1. Really? How about geography, weather, over-population and lack of birth control for either religious, educational or economic reasons, or because the man just likes doing it whenever and however he can, and without anything coming between him and his pleasures? Even free condoms have a hard time getting used (no pun etc.).
Yes. Really. Whatever the geography and weather, poverty and malnutrition in this modern technological era, are all due to an inefficient use of resources.
Of course, tens of thousands of years ago before nations and so-called civilizations existed, people were free to move to wherever the pastures were greener, which is probably why some of the first humans moved out of Africa as the climate became drier. One imagines that those who were not able to move quickly enough to greener pastures would occasionally be the victims of extreme famine and die of starvation and/or diseases.
The
reasons for this current 'inefficient and wasteful use of resources' are another issue. They would include plain stupidity, corruption, incompetence, greed, ego, vanity, and the power struggles of individuals who initiate wars and conflicts in order to protect or expand their own authority and rule over others.
2. No, he is providing employment for the people who make the stuff as well as for those who service it.
Yes he is. He's providing
useless employment that serves no useful purpose, and that highlights the problem. I'm reminded of stories of the ancient Roman armies. To keep the soldiers occupied during times of no conflict, they would sometimes be instructed to pick up pebbles from the beach, then later place them back again, in the same location.
The technology and resources we have access to, in this modern era, are more than sufficient to provide a comfortable and secure living for every man, woman and child on the planet. Sadly, so many wealthy people prefer to waste resources. About 14 billion dollars worth of food is wasted every year, world-wide, and that's just one example.
Can you really not see the economic difference, Rob, between someone like Imelda Marcos buying 1,000 pairs of expensive designer shoes, to satisfy her vanity, and someone who spends the same amount of money on 2 or 3 thousand pairs of practical shoes for bare-footed peasants who can't afford any shoes at all?