But we’re still culturally in the mindset you’re describing: that we must each individually wrest life out of the wilderness day by day.
As a result we seem to be inventing more and more complex and bizarre ways of forcing that reality to still exist. Like pointless YouTube challenge videos done solely to provide ad inventory so well-off people can sell things to other well-off people.
This should come with a footnote that it's only possible due to slave labor in third world countries. A much smaller subset of people would be buying iPhones if they were $5000.
But that's only true with incentive to work.
Their point wasn't anything to do with wilderness. It was if you had your needs met without the requirement of work, that a significant portion of people would not work. Without those workers, we would no long have enough production.
This is only happening because more women are working. Guess what happens when all men and women are free all day long? It comes from the very essence of evolution that when the carrying capacity increases the population rises until it reaches the new one. Any "utopia" would revolve around sex as it is the principal object of human existence and reality.
That's just, like, your opinion, man. But, IRL there are plenty of people that require care-taking, who we never expect any labor from.
It seems there's a capacity limit to the safety net and if you go over it, starvation ensues.
the “world” may not owe anyone anything, but do we as individuals, groups, tribes, governments, and a species owe each other some attempt at that?
how does this view extend into discussions about marginalized, disabled, the idea of social safety nets?