First of all, we have limited resources. The resources we absolutely need, for example, food and water, however, exist in enough quantity for all the people that currently exist (otherwise they would die)
Err, people _do_ die because they don't have enough food. That's not to say that we _could_ have enough food to feed the world, but famine is a real issue in some parts of the world.
If for example, we were destroying farmland to produce in excess right now, and we know this will make the farmland completely useless in the future, then this is a scheme that will collapse. But we're not doing that in any significant quantity.
There are many who believe this is the case (see Wendell Berry, for example).
People don't die because we don't have enough food. If there were not enough food, those people would survive a week or so, and would be long dead.
People are dying because they are restricted from moving to areas with enough food. They are not dying because we lack food in the world.
Be very careful with this line of argumentation, because the surface scratching articles in papers are different from what the reality of the situation in the world is.
I agree, with one caveat: I'm not sure I see a difference between having enough food but not having access to it v. not having enough food. People are still dying, whether quickly or slowly.
An issue is that we live in areas that cannot locally sustain a population, thus relying on a supply system to survive.
Is it that people die because there isn't enough food or because the people don't have access to enough food? How many people experience a lack of food because of political issues rather than total-food-supply issues?
Comments
First of all, we have limited resources. The resources we absolutely need, for example, food and water, however, exist in enough quantity for all the people that currently exist (otherwise they would die)
Err, people _do_ die because they don't have enough food. That's not to say that we _could_ have enough food to feed the world, but famine is a real issue in some parts of the world.
If for example, we were destroying farmland to produce in excess right now, and we know this will make the farmland completely useless in the future, then this is a scheme that will collapse. But we're not doing that in any significant quantity.
There are many who believe this is the case (see Wendell Berry, for example).
People don't die because we don't have enough food. If there were not enough food, those people would survive a week or so, and would be long dead.
People are dying because they are restricted from moving to areas with enough food. They are not dying because we lack food in the world.
Be very careful with this line of argumentation, because the surface scratching articles in papers are different from what the reality of the situation in the world is.
I agree, with one caveat: I'm not sure I see a difference between having enough food but not having access to it v. not having enough food. People are still dying, whether quickly or slowly.
An issue is that we live in areas that cannot locally sustain a population, thus relying on a supply system to survive.
Is it that people die because there isn't enough food or because the people don't have access to enough food? How many people experience a lack of food because of political issues rather than total-food-supply issues?