this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
74 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

16035 readers
2 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Krause@lemmygrad.ml 64 points 2 years ago (2 children)

“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@hexbear.net 46 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

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

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 32 points 2 years 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@hexbear.net 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was going to say, I wonder if they think trans people should bootleg their own HRT. That seems wildly unsafe compared to centralized production.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] HumanBehaviorByBjork@hexbear.net 25 points 2 years ago

kropotkin-shining mfw someone doesn't want to conquer the bread