yet this is still counts as a “catastrophe” because of the relative distribution of wealth and resources, I think that needs to be way more clear in the text.
(But I think they do argue for violent conflict in text. It would probably be more clear if they were like “we mostly aren’t arguing for violent takeover or loss of human life here, though this has been discussed in more detail elsewhere”)
Also, for the record, I totally agree with:
(But I think they do argue for violent conflict in text. It would probably be more clear if they were like “we mostly aren’t arguing for violent takeover or loss of human life here, though this has been discussed in more detail elsewhere”)