Population, Luxury, Poverty

UGHHHHHHHHH
IM ANGRY!!!

I was in my sustainability class today, and we were having the discussion of population, luxury, and poverty. People were saying that we need to be more like the animals in which we are. When we detached ourselves from the hunter-gather society and we stopped having our own gardens and killing our own meat, we stopped the connection with nature. We started to indulge in luxury and not respect the food that sustains us. We buy food from the grocery store, and because there is excess there, we buy more than we need. There is no personal reward for opening the plastic package and cooking already prepared bacon; we just eat. There are no survival techniques so we don't value life as much. Regardless of the value we place on life, we still have the biological desire to reproduce, and consequently, our numbers rise. This causes these luxurious lifestyles to double at the expense of the earth and its resources.

Now I agree with this for the most part. But the thing that came next got me completely fired up.

Someone said that in order to have resources for all, we need to take that animal role and let nature take its course. The weaker ones of our culture should be left to die, to sustain the lives of the stronger by leaving more resources for them. The weaker ones meaning the impoverished and the diseased. They also said that the poor people, specifically America's impoverished, did not respect what they had, like when given a helping hand they go out and buy McDonalds. This got me so angry. All these privileged people of this classroom agreed with this statement, nodding their heads. Another spoke about how he reconsiders giving canned goods to the poor, for the purpose of this law of survival of the fittest. If he helped these people out this time, what happens when they are hungry again? They aren't working for their food, so then they should be the weaker.

These fucking trustafarians have NEVER been hungry.
They have never had the humiliation of having to try to find food when you don't have money, and having the haven of a canned good to sustain you. They have never gone to sleep hungry, and woken up the next day, stomach growling.

The poor are the most connected to nature. They ARE the hunter and gatherers! To make a meal out of what one scavenges out of their cubbard is most challenging and rewarding. To make a garden because the family needs it to survive, and they go hungry when it does not bear fruit, is something these fucking hippiecrites will never experience. They think their little gardens are mimicking sustainability and environmentalism, but when it doesn't do well they go out and buy groceries because they're hungry and purchase brand-new books about their poor little gardens. They are considered the strongest, but aren't the weaker ones that possess more strength? When they eat at McDonalds they have to pay for the health consequences, but when someone is trying desperately to do that "work harder" thing, to meet up to the stronger ones, so they can go out and buy groceries when their gardens fail, they're exhausted. And when a person is tired, hungry, and losing hope, a pre-prepared, cheap, hot meal is mighty satisfying. Counting change for that satisfaction is gathering right? Searching the menu for the most food for your money is hunting right?

Maybe I am just another hippiecrite by thinking I know what I'm talking about with poverty, but my family has had its ups and downs. Not that I am a voice of the issue, but I feel like I have seen a little of both worlds. We do not choose what environment we are born into, or the automatic privileges we are given by our class, gender, and race, but we must be aware of what the unprivileged have to deal with. We must be compassionate.

When we detached ourselves from the agricultural world, we saw the opportunity to improve the quality of life. Farming machines made it so more people could go into the cities or whatnot and become writers, artists, musicians, actors, and so forth. The books which we are reading in class wouldn't exist if the author was a farmer. Of course the society we have constructed is ridiculous with the societal norms and complexities we have fabricated out of nothing. Money is not needed, yet it controls a lot of what each of us does. We have improved the mind, but disconnected from nature. The transformation led into the expulsion of self-sufficiency. And apparently the helpless impoverished.

Are we to help the ones who are "weak"? Do we let them suffer for the betterment of the lives of the strong?
I think humans have a conscience, and to belittle ourselves to be less, with the excuse of getting in touch with our animal nature, is disgraceful.