• masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It is very discouraging to see someone with a presumably functional brain make an argument like this. Back in the 80s this could be written of as simple ignorance - but not today, when we have the information available at our fingertips.

    There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine.

    So how do you explain the very same kind of genocidal colonialist wars of the previous three centuries when there were a whole lot less people around?

    These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes

    Colonialism is not merely a “territorial dispute.”

    Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth.

    No, genius - it wasn’t. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing “overpopulation” myths.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      So how do you explain the very same kind of genocidal colonialist wars of the previous three centuries when there were a whole lot less people around?

      the only people who liked colonialism were the colonizers. Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it’s an influential factor.

      Colonialism is not merely a “territorial dispute.”

      a little bit, 90% of the time colonialism turns into a war, is because the people being colonized, would prefer to not be colonized. You know, on account of the colonialism. I don’t know if you understand what colonialism is, but it’s basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun, and claiming that it’s my home now, and that everybody in that home now works me. Seems rather territorial by nature to me.

      No, genius - it wasn’t. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing “overpopulation” myths.

      i’m not, colonialism was pretty explicitly a part of the reason as well. I don’t know if your eyes just glazed over at every instance of me saying “in part” or something, but i was being pretty explicit about it.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it’s an influential factor.

        You have, so far, made absolutely no case that “overpopulation” was a factor in any way whatsoever. Period.

        It seems to me that you think a community becomes “overpopulated” as soon as anything bad happens to them - which is pretty much the shittiest take I’ve ever seen when it comes to this myth.

        but it’s basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun

        You don’t know a lot about the subject matter involved in this conversation, do you?

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You have, so far, made absolutely no case that “overpopulation” was a factor in any way whatsoever. Period.

          so far your entire argument is that not having enough food to feed people is a food issue, which is very true. But there is also another variable here. The people, the amount of people consuming the food being produced can lead to a food shortage. Lets say you as a small country grow a lot of food, but export the majority of it, because money. And let’s say you have a food shortage, hey wait a minute this sounds familiar. Yes you can just look at it as if it’s just a food/distribution issue, and that’s definitely one way of looking at it, but i think it’s also reasonable to consider where the food is going, and why.

          It seems to me that you think a community becomes “overpopulated” as soon as anything bad happens to them - which is pretty much the shittiest take I’ve ever seen when it comes to this myth.

          it seems to me you are aggressively simplifying my argument, i’m just using the term overpopulation to describe the situation in which there are too many people involved in something, for it to be an equitable trade. I feel like given the context that it’s pretty reasonable.

          You don’t know a lot about the subject matter involved in this conversation, do you?

          no, not really, i’ve also never claimed to know anything. I’ve also never claimed this to be the reason why it’s happening. Perhaps you have some sort of knowledge in the subject matter, i don’t know!