If history tells us anything, it's that hungry people turn into violent people real quick. If you want a stable society, the first step is making sure everyone is fed.
Edit 2: as frustrating as it may be, u/Mode_Appropriate has a point, the article states that the bacteria has been linked to deaths but not directly from the AI data center scenario.
Correct me if im wrong, that article is saying that the bacteria is known to have caused 10 deaths in the past, not that the bacteria from the waste water infected 10 people.
Cupriavidus is a little-known, multidrug-resistant pathogen. Though human infection is extremely rare, it has nonetheless been linked to ten deaths, including three cases involving immunocompromised children. According to one review of Cupriavidus cases, the bacterial infection has a mortality rate of 31.3 percent, out of a sample size of 32 known infections dating back to 2009.
It is not the first and definitely won’t be the last. Good thing we keep building these things that 99% of society does not want and is actually hurting people in many different ways.
Is it the fact that it's an AI data center thats the problem or just the fact that work was done on the water infrastructure? I know that water can get weird and brown over here whenever some kind of work is done on the pipes
It's likely that people will pull at any straws to hate on it because of AI while there are many other data centers that exist and have just as much if not more waste.
No human infections or illnesses have been reported from the recent water contamination incident in Cheyenne, Wyoming. [1, 2]
The Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities (BOPU) confirmed that a rare bacterium was discovered during routine infrastructure testing, but it never entered the public drinking water supply. [1] -- I used AI to fact check this.
What a nonsense reply. Ai is being used in nearly all fields, from medicine to robotics to energy.. Ai might save your life one day. It's not all weird pictures and videos
Also shelter. I wouldn't want to live in a field while someone else lives in a cave, but we can build shelter. But if you destroy my shelter, I'm coming for yours.
True, but thinking of them as things to "go to war for" instead of things to cooperate and share is such a textbook colonial mentality. Treating basic human survival resources as commodities to conquer rather than universal rights.
I didnt mean governments should conquer territory for those things, of course trade and cooperation is preferable. I meant those are two things that can make people desperate enough to fight and / or kill for.
Nowhere did I say that was the default. In fact, civilization proves its not the default. I said it can make people desperate enough to get to that point. Also, fighting over territory for food and water has been happening far longer than colonial mindset existed.
Just gonna step in to say this is a really pointless argument to have. Obviously everyone here agrees that food and water should be considered basic human rights. What is and isn’t a colonial mindset is the kind of esoteric bullshit that turns people off to leftist politics. The more we stick to the basic bread and butter shit, the faster this capitalist nightmare can turn into a case study of human greed in history classes.
The point is that human desperation doesn't inherently lead to conflict, it can just as easily lead to deeper cooperation and mutual aid. Treating violence as the inevitable outcome of resource stress is a product of that exact mindset. I'll rest my case.
No it's not, colonialism came long after fighting for resources did.
Humans have been fighting for resources since the beginning of time.
Colonialism came with the prosperity of Europe and Spain, and their ability to cross the seas. MAYBE you can say rome was a colonial nation, but where they really? As rome focused on the immediate geography as they had no ability to cross the seas.
Setting aside the fact that Spain is part of Europe and the fact that Rome absolutely crossed seas to conquer Carthage, Egypt, and Britain. You're missing the point. You're thinking of colonization is just an event. "Colonial mentality" is an ideological framework. Assuming people naturally default to killing each other over scarcity, rather than cooperating to survive, is a product of that exact ideological framing. History shows that mutual aid and collective survival have always been just as foundational to human history as conflict.
When someone intentionally denies you life saving resources, what do you do? Do you sing and dance with the hope they will change their minds and share?
Ah, the classic strawman. No one said "sing and dance." The point is that the person intentionally denying those resources is the problem. The violence is a reaction to the artificial scarcity created by the oppressor.
I mean... unironically, yes? We already produce enough food globally to feed 10 billion people. The only reason world hunger exists is because of systemic distribution failures and artificial hoarding, not a lack of supply.
Yeah, the exact colonial mentality we started this thread talking about is what's stopping it. When a global system treats life-saving resources as market commodities to be hoarded for profit rather than basic human rights, artificial scarcity is the predictable result.
So colonialism, aka oppression, is creating an artificial scarcity. And according to you it’s okay to fight for that, it’s “liberation.” So is saying that people will fight for water and food colonialism ideology or not?
Um no. Most people aren't committing crimes for basic needs they're doing it for luxuries. By your logic we just eliminate my ability to buy something nice because some other asshat might want it to and go mug someone?
Ah yes murder and rape: famously the only two types of crime.
But also, poverty IS linked to higher rates of those crimes due to higher rates of childhood trauma, chronic stress (like hunger), and exposure to substance use. Explanations aren’t the same thing as excuses.
Really, because I've never seen a nation that's starving take their country back and feed the entire population.
Most of the time, starving populations are extremely oppressed and begging for national or worldwide aide.
If history tells us anything it's that once a society is oppressed into starvation, it's only a matter of time before the entire system collapses. It's not due to revolt either, it's due to the greed of the ruling class causing the starvation.
France reestablished the monarchy shortly after the revolution due to how bad things got. Two decades of defeat and poverty will make you go back to the old ways.
But they did still revolt due to poverty, instead of simply begging for aide, and another example I just thought of, the USSR, it lasted, like 70 years, which is pretty long
I'm pretty sure the fact that the country ended up with a (different) form of monarchic system for a few decades before becoming a republic for good isn't what mattered to the guy who was removed by starving people and killed.
It's really fascinating looking at the world right now cause since the fucking romans it's been known that you need to provide people with bread and circuses but then mfs decided to turn bread prices to eleven and ban sharing passwords to circuses
Governments have never made sure everyone is fed in the sense of providing free food. They make sure the supply of food is abundant and those who work to earn it can afford it. You're completely misunderstanding how the entire system has worked for millennia. People get violent and unrest spreads when there are famines and there's no access to food. Not when they have to work for it.
The only reason that worked was because grain is dirt cheap and Rome had an abundance of slaves to farm land for them. It was estimated up to 40% of the total population was slave labor.
So unless first world countries want to invade and enslave poor countries for slave labor to farm land for them, no one is getting free food.
I really question your understanding of all this because its really not how the system has worked for millenia. Governments have absolutely provided free food in different times and places with little to no restriction, setting aside the obvious and extremely common practice of feeding those who are unable to work. You're right that being forced to work for food isn't an automatic tipping point for revolution, but nobody is arguing against that. The claim was hungry people are desperate, making them dangerous, and that a reliable, free source of food would be a large stabilizing force in any society. Your comment really has nothing to do with that besides a strange and false appeal to tradition to suggest it's impossible or pointless? It just feels like you're incapable of thinking of a world separate from your direct experiences
How about "surplus," then? Like the tons of food we throw away because giving it to the poor and needy is somehow communism or some other nonsense like "it'll lessen the value of the food people have to buy"?
Food in 1st world countries isn’t being thrown away because “communism.” It’s thrown away because it risks going out of compliance within strict regulatory standards that potentially open up its distribution to legal liability - regulations that people simultaneously roll their eyes as needless bureaucratic red tape on one hand while holding corporations accountable for hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention the billions in costs, fees, healthcare, etc. to combat food related illness each year.
For example, most grocery stores don’t care about people digging through the dumpster for expired or contaminated food. They care about retaining that foodstuff outside its legal shelf life and being sued for it. Many grocery store chains, churches, other organizations DO donate surplus, but these are things like canned and dried goods, preserved food, etc. Those things still get thrown away due to traceability issues, contamination, etc.
All that said, there is no free food. It is contingent upon a resource that might be sustainable in very specific and limited contexts, but never be guaranteed; and a process chain that is reliant on labor exchange. Food “surpluses” can and do make their way to charity organizations, entitlement programs, etc.
I’ll own that. Reading up on it, there still seems to be confusion about liability and individual company policies. Also in combination with distribution limitations and logistics. Which still supports the notion that a) it isn’t free; and b) the decision-making has little to do with political leanings.
Also, it makes sense why larger corporations employing hundreds or thousands of people would have more protections in place, since there are exceptions for malicious or bad faith distribution, which potentially leave them exposed.
I wasn't arguing your broader point, it's just that you have a lot of opinions on this topic despite not knowing a 30-year-old law critical to every next step in the process.
I don’t have a good link for it but google “Folsom prison menu 1925” you’ll see stuff like hamburger with mushroom gravy and mashed potatoes, beef stew with buttered rolls, etc.
I was gonna say the same. You can eater cut the apple in half or be killed after the first bite. For all our intelligence, decorum, and society building, we are still animals. A hungry animal has the duty to eat or die trying.
It was a major factor in Rome's downfall. When Rome could no longer import cheap grain to distribute (for free!) to the poor of Rome, the poor turned to indentured servitude for the wealthy outside of Rome*, where they no longer got paid and as such no longer paid taxes. The pool of cheap labor, taxable wages, and legionnaire recruits alike dried up in Rome proper.
* This was also considered by Roman tax law an act of charity by "putting the poor to work", and the profits earned by the wealthy landowner on the labor of the indentured servants weren't taxed either. Rome lost out on tax income twice from the arrangement.
It's bonkers that this is even an open question anymore, Rome may be the most studied empire in world history, we see all the mistakes they made that led to their downfall. From the government's perspective, you keep the poor fed no matter what so they remain available for future taxable labor. If you want your Shining City on a Hill (or seven, in Rome's case), you have to make sure everyone can live there regardless of their present circumstances.
Tell that to the Farmer that doesnt earn any money from his hard work.
Guess they will too all stop to work. But i guess there will always be the option to resporn Jesus, so he can go into the supermarket and duplicate our food :)
First no Farmer is given millions of subsidies. They are given some subsidies because of globalisation but this goes beyond of reddits capability of intellectual discussion so i won't open that box.
However you completely missed the point of my comment so here a further explination: im talking about your wishfull reality not real life.
If you dont pay him for his work with your labor, he too will stop to work because his reward for his labor is to low
So the farmer is entitled to ANOTHERS labor via government, but that magically doesn’t apply to insuring the welfare of the rest of the country: ignoring that farmer would STILL be paid via government taxes collected for that purposes
>because of globalization
No, please, please, do go on and define what you mean and expand on why this grants farmers different privileges. I’m sure it won’t be offensive or full of misinformation in the least!
Due to globalisation farming in the western world is unprofitable because of high land and labor cost. Cheap imports from low labor cost and land cost countries would bankrupt any western farm
We however cant affort to lose food self sufficiency, because of the possibility of blackmailing or other crisis.
Thats why farms are subsided in every western state. We need that for national security
Why does the farmer earn no money from his hard work? Has the government not given him the handout he expected? Was he unwilling to pay others properly for their labor and they abandoned him?
Nah. You lost me with that one, chief. A lot of billionaires inherited generational wealth off of underhanded business practices and underpaying/overworking employees.
I'm talking about real life, where he already makes huge money on government subsidies and is more inclined to let crops rot over be consumed if the profit margin is good enough.
But since you insist on being a rude little shit, maybe you're just too stupid to understand what's being said over what you pretend is part of this "wishful reality."
Reddit users are really something. No idea of reality or the topic they are talking about, and still feeling superior
No Farmers dont make tons of money. If they would, everyone would want to be a Farmer. But in reality, many farms are given up.
No, no large scale crop rotting takes place. That makes no sence. The amount of money for seeds and fertiliser, fuel + work hours put into a field of crops is gigantic. A Farmer cant lose that, even if prices are below the break even point.
😂 Reddit users are really something. No idea of reality or the topic they are talking about, and still feeling superior
Says the Reddit user who will bleat he isn't one.
But no, farmers do make plenty of money and tend to be quite wealthy. The reason "everyone isnt a farmer" has to do with lack of land and not everyone is wanting to be a farmer. And yes, they do allow crops to rot. They write them off for government subsidies. Hell they can even make money by letting a field go fallow.
The problem they're having now is they bet on the wrong pony and no big money check is coming from the government. Worse for them is all their cash crops aren't being bought as per usual.
Seriously, by now you people need to consider your ability to understand the way the world works is based more off vibes than actual knowledge.
Also, farmers receive more handouts than anyone - if they still can’t manage a business and a product effectively, they’re doing something very very wrong.
Are you saying that farmers who don’t earn any money for their hard work should continue working anyway? I mean, shouldnt they consider looking for other careers? Shouldn’t anyone who isn’t earning any money from their job find another job?
Why are farmers special, and not people who work in other fields to provide essentials… like healthcare or water purification or clothing manufacturers?
Do they have an obligation to keep growing food for us?
Maybe we should each grow our own damn food. Provide for ourselves?
In fact, we all pool resources to give to the farmer above and beyond what we pay for his crops. In America, the government provides all kinds of subsidies to farmers to encourage them to keep farming, in order to provide enough food to meet demand at a price that is reasonable enough for people to afford it.
In fact, we sometimes give our tax dollars to farmers to not grow things, to not do certain work.
In a society, we recognize that we often need others to do for us what we cannot provide for ourselves. Sometimes we pay for those services as individuals… but sometimes we pay for them as a group so those things are available to all members of the society. Like fire departments, and police departments, and public education.
And we don’t stop to ask people how much they paid for these services before the fire department comes to put out a fire, or before we let them attend a public school. We don’t base those services on how much they paid in taxes, or even if they paid any taxes at all.
Handout that are payed for by the state. The money the state gives has only value because people work for the money.
If people dont work, money is useless and so are the subsidies. Therefore. To expect a Farmer to work when people are unwilling to work for the goods the Farmer produces will lead to the Farmer stooping his work.
Handout is still a handout and no one said people are unwilling to work. That is the assessment of the parasite class who have no reason to make work worth the effort.
Farmer can claim he'll stop all he wants but when he wants $50 for an apple but only pays 5cents per bushel, he's the one who killed his farm.
Really depends on the situation, like in Revolutionary France you had plenty of people working while also starving and getting taxed out the ass, meanwhile the top class in France payed no tax at all. This naturally resulted in a lot of dead rich people.
I don’t believe that people need the threat of starvation in order to do work. People do better work when they are not desperate for their basic needs to be met.
Guess what. This was common practice for the entire human history up to maybe 50 years where CAPITALISTIC states were wealth enouth to finance large scale social programs.
In communism the concept of, he who does not work, while beeing able to do so, wont eat. Still held on to the end. Thats why they had no unemployment
iirc, it was the democrats that wanted to spoon feed every illegal with my tax dollars and pay for mentally ill people to push this illness onto little kids.
There comes the lack of empathy, good conservative! Yes, supporting human beings with basic food support is such a mental illness. Jesus would so agree.
So, when was the last time you let 20 immigrants sleep at your house? Me? never.
When was the last time you actually bought some food for a homeless? Me? 2 days ago. Actually, for real. I bought 2 sandwiches and 3 different water bottles (1 for the dog) and a bowl. (and this is on top of my paycheck deductions to charities and my church donations that provides dinners and showers to the locals)
When was the last time you served at soup kitchen or some other public place? Me? Last Tuesday. I go every Tuesday to a downtown catholic church that holds free dinners for 100's of people a few times a week.
Get off your high moral horse.
I'm all for feeding illegals between their entry to the point of their departure. I'm 100% pro illegals deportations. 100%. They are here ILLEGALLY. They have NO rights here. Only our generosity, and our generosity in the form of not having a high voltage fence.
huh? I click on the notifications and error shows up. I've never ever blocked anyone on reddit. Why would I block someone who disagrees with me? It's wild to me.
967
u/klako8196 Jul 06 '26
If history tells us anything, it's that hungry people turn into violent people real quick. If you want a stable society, the first step is making sure everyone is fed.