>>74
That's only true due to the dominant economic model. In terms of "what's here" as it were, that is to say "resources available", the planet is capable of sustaining a human population hundreds of times larger than this without human techonolgy. Now throw in technology and the number of sustainable lives is truly gargantuan. This won't happen of course, we don't value human life enough, we prefer our economic model, and why not when it produces such advantages to us who are in control?
>>75
No, have a look at the numbers. Use a calculator if you need to.
>>76
Try thinking some time, it really helps when using logic. All this crap you speak about humans inventing ownership of land, aka, defending their territory, does that not remind you of what animals do? War wasn't invented either. Animals do it all the time over resources.
No, animals do not kill over territory as a matter of regular course, as you'd know if you'd bothered to look this up, but don't let over 500 years worth of published study of animal behaviour get in the way of a baseless opinion.
Nor do they own their territory: animals do not seek to dominate access to a shared resource, even a resource vital to their own survival.
Animals compete over mating rites, and this is specifically intra-special. Where food is scarse you find that animals become nomadic, and only when movement is restricted do you encountered highly localised acts of violence, yet even then none of which are designed to actually kill over the act of intimidation. Certain species actively kill and consume their young under such unusual and extreme conditions, but this is not analogous to human warfare.
Honestly, there is so much literature on the behaviour of animals that contradict the non-argument you are promoting here as to be embarassing.
> Individual life is all about what the individual can get. We're all selfish in some aspects but there's just some who can't see that or refuse to admit it.
Now, what you've done here is to assume that people are the same as you.
I think this thread rather demonstrates that this isn't so.
And if a clumsy thread on Wish can demonstrate something is false, then the basic premise is beyond redemption.