529Lots of words for someone who doesn't even understand the definition of free markets.Free markets are not only free from government intervention but also monopolies, rents and so on.US markets are completely captured by monopolies and rents. Thus the high profit margins and consumer costs. Low competition.Chinese markets have minimal rents and monopolies. Thus the low profit margins and consumer costs. High competition.What makes capitalism is the ability to buy and sell productive assets with money. Land, businesses, etc.Very simple in the US, not so simple in China (SOEs, whole areas of the economy where you can't run private businesses, land ownership, etc.) They allow capitalism but it's restricted to specific sectors of the economy with heavy limitations.Read Adam Smith and Ricardo if you want to argue about free markets lmao.
>>109083529>Not it is decentralised, but controlled and monitoredNow it is decentralised*fix*Really, nothing changed in China and Russia since 'Murricans won the cold war. In fact it is questionable if 'Murricans won at anything at all, since all the commies are still in power and still own those countries and still write the laws and still project power all over the world.
>>109080293We have more than enough of everything that we need we just waste it because of money. Shops would rather destroy their own product then have people fed.
>>109083604You still missing the point. Members of CCP can trade that stuff. Only random foreigners cannot. And regular citizens.Member of the CCP is free from competing monopolies, rents and so on. They have access to markets you have no idea about. They trade access to land, they trade access to areas of economy that nobody else is allowed in. They live in their own little world.Same thing with FAGMAN. Perhaps they negotiate their business on Epstein's island instead of big fancy bulding with columns and arches. But they are the same "special class". In late Soviet Union such a class was called "nomenclatura". Literally means members of the communist party and their family and close friends.> Read Adam Smith and Ricardo if you want to argue about free markets lmao.I was arguing about the term "capitalism" and I said it makes no sense and means nothing. French made it up when they were trying to explain difference betwen normal and whatever bullshit was happening there before they killed off the aristocracy.They failed to comprehend that in the past people already had what they achieved in their revolution. They were not making much progress, they simply stopped living in the retarded feudalism inbred with absolutist asian monarchy.You seem pretty confident. Define the difference between capitalism and free market then.
>>109080293Legacy of Mao. Xi Jiping saved china.
>>109083661>Define the difference between capitalism and free market then.Free markets are markets free from governments, rents, monopolies and so on.You can grow a potato and sell it at a price you choose in a random village without being part of the potato farmers guild.This can exist under many systems of land and asset ownership. You might not be allowed to sell your farm or buy more land. You might be under constant threat of losing your land due to the local warlord wanting it.Capitalism on the other hand is a system of organizing asset ownership and production.You are able to own, sell or rent the farm where you grow your potatoes and the tools to do so. The authorities (whichever those are) protect your ownership (or someone else's) of that property.This says nothing about the state of the markets.You might not be able to sell your potatoes in the village because the market is owned by someone else and they paid the village to be the only potato sellers in town.You might not be allowed to grow potatoes without buying a specific fertilizer.In most pre modern societies neither of those conditions were present. Under feudalism you had some degree of free markets, but land ownership was almost impossible to acquire through money.The closest thing you'll get to pre modern capitalism is probably late Rome and some periods of Chinese history, but even then it was relatively easy to lose your property if the only thing you had was money. Property rights weren't guaranteed and that is a requirement for capitalism.Free markets are a bit more common, but not as prevalent as today.
>>109083843>You might not be allowed to sell your farm or buy more land.This is not free market LMAO> You might be under constant threat of losing your land due to the local warlord wanting itThis one is though. Hence why you pay for the military upkeep to deter the warlord. Call it tax or whatever. But this is what free market does, it organizes itself into something more complex that a farm.What you described is some communist wet dream, only with money, not with the absence of thereof.> Capitalism on the other hand is a system of organizing asset ownership and productionThat's it. The retarded term that means nothing.I'll explain something to you real quick.Your PC qualifies as means of production?No, because you can't make much money with just one PC.If you're gay prostitute, your ass qualifies as means of production?Yes, because your ass can make a lot of money. Hence why prostitution is convered up by communist party (police, special services etc) and all profit goes to them.Term "capitalism" means nothing. Communism does not exist, it's made up nonsense. And we arrive at the point I presented to you previously.There is either free market or the one that is controlled by some entity, like a communist party or FAGMAN shareholders.You literally don't need anything else to describe the circumstances. And keep in mind that FAGMAN shareholders, CCP and Soviet Nomenclature are a special class that lives in an isolated economy. They do have free market. You're the one isolated from it. It exists, but not for you.There is no need for mental gymnastics here. You either have free market and you are free. Or someone denies you access to free market. And then you either live in cave or you are a slave. Nothing in between.But besides the strict definition in real world there are gradients to this. You may live where you have free market and can trade (not a slave), but the way your society is organized is terrible and system requires very high upkeep.
>>109083843>Property rights weren't guaranteed and that is a requirement for capitalismThey were guaranteed both in Rome and Greece. They had law and civilisation way before middle eastern religion ruined everything with universalism and enforcement of slave morals on everyone.> Under feudalism you had some degree of free marketsYou did not. The way it worked is different from what you imagine. People owed everything they produced to their lord. Results of their labor never belonged to them. Even if on paper it may seem like it. They were dependent on their master. And their master was the only one who could sell products of their labor in high quantities.And you can bet the world that he did not like competition. You can compete with your lord on who sells more shit. Because he will just take it away from you and sell it. Which is what he did, always.You don't even understand feudalism and trying to explain free markets to me. Kek
>>109080293If you produce enough food for everyone, they'll have more children because they have enough food. Then you suddenly have too many mouths and you can't feed everyone. Once enough have died from the lack of food, you'll have enough food to feed everyone again.This is how biospheres balanced themselves for millions of years. It's only indians and africans who are cunts and keep going through population booms. Even China used to have a one child policy until they noticed their neighbours are outbreeding them.
>>109084044>They were guaranteed both in Rome and Greece.They really weren't.Greece wasn't even a unified entity so pointless to discuss it.Rome depended on the time period.Early/Mid Republic they were guaranteed.Late Republic/Empire not so much. You had land reforms and confiscations relatively frequently.>You did not. The way it worked is different from what you imagine. People owed everything they produced to their lord. Results of their labor never belonged to them. Even if on paper it may seem like it. They were dependent on their master. And their master was the only one who could sell products of their labor in high quantities.Which is why I said to some degree.You didn't have a system of free markets for most of the population, but you had some free markets due to the fact that power wasn't centralized.You had no capitalism at all.>>109084020You know you can just buy equity in the tech companies and participate in their monopoly profits right?
>>109080293The west does not produce enough food for everyone either (synthetic slop is not food)
>>109080293>Why is the world in 1626 + 400 still not capable of producing enough food to feed everyone?We are already producing like 40% over the world’s need in terms of food>What am I missing? We have fertilizer, tractors, terraforming tools and huge farms with incredible efficiency per square meter.>So why is 10% of the world still living in famine and on brink of starving to death?Because we started voting in fascist capitalists who, even if given the exact plan to solve world hunger, would rather spend 5x that on buying Twitter instead. It’s time to take the guillotine to every single billionaire, redistribute that wealth to programs to solve world hunger / disease / etc. and institute capital punishment for any politician who puts money into their own pockets instead.
>>109083458>thread is about a problem that only Africa has>anon spergs out if anyone mentions Africa
>>109083767>Legacy of Mao.I remember that project Mao launched, where they tried eradicating all pests that ate their food, like rats, flies, and ... sparrows. Without the sparrows to keep them in check, locust population skyrocketed and ate all the crops everywhere and now they had a famine ten times worse than before. Absolutely stupid cunts.
>>109084044>You did not. The way it worked is different from what you imagine. People owed everything they produced to their lord. Results of their labor never belonged to them. Even if on paper it may seem like it. They were dependent on their master. And their master was the only one who could sell products of their labor in high quantities.There was still a merchant class who traded shit though. It just didn't mean Mr. Bongo visiting his neighbour to buy/sell shit, it meant travellers making huge boat trips or going with a caravan through the silk road etc. It's what fueled the age of exploration and Colombus's trip to the indies.
>>109084227>even if given the exact plan to solve world hunger, would rather spend 5x that on buying Twitter instead.Solving world hunger means everyone has more kids and we are back to square one, except the entire world now looks like the slums of Calcutta because we have more kids than physical space, so everyone is even more unhappy than before and they think all of this is your fault.Twitter means you can control the media narrative so people will vote you into power.Were you a trillionaire, tell me which one would be more useful to you?
>>109084044>People owed everything they produced to their lord. Results of their labor never belonged to them.This is not true. It's actually propaganda about how bad medieval times were.Of course it varied a lot but 10-20% ish tax to the lord and 10% tithe of course. Sometimes it was mostly/only that peasants had to do labor for the lord (especially harvest).Then they lived rent free though, and the lord was responsible to protect them and provide infrastructure.Compare that to modern day, being a young worker in a big city, ~25% of income lost to tax, 50% of what remains lost to rent...
>>109080461Yeah for example, unless India fixed it in recent years, some % of their harvest tends to rot away at the train station cause they don't have the train capacity to transport everything in time.
>>109084198>You know you can just buy equity in the tech companies and participate in their monopoly profits right?Yeah.I'm not good with this stonks shit. But pretty sure if Russians and Chinese have those, it means they cannot influence anything at all. So it's probably like putting a deposit in a bank. And if you make way too much money, they will tax the shit out of you and bother you with stupid papers so much, you will have to hire a lawyer and so on. It's not even a prejudice, I just know it is like that. You know it's the zeitgeist.>>109084198>Early/Mid Republic they were guaranteedTbh, those are the only ones I really care about, so I never clarified, but you're right.> You had no capitalism at allWhat if we mention some traders of that time. People who had a ship or two. They were not tied to any land and all they did is travel and trade, which eventually would allow them to buy up stuff.You know, that reminds me. Were Templars not a thing during hardcore Feudalism period in Europe? Because I remember they owned a shit tonn of land all over the world. And like half the world owed them money.Then there's Church. If Templars owned a lot, Church owned the rest of the world. The was no larger land and property owner in the world than the Church.Church was the giant capitalist of the feudal period, Templars were close second for some time.So are you sure there was no what you call capitalism during that time? I'd say there was, but I don't really care how much they had. I care if everyone else was in position to own something and trade. It is obvious that Templars and clergy of the Church were doing fine and were free to trade and own. But I'd rather define the time period by how it was for the majority of the humanity, not for a few special snowflakes.
>>109084309>Then they lived rent free though, and the lord was responsible to protect them and provide infrastructureNope. They gave up everything they produced, then lord gave them scraps so they would not die in the winter.> Compare that to modern dayDepends where you are. In NK it is still "lord gave them scraps so they would not die in the winter" kind of life.
>>109080293>Why is the world in 1626 + 400 still not capable of producing enough food to feed everyone?We can kek. We just throw it awayThis is 1000% retarded
>>109080293Do you think she'd agree to become my onahole for food, shelter and clothes?
>>109084363>They gave up everything they produced, then lord gave them scraps so they would not die in the winter.Go look it up anon. That's not true.Could you even imagine how that would work? Take everything to the lords castle, store it there, then hand it out... The buildings would have been very different then.It would also be very hard to enforce that you didnt actually eat a few eggs this morning and only grew 20kg of carrots not 30...It was much more practical to just demand x sacks of grain per house, and also better because it maintained the incentive to be productive.
>>109083591>>109084239Show us on the doll where niggers hurt you, anon?
>>109080293Famines are obsolete technologically but some governments are magical and can bring them back
>>109084363It still works that way, you just call those scraps wages, while the company CEO you work for brushes teeth every morning with dom perignon.
>>109084501Those are just details. On practice it would be what? A house with x people of age y can produce z amound of goods. You take away as much as you can, but leave enough for them to not die of hunger.Then you make sure they don't actually die of hunger in the winter, because they are guaranteed to lack something, you took away too much.If you didn't, then you would notice they can sell their stuff and better their situation. Which is le bad. Means next time you demand more of them.Do you think those castles were for war? They were purely for protection from angry farmers, who would from time to time gang up on their lord. Lord would then call for help, hire mercs or ask relatives (other lords) to drown the rebellion in blood.That's feudalism. Not what christians show in the movies that depict peak christianity.
>>109085024That's what I'm talking about.Market is free on paper. But do you participate in it? You can make money and keep them, you're not really a slave, right? But you are scammed by employer into giving up most of what you produce.These things never changed and it's never binary, there gradient to how free the market is. The absolute non free one is in the communism. You literally cannot hire anyone and cannot make more money than X, because reasons. Besides you will be starved to death in the labor camp if you refuse to collectivise (give up your property and work for the government owned enterprise, never for youself). You cannot own real money (foreign currency banned) and your fake money are basically food stamps, useful only to exchange them for stuff the party approved (private groceries do not exist, list of goods available for sale approved by government). And so on.Absolute free market is free of government and monopolist middleman. Absolute non free market is completely owned by the government which is also a monopolist middleman at everything that involves trade, goods and services.
>>109080293>Feed a 3rd world population of 300m>it becomes 400m>100m people starving to death>feed a population of 400m>it becomes 600m>200m people starving, world hunger literally worse than ever>feed a population of 600m>becomes 1b>literally 400m people starving world hunger at record highs>feed 1b>becomes 1.5b>literally half a billion people starvingStupid people will just never understand the world hunger meme. You are trying to fix a culture thats natural population control was seeking equilibrium with it's environment and now you've butted in because "that's wrong and evil!!!" and you have created the most inhumane hellscape rape train on earth that's ever existed.
>>109085094>you are scammed by employer into giving up most of what you produce.Yeah and in return we get free healthcare and unemployment benefits. We could play the game where you don't give up 40% of your income for this and income tax, but then any time you get a common cold or need painkillers, the pills will cost a thousand dollars, delivering a kid will cost $13000, etc.
>>109085130There will literally be a war for food and water in the near future. With kids holding AK-74 in their hands and all that.Literal hell on earth. And then survivors will ask to be let in Asia and Europe.Do not forget to thank Bill Gates and his friends for that.
>>109085134You're almost right. If you don't pay enough your government and/or don't check quality of their work, their services will be shit, so there would be criminals unchecked.They would run organized crime, call it something like compulsory insurance, lobby in a law for that. Then same will happen in medicine, all the phisicians will try to scam the insurance company by elevating their prices way up. And there's more to it, but the result would look like what you have on the pic.
>>109085194Imagine how many rapes have been facilitated by western do gooders. It's gotta be billions now. How many fathers raped their daughters, directly facilitated by western do gooders. How many aids deaths, or just STDs in general and among children as well have been facilitated by Low IQ retarded western do gooders. How many animals tortured to death by the local populations who are just out of control etc. How much ecological damage done by western do gooders just from the sheer number of people they've facilitated. It is truly and sincerely just evil. the people who enabled this are evil pieces of shit who deserve to burn in hell.
>>109085223>Then same will happen in medicine,Medicine already works like that in the USA.
>>109085134>imageThe one that makes my blood boil is "convenience fee" for anything / any service. Most of my state services make you pay a convenience fee for using their web services instead of showing up to the office. So you pay more money to do the same thing despite not having to pay for transit, and doing all the work yourself with the computer instead of a paid employee. You pay extra to do the work for them, in your own home.
>>109085247That's the joke.
>>109084313Train's gotta eat, too>>109080488OK, gay retard>>109083070Food goes into trash, trash goes into dump. Dump seeps "leech" into the ground & trash beneath, poisoning it. Also, food waste which could otherwise decompose/get composted sits in a trash bag for a few thousand years, inaccessible to us in this or many lifetimes.
>>109085261>food waste which could otherwise decompose/get composted sits in a trash bag for a few thousand years, inaccessible to us in this or many lifetimesBecause you do not allow 3rd worlders to have access to plastic. Even if they ended up in 1st world. Industrialized society is not for everyone.
>>109080293>not capable of producing enough food to feed everyone?We can produce enough food to feed everyone.>What am I missing?Logistics >why is 10% of the world still living in famine and on brink of starving to death?Logistics
>>109084227>Because we started voting in fascist capitalists who, even if given the exact plan to solve world hunger, would rather spend 5x that on buying Twitter instead. Why nearly all biggest famines happened in communistic countries then?
>>109080293dont look at how much food restaurants throw away. dunkin doughnuts dumpster can feed an army.
>>109080293we can and doit's mostly a logistics and economics (as in "i ain't paying for that" not "i don't have enough money") issue at this pointthen again, without limiting population in any way, solving world hunger would only be chasing our tails
>>109080293>So why is 10% of the world still living in famine and on brink of starving to death?Because the wrong people won a war, simple as that.It's not that the rest of the world is any better, since massive corruption scandals are commonplace among every country in the world, it's just that some are better at hiding it than others, it's really telling how a completely mismanaged and sucked of their resources western economy is able to make people live cozy lifes, really speak a lot about how reliable most economies are despite their politicians.
>>109085408I worked retail for a bit and the bakery department alone would throw away an overflowing produce bin worth of cakes, breads, cookies, etc. almost every night.
>>109080293we're just animals with fancy technology but at the end of the day all that matters is consooming and fucking
