Don't worry breh, religion is not at all a part of my argument. Nor do I pretend to bring it into this.
I acquiesce your response to my rebuttal that it is an overly simplistic analysis. Which it most certainly is, however it is so precisely because I believe it is unethical to talk about overpopulation without providing clear data stating how, what can be AND in fact is produced does not match the 8+ billion we've got now. Until a study is done across all sectors regarding the basic needs of the populace showing no waste and maximum possible output, that statement cannot be ethically made.
You make a very fair point regarding logistics, and it doesn't take much to see how that can be a major thorn in allocation of resources. It isn't something I thought about when making my point, so thanks for the heads up!
But breh...we're building spaceships to Mars, spending billions on production of goods available to only a few, instead of improving the technology, infrastructure, or societal cohesion for a better distribution of resources. Globally.Amazon came through clutch in allocation of products between continents, but what products are marketed there? How do they make the life of the unfortunate better? Yet the existence of amazon is proof of the ability we have to make a sick ass logistics systems, worldwide.
As for your statement regarding capitalism...to me capitalism and communism both suffer from exactly the same phenomena that the second amendment suffers in the US. They do not account for human corruption and greed for more. And thus these concepts become corrupted, meaning real life capitalism is not about equitable growth, so the opposite of growth happens. My point is simple, when a businessman is faced with two options:
1. Destroying his products so as to not saturate the market and keep control of costumers.
2. Sacrificing time (and thus the business) to find a better solution for distribution and sales, running a high risk of having very very slow growth and poor returns.
He'll always choose option number one. I don't knock it, I'm not afraid to say that if I were a businessman I would 10/10 choose the first option too. Because a businessman does not operate unilaterally, he's got competitors that stand to gain (and kill his business, no mercy) by being more shrewd and getting loyalty and adulation of the clients to boot.
That's why the role of government is far more important than it appears to be if one were to take a look at the world. But competition prioritizes profits (results) more than efficiency at a societal level every time.
".
