• spicehoarder@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I can’t help but think from a scientific perspective that when a population is forced to fight for resources, aggression in that population also increases.

    In the most basic terms, how would you expect a colony of mice to react in a scenario like this? A dwindling supply of food, along with a shrinking supply of shelter… I’d expect to see a steady increase in violence over time.

    I can’t see this ending well, and I certainly have felt a steady degradation of hospitality and compassion in the last decade or so.

    Is there even a way to combat this? I feel like the cultural zeitgeist has been so polluted with individualism it’s almost impossible to get the general public to agree to policies that don’t directly benefit themselves.

    • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      I can’t see this ending well, and I certainly have felt a steady degradation of hospitality and compassion in the last decade or so.

      After the Reddit API fiasco, but before I made this account, I spent a year avoiding all social media. Since coming back, things aren’t the same. There seems to be a lot more hostility, with a lot less reading comprehension, turning into feedback loops of inane and pointless arguing. It’s hard to hold an enjoyable discussion on a forum (like the way it used to be) when all it takes to start a fight is something as normal and human as being unable to find the exact right word for something.

      It’s not only Lemmy. Spend enough time reading comment threads almost anywhere online these days, and you can practically feel the undercurrent of tension. To the best I can tell, people are stressed, people are scared, and people are looking for any excuse to lash out. Any minor confusion, brain fart, or mistranslation is now an excuse for someone to break out their pitchfork. It doesn’t even take a mistake either - even calm, well thought-out, carefully worded comments aren’t immune. It almost feels like landmines have been planted across social media, and it’s concerning.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Building denser to limit sprawl also greatly helps fire resiliency in fire prone areas. Sprawl greatly increases the perimeter that must be defended

      • FanciestPants@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Don’t we also need some regulation that prevents landlords from buying any new housing capacity that is created?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          IMO there should be no landlords, housing can be rented from the government or purchased outright. Private landlords do it for profit, but government housing can be nice and affordable because the goal doesn’t have to be profit, and the rent it does extract funds building new housing and maintenance.

      • spicehoarder@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Of course, that’s one aspect of it, my comment isn’t about policy. I’m sure we both agree on what needs to happen in terms of policy.

        I’m just pointing out that there doesn’t really seem to be enough support for such plans or policies.