A lot of people here are making comparisons to animals in nature, but there’s one big difference. Yes, animals have to work to survive, but they’re not born into debt. Humans effectively are because we need things like housing that are already owned by someone, and they’re free to change exorbitant prices for letting other people use what they own. At least in nature no animal can own more territory than it can personally control, and when it dies the territory is up for grabs by other animals that need it.
and when it dies the territory is up for grabs by other animals that need it.
BEFORE it dies. That’s what your stupid romanticizing doesn’t get. The animal kingdom didn’t get together and decode, “okay, leapord #378, you get these two acres here, and leapord #379, you get those two acres…”
Leapord has to fight and struggle every day to cling to his acres and eventually he’ll get to old or sick and someone will kill him and take it from him.
This is such a ridiculous conversation to be having with anyone over the age of 12. The world is not a Disney movie. Animals in the wild live short, brutal lives.
Minimum wage worker has to fight and struggle every day to cling to his acres and eventually he’ll get to old or sick and someone will apply to his job for lower and take it from him
You obviously didn’t understand a goddamn word of what I wrote if you think I’m romanticizing anything. I’ll cop to not explaining well, but you’re still an asshole putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I suggest an animal doesn’t have to defend its territory. Allow me to clarify.
First, there are no animal billionaires. An animal can’t force thousands of other animals into starvation because it controls a thousand times more territory than it needs.
Second, there is no inheritance. You don’t see situations like we have now where property stays in a single family for generation after generations. THAT is what I meant by “up for grabs”, not some Disney movie animals living in harmony shit. Animals compete for territory all the time, but they at least don’t have to worry about old, sick or dead animals controlling all the territory. Each new generation of animals starts from the same place as the ones before it rather than starting out way behind the offspring of a small minority of the previous generation.
Sure there is inheritance in the wild, it’s called eusociality. Any animal group that holds territory fights to hold it and passes on that territory to their offspring. “Each new generation of animals starts from the same place” is definitely a romanticization of how non-human animal society works. Lion prides fight for the best hunting territory, leaving the weaker group to starve in poorer territory. Same for wolves, same for most primates, and these are just the easy ones off the top of my head.
The original “old, dead animal” that took the prime territory in the first place continues to control all the territory because his offspring and family group get the most resources and have the advantage in fighting to defend it. The only reason there are no animal billionaires is because seasonal resource scarcity cannot be overcome without agriculture and ability to plan months or years in the future, which limits the size of a group and group interaction. Animals don’t stop expending territory because they hit an upper cap on their needs, they only stop at the limit of their ability to hold it.
I don’t know about you, but I think the modern human method is better than having to fight daily to hold onto my house and job, and that it is frowned upon to attack and drive off or kill the patriarch or matriarch of a family and take their place if you want to own instead of rent. The human method still needs lots of work because we still have those same animal desires to keep expanding territory.
A lot of people here are making comparisons to animals in nature, but there’s one big difference. Yes, animals have to work to survive, but they’re not born into debt. Humans effectively are because we need things like housing that are already owned by someone, and they’re free to change exorbitant prices for letting other people use what they own. At least in nature no animal can own more territory than it can personally control, and when it dies the territory is up for grabs by other animals that need it.
BEFORE it dies. That’s what your stupid romanticizing doesn’t get. The animal kingdom didn’t get together and decode, “okay, leapord #378, you get these two acres here, and leapord #379, you get those two acres…”
Leapord has to fight and struggle every day to cling to his acres and eventually he’ll get to old or sick and someone will kill him and take it from him.
This is such a ridiculous conversation to be having with anyone over the age of 12. The world is not a Disney movie. Animals in the wild live short, brutal lives.
If you think that’s anywhere near as bad as animals living in the wild have it, you’re welcome to go try to fend for yourself in the wilds of Canada.
You obviously didn’t understand a goddamn word of what I wrote if you think I’m romanticizing anything. I’ll cop to not explaining well, but you’re still an asshole putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I suggest an animal doesn’t have to defend its territory. Allow me to clarify.
First, there are no animal billionaires. An animal can’t force thousands of other animals into starvation because it controls a thousand times more territory than it needs.
Second, there is no inheritance. You don’t see situations like we have now where property stays in a single family for generation after generations. THAT is what I meant by “up for grabs”, not some Disney movie animals living in harmony shit. Animals compete for territory all the time, but they at least don’t have to worry about old, sick or dead animals controlling all the territory. Each new generation of animals starts from the same place as the ones before it rather than starting out way behind the offspring of a small minority of the previous generation.
Sure there is inheritance in the wild, it’s called eusociality. Any animal group that holds territory fights to hold it and passes on that territory to their offspring. “Each new generation of animals starts from the same place” is definitely a romanticization of how non-human animal society works. Lion prides fight for the best hunting territory, leaving the weaker group to starve in poorer territory. Same for wolves, same for most primates, and these are just the easy ones off the top of my head.
The original “old, dead animal” that took the prime territory in the first place continues to control all the territory because his offspring and family group get the most resources and have the advantage in fighting to defend it. The only reason there are no animal billionaires is because seasonal resource scarcity cannot be overcome without agriculture and ability to plan months or years in the future, which limits the size of a group and group interaction. Animals don’t stop expending territory because they hit an upper cap on their needs, they only stop at the limit of their ability to hold it.
I don’t know about you, but I think the modern human method is better than having to fight daily to hold onto my house and job, and that it is frowned upon to attack and drive off or kill the patriarch or matriarch of a family and take their place if you want to own instead of rent. The human method still needs lots of work because we still have those same animal desires to keep expanding territory.
deleted by creator
What you’re saying is wrong, and, more importantly, stupid.
deleted by creator
I have a great deal of experience, yes
deleted by creator