Been a while since I posted anything meaningful. I have been busy dealing the cartel politics with my own family because in my city as certain and innocent family members and others are being pushed out of their homes because of one of their types married into the family. Now there's conflict because of opposing sides and recently development of turf wars taking place in my city, and just because you have one that unknowingly was a member of whatever cartel, joined the family and had kids, now the parents, uncle's and aunts etc have to face the consequences of their actions and life choices.
No one has been physically harmed, but property had been seized and having to hell relocate said family is a task on its own and trying to keep heads cool and civil because we're not in a position to have any leverage against what is happening.
Also working on blue collar work, and building up a hugelkultur backyard and letting my grass roots grow deep into the soil.
Anyways, getting into the post now.
In my previous post, I argued over poverty as being the baseline of nature and that wealth is something built through man made systems like agriculture, trade, and markets. Therefore wealth is something that is constructed and maintained.
After further deep reflection on the matter, I don’t think the discussion is that simple and I don’t think the opposing view from 
The disagreement as i saw it, seems to come down to what we mean by “wealth” and “poverty.” It's something that should have been addressed on my end to reduce misunderstanding and provide more clarity, because they each have various ways of being interpreted.
For example,
If wealth means having stored surplus, stability, and the ability to sustain large growing populations over time, then it’s clear that systems, starting with agriculture, made that possible. In that sense, wealth is not something that comes naturally but instead it's something that created, maintained, and protected for the future.
But there’s another way to define wealth as the abundance provided by the environment itself. And historically, there’s evidence that several human societies have lived in conditions where food was relatively accessible, work hours were lower, and survival didn’t depend on complex systems.
Back then, not everyone had access to the same amount of resources, and what worked in one place might not work in another. The problem was that this way of living wasn't sustainable in the long run, because it relied too much on the local environment and the number of people living there. These things can change over time, and that would disrupt the whole system. It's not that there was anything wrong with the way people lived back then - it's just that it wasn't suitable for supporting large, complex societies. Different situations require different solutions, and that's okay.
As humans transitioned into agriculture and then later into our current structured economies, you'll notice we didn’t simply just “progress” in a straight line. We gained stability, surplus, and the ability to support billions of people, but we also introduced hierarchy, dependence, and new forms of inequality.
So instead of saying poverty is purely natural or purely created, it may be more accurate to ask if humans always lived between two constraints, being from nature and systems.
Nature can certainly provide abundance but up to slap limited threshold, we know this. We seen it and for some, this is still a thing, but it’s inconsistent and limited in scale. Not everyone grows their own foods and not nearly enough to spark abundance for all. Systems can produce stability and growth, but they come with control, and uneven distribution. So there's obviously a tradeoff happening here.
From that perspective, capitalism didn’t create poverty out of nothing, but it also didn’t eliminate it, but rather expanded our ability to generate wealth while changing how that wealth is accessed and distributed.
What we call “wealth” today may be less about having resources in the moment and more about having reliable access to them in the future. And that reliability almost always comes from systems and not by chance.
So maybe the better question isn’t whether poverty is natural or created by our choices, but rather what kinds of systems allow for both stability and independence without collapsing into scarcity or control.