>Human civilisation is far more fragile at the moment than in the last few. hundred years.
It was less fragile when there were famines all the time?
I don't understand how people can repeat this rhetoric when it seems obvious to me that however fragile it is, it's less so than in all of history. Even if things rapidly get much, much worse, it wouldn't change my opinion.
How do you think we would determine which is the correct perspective?
There's a distinction between technology level and time disposition, I think.
Compared to a self-sufficient small-scale agrarian society (say, 10th century Europe), what would have caused famine in their time would not for us.
At the same time, we allocate our time differently than they did -- few of us actually farm for ourselves.
If we allocated time more similarly + applied current technology, it'd be pretty hard for people to starve (between improved long term food storage, GMO crop yields, and environment mitigation).
Side note: the always educational Bret Devereaux lays out a solid argument for why famines were the result of an underdeveloped monetary and trade system, that led to fragile choices being optimal for individual farmers. [0]
It was less fragile when there were famines all the time?
I don't understand how people can repeat this rhetoric when it seems obvious to me that however fragile it is, it's less so than in all of history. Even if things rapidly get much, much worse, it wouldn't change my opinion.
How do you think we would determine which is the correct perspective?