• @pinkdrunkenelephants
    link
    English
    01 year ago

    Then let’s just kickstart human expansion into space so resources and land can be unlimited. That would be the only highly organized society you could convince me is legitimate.

    We have more than enough land mass for every single human being to have at least one acre to themselves and then some right now, though. We just can’t distribute it evenly because humans are apes that form dominance hierarchies and control over the land goes to the dominant apes. Only when humans are genetically engineered to be egalitarian will it ever change, so I guess our debate is pretty moot.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      So how do you distribute it fairly?

      What if I a shitty piece of land with rocks in it? And my neighbor has a nice productive piece of land?

      Good luck resolving these kinds of disputes

      • @pinkdrunkenelephants
        link
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Give people the technology to meet their needs and survive happily regardless of the surface of the land they’re given. Land that cannot be built on is cut out of the equation. Vertical farms are used to grow crops instead of direct land cultivation. Water is provided in accordance with user use and if there isn’t enough, more is desalinated. Electricity and homeostasis maintenance is achieved with technology attached to the house.

        Divvy up land by plains and fields first, then extend from there. Even land in the middle of fucking Siberia can have comfortable housing and farming done on it with the right technology. If it’s too cold or too hot, dome it over. Even the fucking ocean can have artificial islands or floating platforms constructed on it. No one has to go without territory.

        It doesn’t have to be hard.

    • @unfreeradical
      link
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sorry.

      Your understanding of biology, anthropology, and history have been limited to the tropes distributed through a reactionary agenda.

      Primates are social, and exhibit immensely varied and nuanced behaviors for sharing and cooperation, further enhanced by culture that adapts a particular population to local conditions. Humans share many general similarities with other kinds of ape, but are not constrained by traits that may be observed strictly in such species.

      For a point of comparison, suppose we take your suggestion literally, about colonizing off planet. Do you imagine some level of cooperation being required, perhaps even great personal sacrifice, not strongly supported by your caricatured representations of nonhuman species?

      • @Shardikprime
        link
        English
        -21 year ago

        At no point in the comment you are trying to answer was implied that cooperation was non existent.

        I must conclude you are just arguing in bad faith

            • @pinkdrunkenelephants
              link
              English
              01 year ago

              Lol go tell that to my detractors who you applaud when they do it to me, in blatant violation of sitewide rules of their own instances, while mods and admins don’t bat an eye.

              Don’t pretend there’s any honorability in anything people do, especially not online.

        • @unfreeradical
          link
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Did I represent the comment as insinuating that cooperation is nonexistent?

          Your objection is outrageous, considering the intensity of its tone, and the structure of my comment, that you are criticizing, within its context.

          Again, the comment was parroting reactionary tropes that are rejected essentially universally by experts who study the relevant fields.