• OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    So now we’ve veered into full-blown Malthusianism. You can’t treat human populations the way you treat animal populations. More humans means more people working and growing food, whereas animals simply graze or hunt on preexisting resources. Malthusian claims have been thoroughly debunked repeatedly throughout history, and have never been backed by any sort of evidence whatsoever.

    Again, if you choose to reject history and evidence in favor of knee jerk defending colonialism and using long discredited theories, then I don’t really see what I can do here. You are simply wrong and in contradiction of scholarly work on the subject.

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

      Rofl. That’s rich coming from someone making wild claims, whose only citation was one sentence from a Churchill hit piece that contained zero justification for their assertion that Churchill was somehow responsible for India’s famines. You then deflect with “read this persons work you ignorant simpleton” without any relevant citations.

      Sure buddy. You can keep raging against this machine of yours, I’ve wasted enough of my Friday trying to reason with a dramatic husky.

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I haven’t made any wild claims at all and the claims I have made I’ve backed up with scholarly works, but go off I guess.