

Why are you moving the goalposts? In your first post the goal was without further deforestation of rainforests, but in your reply, you changed the goal to without environmental impact. As long as global population growth is a thing, the former is possible, the latter not so much.
I’ll admit I’m not terribly interested in this topic. I only replied to your comment (at the same time as another commenter making a similar argument) because you come off as a shill for palm oil, which is odd.












I always felt like that argument doesn’t survive critical thought. I think it comes down to the velocity of money. Poor people spend their social welfare dollars nearly immediately on things they need to survive, like food, housing, or medicine, returning it to the economy instantly, to be spent again. Meanwhile billionaires hoard their earnings and it does nobody any more good ever. It certainly doesn’t ‘trickle down’.