FastAndBulbous

There is thinking there are no logistics problems we can't solve and then there is actually solving them taking into account real geopolitics.

So you think human beings should change their basic hardwired nature? Obviously humans have a tendency to care for the people closest to them over complete strangers. Humans always will come into conflicts of interest. What you're asking for is for humanity to basically act perfectly all the time.

You'll forgive me for not doing that just because you've entirely missed the point of my argument.

It's clearly because we haven't had a socialist revolution. That would sort all logistical and societal problems out forever.

I'd rather not engage with you. This conversation has derailed into silliness.

I've already admitted the word raid was the incorrect one. I was just questioning the idea that farmers should produce food for no compensation and that anybody should be free to work their land.

What, in the world generally? Do you genuinely want me to list every job that needs doing?

But the crucial thing is, people are already allowed to form co-operatives, there is nothing stopping you doing it for example. But outside of a select few niche industries they are generally less efficient and get outcompeted by traditional top down companies.

We don't have solutions for starvation at all on a global scale and we do try to feed everyone in developed nations that's why countries have welfare. I agree the welfare safety net should be stronger generally, but I don't think people starving to death is a widespread issue in developed nations. The homeless are much more likely to die due to lack of shelter or drug issues.

Yes because seeds are the only resource people fight over...

I think you've gone completely off the rails here. You said everyone should be free to just do the job they want. I pointed out that perhaps what people want to do wouldn't match up with what actually needs to be done. You started banging on about squirrels rather than admit that what I said is actually probably the case.

I've never denied humans aren't in intense competition with each other. I just don't think it's relevant to point to squirrels as an example of how humans should work, they clearly are very different from us.

I would argue the primary cause of all of these problems is that we live in a world of finite resources. I think all of those things would still be problems under any political system we tried to implement. If there was plenty of resources for everyone we would just multiply until that wasn't the case any more.

I reject the notion that we could rid the world of these things, the entirety of human history provides empirical evidence that backs me up on this. I think it's fantastical to think we could rid the world of these things, all we can do is try to reduce the impact as best we can in the limited ways that we can as individuals and as a society.