LogFAQs > #952813998

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

Sure, not currently at a level to self-sustain,

then you have no argument, but bless your heart for trying because big bad Whiskey is mean.

Nowhere did I complain about you being mean, but if you want to play the victim card and blind yourself to the rest of my post with the tears in your eyes, be my guest.

Unbridled9 posted...

Well, the issue is that, assuming a mass collapse, a farmer has access to most or all of the tools needed to sustain themselves and others. Meanwhile a city needs imports from other areas to survive. Even if there are gardening techniques which can help a city sustain itself it takes time for crops to grow so even under ideal circumstances it needs a massive amount of imports before it simply descends into anarchy because of the volume of starving civilians. While food can be shipped in assuming prior arrangements it's a very dangerous and expensive game and if the currently has any slippage it would likely spell doom.

I was never denying the importance of farmers to mass society, but in a globalist capitalist world, imports would happen. They already do to a mass extreme! Most of our bananas come from Latin America. Ecuador supplies like nearly a third of the global banana supply. The infrastructure for imports is already there.

And again, this whole thing is "assuming mass collapse" in the first place, which is the silliest part of this to me. A mass collapse in the U.S. isn't going to happen because farmers rise up and decide to stop supplying the big evil leftist cities. A mass collapse is going to be economic in nature and farmers will be reliant on consumers to recover. If anything, they'll stand to gain a lot in a realistic mass collapse scenario. Hoarding mass amounts of rotting product just to starve political opponents in a system that's already collapsed is what Saturday morning cartoon villains do, not actual people thinking about their best interests.