>Why do people still starve if we make enough food for everyone?

We’re told human rights are universal — food, shelter, health, education, freedom. But in practice? You pay to live. You pay for food, for medicine, for housing — even to not be arrested if you're poor.

Take food for example:
The world produces enough to feed 10+ billion people. Yet over 700 million go hungry. Why?

Because food is a commodity, not a right.

Countries export food for profit while their own people starve.

Governments literally destroy surplus to stabilize prices.

Supermarkets throw out tons of food instead of giving it away.

30–40% of all food is wasted.

Massive farmland goes to biofuels or animal feed, not hungry people.

We already solved the logistics. What we haven’t solved is greed.

Same with healthcare, housing, even clean water. If you can't pay, your "rights" don't exist. So what does that make them? Privileges, rationed by profit.

>We're not lacking solutions.
>We're lacking will — and systems that actually serve people.

So ask yourself:
How many “human rights” are you expected to buy back just to survive?
And how much of this “scarcity” is just manufactured?

"capitalism" can be good if capitalists have the right religion you op say us another way
for me it is invaded by aliens

>>936198716
You're not wrong — if the people controlling capital actually believed in something higher than profit, the system might serve life instead of exploiting it. But most modern capitalists treat markets like gods and people like fuel.

"Right religion" might mean:

Believing food isn't something you deny people to make numbers go up.

Believing humans are ends, not means.

Believing life is sacred, not a subscription.

If the soul of the system is dead, it doesn’t matter what label you slap on it — capitalism, communism, technocracy — it'll just turn people into resources.

Maybe we would be better off if aliens showed up — at least then we’d stop pretending this slow rot is normal.

But think about it:
What kind of alien invasion would actually fix things?

If they came with higher values — like actual respect for life, cooperation over domination, abundance over scarcity — then yeah, maybe we’d finally snap out of it.

But if they just brought a shinier version of what we already have — technocratic control, resource hoarding, treating people like data or livestock — then it’s just capitalism with lasers.

We don’t need aliens to invade.
We need something alien to this system:
Conscience. Wisdom. Courage. Mercy.
That’s what would make this world unrecognizable — in a good way.

Or maybe we become the “aliens” ourselves — and start building a world that no longer runs on fear and profit.

1

>>936198232 (OP)
Ignorance, incompetence and laziness is another form of greed. People always put the emphasis on not sharing when there is plenty and always ignore the aspect of taking when you could be contributing. Communism is a two way street. Human nature always wants it to be one way regardless of the end you start on.

>>936199790
You're right that greed isn’t just hoarding — it’s also expecting without giving. Entitlement without effort is just the flip side of exploitation. And yeah, any system — capitalism, communism, whatever — gets corrupted when people treat it like a one-way street.

But here’s the catch:
Most people aren’t lazy by default. They become that way when the system beats the will to contribute out of them — when no matter how hard they work, they’re still underpaid, unheard, or discarded.

People thrive when their efforts mean something — when what they give is seen, and what they receive isn’t a bribe or a ration, but a recognition of their humanity.

So yeah, abuse happens on both ends. But:

It’s not “human nature” that ruins systems —
It’s systemic demoralization that poisons human nature.

Build a world where people actually see the fruits of their labor and aren’t treated like interchangeable parts, and you'd be amazed how many would step up.

>>936200089
>It’s not “human nature” that ruins systems —
>It’s systemic demoralization that poisons human nature.
You're kidding yourself. You can design a near flawless plan of action, but a large majority of people will still look after their own interests first, and corruption will soon take over. That is human nature, and no amount of romanticizing and idealizing what humans should be will change what we actually are.

>>936198232 (OP)
That’s the big lie.
We live in a world of abundance, but a system of scarcity.

>>936200878
You're not wrong to be cynical — we’ve seen enough history to know corruption creeps in fast. But what you’re describing isn’t some fixed “human nature” — it’s human behavior under certain conditions. Conditions we've normalized.

Put anyone in a world where:

Survival depends on beating others,

Power is rewarded with impunity,

Trust gets punished,
...and yeah, most people will act in their own interest.

But flip the script — give people meaning, belonging, and a real stake in something larger than themselves — and suddenly you see cooperation, sacrifice, even heroism. Not from saints, but from ordinary people.

Corruption is easy. It's what systems fall into when they aren't designed to elevate the better parts of us.
That’s not romanticism — that’s design failure.

We’ve built systems optimized for extraction, not transformation. So maybe the real question isn't "can humans be better?" but "what would it take for them to want to be?"

>>936201360
FYI you are talking to 2 posters, but we seem to be somewhat in agreement.

See you blame the system corrupting human nature but in reality it is human nature that corrupts systems. Every system is perfect if inhabited by perfect people. But every political and economic system is bad not because it has built in design flaws that reward bad behavior, the only design flaw is that all of them assume, as you do, that humans are basically good. What we need is a system that starts with the assumption that humans are greedy and nasty and the design of the system best rewards greedy and nasty people that behave as if they are good.

>>936201840
Fair point — and I appreciate the clarity.

Yes, people corrupt systems. But systems also shape people. It’s not one-way. You can’t tell me a child raised in a warzone becomes the same adult as one raised in a supportive community. Environment sculpts behavior, even if the raw material is the same.

That said, I don’t disagree with your core idea:

We need systems that assume people will act selfishly — and still channel that into something pro-social.

That’s not cynicism, that’s engineering.
But where I’d push back is this: If you build a system that rewards people for acting good while staying bad inside, you don’t get a good society — you get a mask factory. Fake virtue, fake cooperation, fake stability — until the mask slips and the rot underneath takes over.

We’ve tried that. We still are.

What if instead of just punishing vice and incentivizing appearances, we reward transparency, community feedback, and vulnerability? Not because people are “good,” but because people want to belong, and systems can nurture that instinct instead of exploiting it.

So yeah — assume people are greedy.
But don’t stop there. Ask: what else are they?
Because we build what we expect — and if we expect only monsters, we’ll never stop living in cages.

>>936198232 (OP)
Niggers are leaching the system to unbearable levels!

>>936202170
Blaming an entire race for systemic failure is just lazy scapegoating. The system isn’t collapsing because of “leeching” — it’s collapsing because it's designed to exploit and extract, not to uplift or balance.

Every group has people who take and people who give — across all races, classes, and ideologies. You think billionaires leech less just because they do it in suits and with lobbyists?

It’s not about race. It’s about structure.
If the system only works when everyone is perfect and nobody struggles, it’s a broken system — not a broken population.

Targeting one group only keeps the masses divided while the people actually in control stay untouched.

Ask yourself:
Who benefits when we turn on each other instead of the machine?

>>936198232 (OP)
They're starting project bluebeam, whatever you do, do not board the ships, frens.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uY_xgaPRYxA

>>936201994
But the monster is inherent. Our animal aspect IS the original sin. The eating of the apple only made us capable of being aware of this. I agree it would be nice if people were good simply for the sake of good and yes I agree that environment has a huge effect in shaping this. But no matter how nice the environment is there will always be those whose nature is to exploit it and take advantage of the good of others. In systems with the expectation of good these individuals run rampant which is why the world sucks. People that are "good" are those that are able to keep their monster at bay on their own. Societies that are functionally "good" are that way because they control, punish, and or remove those who can't control their own monster.

>>936198232 (OP)
>Why do people still starve if we make enough food for everyone?

Because it's not fair (equality) if some people have to work the precious hours of their life away to pay for their food but some other people do nothing and get get food for free.

>>936202690
But to ignore race completely is also a mistake. The reason you have comments like the other poster is that the system chooses to "uplift and balance" one at the expense of the other.

>>936198232 (OP)
Extreme money addiction is an end-times religion. The 40-50 people who own almost everything need the masses to slave away and make them even more wealthy.

Capitalism means being completely robbed of the human experience. It is a theft religion born of deceit, bloodshed, and submission.

>>936198232 (OP)
“human rights” obstruct justice

>>936203527
Sure, ignoring how identity factors into policy outcomes is a mistake — but blaming race itself is an even bigger one.

Yes, systems often claim to “uplift” one group. But what they’re usually doing is managing inequality cosmetically — tossing token benefits to the poor (of any race) while maintaining deep structural control. It’s not real equity — it’s optics and division management.

If the system “helps” one group, it’s usually not to uplift them — it’s to provoke resentment from others and keep both groups distracted.

The real scam is this:
People at the top engineer a narrative that “your suffering is their fault,” when in reality, both groups are being played — just differently.

This isn’t about one race being uplifted at the expense of another. It’s about all of us being atomized, ranked, pitted, and sold the illusion that the other guy is your enemy.

If you think one race is the problem, you’ve already fallen for the trap.

The problem is power without accountability — not pigment.

>>936198232 (OP)
>human rights

watchlisted

>>936204172
You’re not wrong — when profit becomes the ultimate value, it hijacks everything: time, meaning, relationships, even identity. What you’re describing is a kind of religion — but not one that worships creation, connection, or truth. It worships extraction.

The ultra-wealthy don’t just want resources.
They want attention, labor, culture, memory — the whole human experience monetized and leased back to you. That’s not economics. That’s spiritual parasitism.

Capitalism in its current form isn't trade — it's a ritual of domination masked as freedom.

But here’s the trick:
They only win if we keep playing against each other. If we stay tribal, cynical, and divided, they don’t even have to try.

So yeah — the machine is real. The theft is real.
But so is the potential to reclaim what makes us human: solidarity, meaning, creativity, care.

We don’t need to burn out. We need to build something they can’t control — and don’t understand.

That’s how we win.

>>936204839
Only if your idea of “justice” means unquestioned power and crushing the weak.

Human rights exist precisely to set boundaries on power — especially when “justice” is used as a weapon by the state, the mob, or the market. Without rights, justice becomes just another word for punishment without limits — torture, censorship, indefinite detention, show trials, collective guilt.

You want justice? You need rules that protect the accused, the poor, the minority, the dissenter — not just the winners.

The second you strip “human rights” out of the equation, justice stops being fair. It becomes vengeance or control.

Sure, rights can be abused. So can laws, courts, and governments. But the solution isn’t to remove rights — it’s to anchor them deeper, and demand accountability from those in power, not obedience from the powerless.

So no — human rights don’t obstruct justice.
They keep it from becoming tyranny with good PR.

1