[JosephineB]

Originally Posted by edithaint

Actually, yes. It goes against human nature to "share" to the extent you think we "need" to. The average person would rather provide for themselves and their close family, not strangers a thousand miles away. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if our current population was sustainable because communities would be isolated enough to prevent competition for resources. With less humans, we would have more plants and other animals.

As for signs? Asociality and isolationism of mostly males....Hypersociality and interventionism in mostly females....Passivity, punctuated by sporadic aggression, in males....Increased aggression in females, especially toward their offspring....Of course, the exact details vary between communities and individuals. But these basic patterns are found in most primates and rodents when the population reaches a certain density. With humans, such behaviors were previously seen as the Roman Empire neared collapse.

Of course, we don't see these things for what they are. That too is human nature. Instead, we blame guns and video games for all the antisocial school shooters, while praising our globalism as the "progress" that will save us. We have lofty ideals of world peace, curing cancer, and ending world hunger in a universe that has always been violent. Fortunately, neither socialism nor veganism will save us from the cycle of boom and bust.

We mutilate the genitals of other animals to prevent overpopulation, yet think ourselves immune...

I believe we can turn things around. Whether we will or not, time will tell. Im just doing what I can.