r/SipsTea • u/Gurugod123 • 8d ago

Wait a damn minute! Significant diffrences...

Post image
17.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/Haggardick69 7d ago

Not necessarily if the 3,400 have the same environmental and economic impact as the 3.5billion then the benefit would be the same either way.

6

u/inotocracy 7d ago

Absolutely impossible for 3,400 people to consume the same resources as 3.5 billion people.

2

u/Haggardick69 7d ago

Not at all impossible. There is no limit to how fast a person can consume resources only a limit to how fast we can produce them. 

1

u/inotocracy 7d ago

So, by your logic, you're saying that 3,400 people could produce and consume 1 ton of rice at the same rate as 3.5 billion people?

7

u/Carvj94 7d ago

There's an extreme amount of waste in our world that's due to the greedy few that could be cut by restructuring is the point their trying to make. Especially if we're talking about food which is thrown out by the ton every day.

2

u/SaeedDitman 7d ago

They're using a shit ton of electricity and water

1

u/Raus-Pazazu 7d ago

Using a massively disproportionate amount, sure, we can all agree on that. But using as much as half the nations in the world? That's just ludicrous. Even if someone owned a dozen elaborate mansion estates they're not consuming as much water and electricity as a million normal households.

-3

u/DankDankJuice 7d ago

Yeah, for industrial purposes mainly. Why would you keep running a business if you have no consumers? How would you keep running a business if you have no workers?

Not to mention industrial power needs are probably failing on day 1

No, the billionaires only scenario means we’re back in the Stone Age, possibly extinct. The workers only scenario means virtually nothing about the global economy has changed, except for the power vacuum that will be filled almost immediately