To be more specific, many of the worst people have lived through some truly horrible childhoods (often experiencing war and poverty as a child). Stop the cycle of war and poverty, and then see how naturally malevolent people are.
We have the productivity to afford that; we just have chosen to consolidate it to a relative few.
So far it is only a hypothesis, that war can be avoided if people just would not starve anymore.
(I don't think there was really hunger in europe pre WW1 for example)
Also, assuming we would distribute ressources equally (nevermind the political means to achieve that for a moment):
It no doubt would be enough for everyone today.
But the world population is already going steeply up - with people starving.
So if it would go even much more up, if no one would be starving - would it then also be enough for 10 billion people? 20 billion? How much more roundup can the fields take?
So don't get me wrong. A world with no wars and where no one has to starve is definitely a noble cause I agree to. I just thinkt it is not so easy, if it is possible at all, since there was never a time in human history without. We don't know whether it can work out at all.
The interesting part is that it is only really going up in nations that have not yet the comfort-level of western civilizations. I don't have the exact numbers at hand but in most European countries, and I guess vast parts of the US too, the population is actually stagnant or even shrinking if immigration is not considered.
Meaning, if peoples culture does not change, but the avaiable food does - we get the "unwanted" result of the ugly word of overpopulation - or birth control. Which is ugly as hell, too.
IIRC gaining and ensuring continued access to food production centers in central Europe was one of Germany's primary motivating factors leading into WWI.
So it was more about hunger for power. Because sure, owning something is better than having to buy something.
True, but the growth rate is on a steady decline and looks like it will be negative soon. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
And absent the threat of violent force, how do you suppose we take that productivity from this relative few? My government threatens me with penalties and imprisonment if I don't give up my "fair share" via various taxes. And if I resist that, they use weapons to force me to comply.
Are you not just trading one definition of war for another?
That's the rub. Your responsibility is determined by the mob. If you resist, the mob, via the justice system, forces you to comply with the threat of physical violence.
If I resist with force, is that not war? If two of us resist with force, is that not war? If 10000 of us resist with force, is that not war? Was the Civil War not war?
Is it really any more poetic when it's done by large groups of people than when it's done by a few?
Who's responsibility is it to meet these needs?
It’s all pointless moralizing. Sure, prosperity may reduce war. I tend to think MAD and global trade have done most of the reducing. But just dismissing war as if you have some superior moral compass to anyone with absolutely no sign of any insight to reduce it, or understanding of why it happens, just reeks of privilege and cheap moralizing that I’d prefer stay on Twitter and Reddit.
