Isn't the problem the disproportionate accumulation of goods, resources and money? AKA capitalism? I mean theoretically, if you restrict these, you can also settle in one place without taking advantage and destroying everything around it.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said none of this.

The thesis was that people settled because it was superior in terms of supplying the population back then. All i was saying is that at the time that mustnt have been the case. It was more effective in the capitlaist/imperialist/expansionist mindset that is fucking is over now.

Of course with the current 8 billion people living on earth a nomadic lifestyle is not viable. But that is a very different question from the question if it was viable 10.000 years ago, when there were maybe a few hundred thousand to a few million humans on earthin total.

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I don't disagree with you. I'm just asking (theoretically) how could such system regulate itself? Would the travel be mandated?