ORLY?! The world today is in better shape in terms of supporting its human inhabitants than ever before. Want indisputable proof? There are more people today than ever before in the history of the planet.
That's far from indisputable proof and you're clearly obfuscating your point. The question of whether or not the world today is in better shape in terms of supporting its human inhabitants is a relative to how much the world is producing and how many people need to be sustained. The simple fact is that the worst sorts of poverty in the past have been amplified in to a world-wide norm. Besides grand epidemics like the black plague, the poor of the past could easily sustain themselves off of the land. They may have been simple, but they got by. Today that is not the case. The land is more often less fertile, polluted, and thus people depend on the economy. Of course, the first world demand for labor cannot satiate the demand for jobs in the third world. Thus, people become inescapably poor due to the capitalistic international market.
There is more in the world today, thus there is a greater population. However, there is also a great disparity between rich and poor--a factor you conveniently ignore.
If you desire a world of gray sameness, get a bunch of like-minded folks together, buy some property, and start a commune.
Quit obscuring the point by reducing complicated issues down to simplistic concepts. If you want grey sameness, perhaps you can take a look at how often you see a coca-cola advertisement, or how suburban neighborhoods seem entirely uniform.
You think this satiates our sense of injustice? You're saying that we have to gain capital in order to earn our right to sustain ourselves through our own self-directed labor?
That's fine. Invite all the world's poor.
But then the area of property we buy will be disproportionate to the population. The division of resources wouldn't be even, thus our goal would not be achieve.
Not only that, you're suggesting that the poor should purchase their own ghetto from the elite. Not only that, but how can a large-scale community manage to grab hold of all that land when the market is saturated with separate owners and sellers? It's simply impossible. It's typical of a capitalist to offer these idealistic solutions because they are "theoretically feasible" but they're not based in reality at all.
I'm sure there are some puritanical Christian types who would love to come along for the ride, slaving all day for the equal sustenance of all. Survive on what sustains you. But please, leave the rationally-minded world to progress and indulge as it always has--if you're lucky maybe some of your type will remain in our world and skim off some of our excess to send you in the form of aid packages.
How exactly is your indulgence rational? Do you realize all the shit that's happened that allows you to enjoy the products you enjoy? How about CIA backed coups, puppet governments, and inescapable national debt? Your indulgence depends on a third or second world person's willingness to work fifteen hour shifts for table scraps with no signs of an improving job market.
Yes, I am quite aware that poorer nations tend to have more rapid population growth. Poor doesn't equate to unsustainable. It's not disputable that for a population to grow, the conditions that sustain it must be in place. In places where the population grows more slowly than the conditions it requires for survival, there are excesses; luxuries. This is good.
Who owns the luxuries? The excess value that's created goes to the elite of that country and to those who own the loans the country has taken--the luxuries go to America while the population is growing (due to a growing economy). Thus, the people grow in numbers like the ought to, but what they create to sustain themselves it taken away to America. That is where you get your wealth in this modern world.
In places where the population out paces the increase in conditions required for survival, you have poverty. This is bad. We call this the third world. The third world is NOT a product of capitalism. The third world was what existed everywhere before industrialization, but populations were kept in check by limited resources.
That's rich. Good shit.
Do you honestly believe the third world of today looks like the third world three hundred years ago? Don't make me laugh. The third world has guns, dude. The third world has some industry. The third world has national government. These are not tribal people living off the land, these are ex-tribal people who have had their land taken from them because of the international capitalist fronts like the IMF. The third world today is a direct result of capitalism. Now that these countries are forced to enter an international market, those with the most capital will essentially own the country--now the land is not free to the people, thus they cannot sustain themselves as easily in traditional ways.
The third world is taking a place that exists outside of a capitalist market and turning it in to a giant industrial ghetto. That's how you create a market that can be tapped--you become the countries only source of sustenance. When the people try revolution, they're met with great foreign resistance (bay of pigs?).
The first world (i.e. the former case: growth of resources out paces growth of population) IS the result of capitalism--division of labor, specialization, et cetera, leads to more productive capacity leads to excess in basic goods leads to luxury. When the excesses of the first world are sent to the third world, you get a population that grows beyond its natural means; you get the extreme poverty in the third word we see today.
Growth of resources we've taken from other countries.
Excesses of the first world? Those excesses were created in the third/second world in the first place. We're taking the third world's excess, not the other way around. They get our excess money, we get their excess goods. You see how manipulative that is? We'll give you some imaginary value for your labor and resources. What a joke.