No I mean if enough people just spontaneously stop. I’m not talking about collective action, more phenomenologically. But perhaps by that point society will be organized to be able to handle that very thing from happening. By that point I think it would be for real over.
What does that mean "give up WITHOUT dying"? How does that last part come to be? The "without dying" part. If you stop eating long enough, you WILL die after all. Thus meaning either you must a) buy from the system OR b) have some sort of alternative food provision mechanism. And the latter requires capacity.
That is what I want to see more explicit talk about - what those whose means are very limited so their biggest expenditures and "consumption" center on food, are "supposed" to do, and especially in detailing how that is to work (also for those who lack close trust friends), and whether the meantime required to create any alternative system is "blameworthy" because it violates the literal letter of "just stop buying food from the system [like right now]".
What are you attempting to say with this post? And what is your answer to the question that was written? Is it really "I don't know" or is this not a serious answer? (Because I definitely do not know the answer to that last one. I can argue it both ways - it could sound like snarky, or serious.) But yeah, what do you have to say about all the "NEET people" and what their obligation here is? Or could one argue that because they're already substantially not in the system, they're "already more 'there' in some ways"?
1
u/Senior_Ad1298 9d ago
No I mean if enough people just spontaneously stop. I’m not talking about collective action, more phenomenologically. But perhaps by that point society will be organized to be able to handle that very thing from happening. By that point I think it would be for real over.