Society could collapse at any given moment

If any member (especially you) is going to post a comment with some sort of brilliant, smarmy, opposing argument, then I challenge them to instead accept the debate and put their money where their typing is. I won't discuss this paragraph further. Anyway, my contention is that society is on the brink of collapsing. By this, I don't mean 'tomarrow we'll all be warring with each other', rather I say that at any point, with global realization of reality, society would go into complete chaos. How is this possible? Things are working out so well right? That is both true and false. Yes, most modernized countries are able to live in a state of general stability. But I defy anyone to name one human populace that is not in some form of strife. The funny thing is that, save for the indigenous peoples that live in the deepest darkest jungles of where ever, most modern strife is caused by our institutions rather than nature (thats a Darwin quote by the way). Think about it, and I mean really think about it. Why are the hungry hungry? You say 'well, there's not enough food'. Really? Last time I went into a supermarket, I saw enough fruits, veggies, and canned goods, amoung other items, that could feed a small village for days, if not weeks or months. But that one supermarket supplies food for whole towns and cities. Hundreds of people go through there and buy food hour after hour until closing, if the place closes. Turns out that in the majority of cases, the shelves of that establishment are still well stocked. Maybe a few items will be sold out, but over all the whole place still has plenty. Now then, we all know that they don't restock when the store is dry. They are continually getting shipments from all over. But what makes matters worse is that some items aren't sold fast enough and are simply thrown out. There's a person somewhere out there in this world who died from starvation and we're throwing away canned food with dents in them. I don't have any article or statistic on these goings on because its a commonplace fact. Anyone with experience in food shoppong, or has practice simply with eating, should or does know this to be true. So if there is such a bountiful supply then why do the hungry starve, while others are allowed to eat? Its certainly not impossible for them to eat that apple. It's right there, waiting to be biten into. So why can't that starving guy have it? Because he's not 'allowed' to. Can you imagine, not being allowed to survive? Not to enjoy that one facet of your life that lets you have it in the first place? Is that right? I say no. Others say no. But it goes unheard. Now why have I been blathering on about this? As an example of intitutional stupidity. People are dying because their right to live is deprived from them. It isn't right, and as soon as that truth is realized (and it will) there will be chaos. To say that it won't is lunacy, but that is your challenge. To point out why, when people learn that they don't have to put up with 'it', they won't rise and rebel, taking what they want and need, throwing all of society into chaos until it eventually collapes into what I can only guess will be anarchy. In anticipation, I imagine my opponent will bring up the point of fear. As I brought up in a debate about traffic lights, we let a light bulb rule over our actions, even though that light can physically do nothing to stop us, especially when there are those ever so annoying times when there is no one passing and you could easily make it across the street without harm. So why don't we? Fear. Not of the light but of the police, of those cameras that take pictures of our license plates. We don't want that fine or jail time, even though logic should clearly prevail. They stop us, not the fact that a light is red. But when you think about it, how many cops are really out there? (http://www.tcdailyplanet.net...) As an example, according tot his article on the RNC, there were appox. 3100 cops (600 local, 2500 elsewhere) where patrolling at the RNC. The total numbe of civilians was apporx 45000 to 50000. Even supposing its the former, that means that there were about 14 civilians for every one cop. That means for all the guns, gas, and pepper spray the police had access to, at least 14 people would be available to take out every one cop. Now, suppose along with that, the entire population of Minneapolis joined in on this rebellion? So adding about 370000 to 45000 make the total riot about 415000 strong. THis now means that for every one cop present at the convention, there are now 133 people for each one of them. I don't care if your the most BA cop out there, you have no chance against those numbers all coming at you. A world wide rebellion would be even more disasterous, even if you add the military into the equation. No matter how you fudge the numbers, if the populace, not just a small sect, rose up against both local law enforcment and the military, they would win and things would go their way. Am I saying it would go the right way? Absolutly not. However it is mathematical fact that people without guns out number those with them, and even if half that number died trying to kill the cop, the cop would lose. So while fear exists now, that fear has no chance against numbers. There are more arguments I could make, but class is starting soon, so I'll leave you with this. Thanks for accepting who ever you are. Ta.