Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, what humanity needs has already been determined by our nature. We require the basic food, water, health, shelter,connection and purpose. I am merely suggesting what to me is the best way to organize society in order to achieve this for a great number of humans. You're welcome to critique, enhance or offer an alternative.
Isn't that the basis of having a discussion. We highlight a societal problem bring forth several ideas to solve the problem then reach a consensus on what we consider best for everyone
where do you people get the arrogance to just type this stuff?
>One internet-capable device per household is enough, maybe with a data center per community to manage data and act as a public library.
>People should either work from home or be within a working distance away from their place of work."
yea, this has got to be one of the worst takes i have ever read here, and this is saying a lot. you are contradicting yourself without even realizing, nothing more than the average useless rant.
go live like a primitive if you want, i'd rather die in the apocalypse than live in your cultish society.
Do you have an alternative, a critique or even an enhancement or do you mean to just throw insults to make yourself feel somehow intelligent, yes I do believe the endless manufacture of devices is vain not to mention destructive and I would rather the devices are shared communally. I would also rather have close knit, relatively small, self sustainable, interconnected communities with members working from home or in close proximity and no I don't consider that contradictory at all. Contrary to what you may think it is very possible to share a single device.
you really don't see a conflict with people working from home in tight-knit communities and only allowing one internet capable device per household?
you don't really see how other people would absolutely hate to live in relatively small communities?
you don't really see how your belief that manufacturing of devices is vain is extremely subjective? only a handful of people would ever support that.
you are free to live just like in your fairy tale, btw.
If you're looking for a system that will produce very few consumer goods and gives the state an enormous amount of power in order to enforce your laundry list of totalitarian dictates, then socialism is the answer.
"I strongly believe that we need far fewer consumer goods. Production should align with actual needs, a principle that has been distorted by capitalism. Useless products are constantly pushed on us through deceptive advertisements, product manipulation, and the relentless pursuit of productivity at the expense of humane living standards. The enormous investment in frivolous items like luxury vehicles and phones, which are needlessly updated annually, results in tons of waste ending up in landfills each year, diverting crucial resources away from agriculture, health, housing, and education—areas essential for human development. Furthermore, the exploitation of both people and resources necessary to sustain this wasteful system is alarming. The commodification of every resource, including information, hinders societal equity and much-needed progress. Worst of all, the current system reduces the majority of humanity to serving the insatiable desires of an elite few who luxuriate at the expense of the rest of society. Not to mention the wars and coercion used to safeguard trade interests, the continuous inflation required to maintain profits, and the deliberate separation of communities into individuals to maximize profits. If you aim to convince me that the current system is not elitist or even totalitarian, I remain unconvinced. I firmly believe there is a better alternative. You may label it socialism, but I prefer to think of it as a socialist democracy."
>Worst of all, the current system reduces the majority of humanity to serving the insatiable desires of an elite few who luxuriate at the expense of the rest of society.
If, by elite, you refer to people who have founded successful businesses and become wealthy doing so, you have it backwards. They have created wealth for the masses by efficiently providing products/services which satisfy their desires or needs. And they only spend a small fraction of their wealth on their own personal consumption because, after all, how many yachts can you water-ski behind, eh?
The elite, to me, refer to the bankers who purport to keep our money safe while lending it at high interest rates, all while giving us mere pennies; the central banks, which manipulate currency, leaving our money with ever-diminishing value; the government, which takes our taxes and transfers them to the rich, all while providing us with no services; the landlords who rent houses at insane prices; the Wall Street players who shortchange investors by manipulating stocks with their huge hedge funds; and, of course, the corporations that swallow any competition, building their empires by exploiting laborers, flouting regulations, and cheaply extracting resources from poor countries, all while paying no taxes.
I'm gonna disagree with this view. Markets and market-based economies are tools for the efficient coordination of labour, economic resources, and factors of production in order to maximize utility derived from economic output.
That means that markets are not about the individual so much as they are about the coordination of many individuals. Milton Friedman has a famous alegory about how pencils are made under market economies by the coordination of lets of different resources. Its not about the elite, its about the process.
>I'm gonna disagree with this view. Markets and market-based economies are tools for the efficient coordination of labour, economic resources, and factors of production in order to maximize utility derived from economic output.
>
>That means that markets are not about the individual so much as they are about the coordination of many individuals. Milton Friedman has a famous alegory about how pencils are made under market economies by the coordination of lets of different resources.
And the sun rises in the East.
Tell us something we don't already know.
>Its not about the elite, its about the process.
I didn't say it was. I was debating the definition and role of "elite" with the OP
There is this rhetoric, and then the other side of discourse where people feel entitled to Uber Eats delivery of ANY meal they want for the rest of their lives, because they dislike cooking and the “economics” of grocery stores
This is your opinion. People care about all sorts of different things. Every government that has ever tried to predict the "needs" of all people has failed miserably.
Well I don't need to force anyone, just persuade them and I honestly believe it will come naturally once enough people get fed up with the current system, I am only but adding my voice to the discourse
>Most people don't need much—just enough to comfortably sustain themselves and their dependents throughout their lifetime. Unfortunately, the economy is structured in a way where the majority of the population can barely sustain themselves, always being a layoff or misfortune away from poverty. This has left the majority of humanity stuck in an endless cycle of work just to survive, while only a few thrive. The irony of it all is that the world economy is big enough to sustain a slowdown that would accommodate shorter work weeks and a more humane lifestyle. Sure, production would slow, but it's already at overcapacity, generating so much waste that the planet itself is in danger of becoming inhospitable to most life.
I agree that we can cut back on the consumerism, but that's more about consuming less useless crap, not just consuming less. A nice, modern life where you work light hours is going to include things like: learning something new on the Internet, streaming a show, asking ChatGPT a stupid question, going on vacation with friends / family. All of these things use lots of electricity and fuel, even though they don't necessarily generate physical garbage. You need a rich economy to sustain these things.
Try playing this out a bit:
* Let's say for the sake of argument $85k/year is enough to sustain yourself, and with remote work and a more relaxed attitude towards work (and the fact that nobody makes more than $85k) housing comes down in price.
* People earning more than $85k would have the easiest time working fewer hours for less pay, let's say the all start cutting back so nobody in the US makes more than $85k.
* You now have a problem, which is that every nickel above that $85k/year was taxed at 25% - 50% and paid for most government services, so you have to cut those back significantly.
* You have another problem, which is that high value service oriented professions (like doctors) are now only working 20% of their usual hours, so in the time it previously took to do 5 surgeries, now only 1 can be performed.
Where are those government services going to come from? Are you going to have to draw lots every time you need to see a doctor?
oh please don't be so stupid. If you have capitalism everybody is getting rich. That is why for example in America right off the boat with no education experience or English you can make $15 an hour plus benefits plus state of the art healthcare plus amazing infrastructure while half of the world lives on less than $5.50 a day with no benefits no healthcare and no infrastructure not even police and military protection. Do you understand now?
America's entire history is characterized by exploitation from its very beginning. The American project was initiated through land theft, slavery, genocide, discrimination, and imperialism, all of which persist today. This exploitation is evident globally, spanning continents from South America to Asia to Africa. The enrichment of America and its European allies through exploitation is no secret nor is their use of financial systems like the World Bank, and the IMF to continue it's exploitation. Have you ever questioned why the dollar is the world standard despite it being under the control of the privately owned federal reserve, why the U.S. is consistently implicated in conflicts worldwide, why the US military has taken upon itself the mandate of policing the entire planet, why it seeks to be the exception to international law. Why the US needs to dictate its policies to the rest of the planet punishing anyone who doesn't adhere to it.I could go on and on highlighting how US is only rich due to its imperialist, exploitative nature rather than the merits of it's system but I feel the need to highlight just how crazy I find that despite draining resources from other parts of the world, many Americans still struggle financially, living paycheck to paycheck,in constant debt,facing health issues from consuming harmful products pushed by their beloved corporates, lack access to affordable healthcare, often having to resort to seeking medical treatment abroad. Add to that the depressed population with prevalence of mass shootings, hate marches, drug addiction, rising homelessness, moral decadence and one wonders why people fell for the propaganda of American exceptionalism for so long.
The American project won 2 world wars, then re-created the world in it's image of freedom and liberty, won the Cold War, won the war on terror, freed women blacks gay trans people , holds 70% of recent medical patents and now polices the world for free in the name of liberty to save civilization on earth every day.
Noooo, you can only point out our wrongdoings. The good stuff doesn't fit his narrative. China has never done anything wrong, every other country outside of the west is pure and US is Satan incarnated
I love how so many people have the "return to Monke" meme in different flavors. I'm guilty of it too, and agree that a lot of things would be better if we had a more primitive lifestyle. But I'm not going to pretend it's that simple.
So many of us have this strange view of the past, simultaneously viewing it as better and worse than it actually was. But the fact is, going back to that would result in billions of deaths. It will be hard and so much more work for less benefit.
>We already have the technology to grow food in deserts, so why not focus on this and improving such tech?
We are improving that tech, and similar technologies. It doesn't get much focus because it requires the abundance you're decrying. It's expensive and difficult and provides only small benefits, and it isn't sustainable yet.
First of all, cutting off the myriad of wasteful, polluting industries and directing investment towards sustainable food production and human development is not regression but progress. The scarcity problem we have today does not stem from lack, the food generated is enough to feed the population 1.5 times over, and this is only with a quarter of the potential arable land cultivated and more than 30% of the world being unemployed, The rate of technological innovation has been stifled with much of industry gatekeeping valuable information for profit, we also have huge green energy potential which could be easily realized if we redirected the resources we spend on this wasteful industries. What we have in our world is problems of our own creation, luxuries we now equate to needs, expenses we generate for ourselves including that required for tech innovation and scientific development, we generate scarcity in order to make profits,create conflict for the same,wasting valuable resources to sate our vanity and greed yet the potential of a much better society is so poignant.
>First of all, cutting off the myriad of wasteful, polluting industries and directing investment towards sustainable food production and human development is not regression but progress.
Cutting off those industries removes the wealth and resources you're trying to redirect. That's regression.
>The scarcity problem we have today does not stem from lack, the food generated is enough to feed the population 1.5 times over, and this is only with a quarter of the potential arable land cultivated and more than 30% of the world being unemployed
Correct. It stems from reality, and food having a finite shelf life, and requiring it to be transported. It's exasperated by inefficiencies and conflict.
>The rate of technological innovation has been stifled with much of industry gatekeeping valuable information for profit,
I partially agree, although it's usually not directly for profit. It's a combination from established systems being more profitable, entrenched leadership being unwilling to change, and anti capitalist forces using government to remove competition and generate revenue from government programs.
>we also have huge green energy potential which could be easily realized if we redirected the resources we spend on this wasteful industries
Green industries are also wasteful and tend to be less efficient.
>What we have in our world is problems of our own creation, luxuries we now equate to needs, expenses we generate for ourselves including that required for tech innovation and scientific development
Yes, one of our big problems is so many are so rich that we assume we've conquered reality and think problems are fake. Our wealth makes it extremely easy for people to ignore reality.
>we generate scarcity in order to make profits,create conflict for the same,wasting valuable resources to sate our vanity and greed yet the potential of a much better society is so poignant.
We don't generate scarcity. Those "wasteful" industries have created the illusion you're mistaking for reality. But yes, we can do much better.
You've missed the main problem: the number of constituents. The one thing humans have not gathered clearly is that the biome itself is relatively indestructible prior to a point and absolutely guaranteed to be destroyed after a certain point. To put this into understanding a human having everything they want, including a private jet to get around, with a global population of 100M is probably not going to harm the Earth at all meanwhile everyone working under the most sustainable system imaginable with a global population of 20B will cause the biome to just collapse.
The sustainability argument is aligned with the infinite population concept but there is no infinite population allowed so the sustainability argument doesn't really matter. This is not to say that people should do their worst and pollute as much as possible but it is to say that the critical mass of the biome is what really matters and the damage dealt to the biome is done through sheer volume rather than individualized actions. In other words:
>In short, **humanity needs to move its economy away from a culture of individualism, needless consumerism, profiteering, and waste**, which does nothing but destroy the environment, drive the majority of humanity to poverty, take away quality human time, and reduce humanity to pointless machines working to gather more and more stuff it doesn't ever need, all while destroying the planet it resides on.
Even the statements about how to fix the problem are written through the lens of individualism with emphasis being on individualistic problems (i.e. consumerism, profiteering, and waste) rather than communal problems (i.e. resource scarcity, real-space management, etc.) so all of your suggestions specifically come through the lens of individualism by default. It's kind of like talking about the system within the system thinking you're outside the grasp of the system. You're not.
It's kind of like the public transportation statement. It only makes sense from the individual level to even look at; communally speaking the transportation system should support whatever is best for the community, i.e. rural places do not work well with public transportation, and while it has been tried it has never been economical because of the fact that people live accordingly, i.e. someone buys a big truck and goes grocery shopping twice a month with a huge deep freezer to keep stocked up, but because there's no thought process regarding human adaptation to these conditions present there's no real analysis here.
The next natural response becomes something about reducing innercity travel and nothing is wrong with that but it isn't a counterpoint so much as it, again, misses the point. You've created a lose-lose system of understanding the world by declaring that humanity should march forward with what sounds good but doing so through a lens that has no public interest in mind and is driven almost entirely by individualism. This still supports the infinite human capacity model and that's just a shit model.
TL;DR:
"We can feed everybody!"
"But that's actually not a good idea..."
Throw your phone away right now and go use your neighbors. I'm glad you have the ability to express a radical opinion such as this, but kindly fuck that I'd rather die than live in a dystopia where the state or you get to decide how much I eat, what I wear, and what I get to own in my own home.
A future is not something you "build". That's a metaphor used in every piece of corporate jargon since the Democrats made Building A Stronger Future Together their campaign slogan. How have you not noticed? Or do you just have a thing for corporations?
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How have you come to these determinations as to what all of humanity needs?
Well, what humanity needs has already been determined by our nature. We require the basic food, water, health, shelter,connection and purpose. I am merely suggesting what to me is the best way to organize society in order to achieve this for a great number of humans. You're welcome to critique, enhance or offer an alternative.
What about people who will disagree on your personal assemment?
Isn't that the basis of having a discussion. We highlight a societal problem bring forth several ideas to solve the problem then reach a consensus on what we consider best for everyone
where do you people get the arrogance to just type this stuff? >One internet-capable device per household is enough, maybe with a data center per community to manage data and act as a public library. >People should either work from home or be within a working distance away from their place of work." yea, this has got to be one of the worst takes i have ever read here, and this is saying a lot. you are contradicting yourself without even realizing, nothing more than the average useless rant. go live like a primitive if you want, i'd rather die in the apocalypse than live in your cultish society.
Do you have an alternative, a critique or even an enhancement or do you mean to just throw insults to make yourself feel somehow intelligent, yes I do believe the endless manufacture of devices is vain not to mention destructive and I would rather the devices are shared communally. I would also rather have close knit, relatively small, self sustainable, interconnected communities with members working from home or in close proximity and no I don't consider that contradictory at all. Contrary to what you may think it is very possible to share a single device.
you really don't see a conflict with people working from home in tight-knit communities and only allowing one internet capable device per household? you don't really see how other people would absolutely hate to live in relatively small communities? you don't really see how your belief that manufacturing of devices is vain is extremely subjective? only a handful of people would ever support that. you are free to live just like in your fairy tale, btw.
If you're looking for a system that will produce very few consumer goods and gives the state an enormous amount of power in order to enforce your laundry list of totalitarian dictates, then socialism is the answer.
"I strongly believe that we need far fewer consumer goods. Production should align with actual needs, a principle that has been distorted by capitalism. Useless products are constantly pushed on us through deceptive advertisements, product manipulation, and the relentless pursuit of productivity at the expense of humane living standards. The enormous investment in frivolous items like luxury vehicles and phones, which are needlessly updated annually, results in tons of waste ending up in landfills each year, diverting crucial resources away from agriculture, health, housing, and education—areas essential for human development. Furthermore, the exploitation of both people and resources necessary to sustain this wasteful system is alarming. The commodification of every resource, including information, hinders societal equity and much-needed progress. Worst of all, the current system reduces the majority of humanity to serving the insatiable desires of an elite few who luxuriate at the expense of the rest of society. Not to mention the wars and coercion used to safeguard trade interests, the continuous inflation required to maintain profits, and the deliberate separation of communities into individuals to maximize profits. If you aim to convince me that the current system is not elitist or even totalitarian, I remain unconvinced. I firmly believe there is a better alternative. You may label it socialism, but I prefer to think of it as a socialist democracy."
>Worst of all, the current system reduces the majority of humanity to serving the insatiable desires of an elite few who luxuriate at the expense of the rest of society. If, by elite, you refer to people who have founded successful businesses and become wealthy doing so, you have it backwards. They have created wealth for the masses by efficiently providing products/services which satisfy their desires or needs. And they only spend a small fraction of their wealth on their own personal consumption because, after all, how many yachts can you water-ski behind, eh?
The elite, to me, refer to the bankers who purport to keep our money safe while lending it at high interest rates, all while giving us mere pennies; the central banks, which manipulate currency, leaving our money with ever-diminishing value; the government, which takes our taxes and transfers them to the rich, all while providing us with no services; the landlords who rent houses at insane prices; the Wall Street players who shortchange investors by manipulating stocks with their huge hedge funds; and, of course, the corporations that swallow any competition, building their empires by exploiting laborers, flouting regulations, and cheaply extracting resources from poor countries, all while paying no taxes.
Gish Gallop.
I'm gonna disagree with this view. Markets and market-based economies are tools for the efficient coordination of labour, economic resources, and factors of production in order to maximize utility derived from economic output. That means that markets are not about the individual so much as they are about the coordination of many individuals. Milton Friedman has a famous alegory about how pencils are made under market economies by the coordination of lets of different resources. Its not about the elite, its about the process.
>I'm gonna disagree with this view. Markets and market-based economies are tools for the efficient coordination of labour, economic resources, and factors of production in order to maximize utility derived from economic output. > >That means that markets are not about the individual so much as they are about the coordination of many individuals. Milton Friedman has a famous alegory about how pencils are made under market economies by the coordination of lets of different resources. And the sun rises in the East. Tell us something we don't already know. >Its not about the elite, its about the process. I didn't say it was. I was debating the definition and role of "elite" with the OP
>I didn't say it was. I was debating the definition and role of "elite" with the OP Fair enough
Bland, banal, AI flavored, derivative, milquetoast, mediocre, eye fucked me, uninformed-reimagining-of, amateurish, and just savagely boring, OP.
What a lazy comment.
There is this rhetoric, and then the other side of discourse where people feel entitled to Uber Eats delivery of ANY meal they want for the rest of their lives, because they dislike cooking and the “economics” of grocery stores
r/BIFL has the idea
This is your opinion. People care about all sorts of different things. Every government that has ever tried to predict the "needs" of all people has failed miserably.
Will you volunteer to give up all of your non-needs first? Or only after you've forced everyone else?
Well I don't need to force anyone, just persuade them and I honestly believe it will come naturally once enough people get fed up with the current system, I am only but adding my voice to the discourse
Fair enough I guess. Good luck persuading everyone! Lol.
He won't. Such types always preach how others must live without showing example
>Most people don't need much—just enough to comfortably sustain themselves and their dependents throughout their lifetime. Unfortunately, the economy is structured in a way where the majority of the population can barely sustain themselves, always being a layoff or misfortune away from poverty. This has left the majority of humanity stuck in an endless cycle of work just to survive, while only a few thrive. The irony of it all is that the world economy is big enough to sustain a slowdown that would accommodate shorter work weeks and a more humane lifestyle. Sure, production would slow, but it's already at overcapacity, generating so much waste that the planet itself is in danger of becoming inhospitable to most life. I agree that we can cut back on the consumerism, but that's more about consuming less useless crap, not just consuming less. A nice, modern life where you work light hours is going to include things like: learning something new on the Internet, streaming a show, asking ChatGPT a stupid question, going on vacation with friends / family. All of these things use lots of electricity and fuel, even though they don't necessarily generate physical garbage. You need a rich economy to sustain these things. Try playing this out a bit: * Let's say for the sake of argument $85k/year is enough to sustain yourself, and with remote work and a more relaxed attitude towards work (and the fact that nobody makes more than $85k) housing comes down in price. * People earning more than $85k would have the easiest time working fewer hours for less pay, let's say the all start cutting back so nobody in the US makes more than $85k. * You now have a problem, which is that every nickel above that $85k/year was taxed at 25% - 50% and paid for most government services, so you have to cut those back significantly. * You have another problem, which is that high value service oriented professions (like doctors) are now only working 20% of their usual hours, so in the time it previously took to do 5 surgeries, now only 1 can be performed. Where are those government services going to come from? Are you going to have to draw lots every time you need to see a doctor?
oh please don't be so stupid. If you have capitalism everybody is getting rich. That is why for example in America right off the boat with no education experience or English you can make $15 an hour plus benefits plus state of the art healthcare plus amazing infrastructure while half of the world lives on less than $5.50 a day with no benefits no healthcare and no infrastructure not even police and military protection. Do you understand now?
America's entire history is characterized by exploitation from its very beginning. The American project was initiated through land theft, slavery, genocide, discrimination, and imperialism, all of which persist today. This exploitation is evident globally, spanning continents from South America to Asia to Africa. The enrichment of America and its European allies through exploitation is no secret nor is their use of financial systems like the World Bank, and the IMF to continue it's exploitation. Have you ever questioned why the dollar is the world standard despite it being under the control of the privately owned federal reserve, why the U.S. is consistently implicated in conflicts worldwide, why the US military has taken upon itself the mandate of policing the entire planet, why it seeks to be the exception to international law. Why the US needs to dictate its policies to the rest of the planet punishing anyone who doesn't adhere to it.I could go on and on highlighting how US is only rich due to its imperialist, exploitative nature rather than the merits of it's system but I feel the need to highlight just how crazy I find that despite draining resources from other parts of the world, many Americans still struggle financially, living paycheck to paycheck,in constant debt,facing health issues from consuming harmful products pushed by their beloved corporates, lack access to affordable healthcare, often having to resort to seeking medical treatment abroad. Add to that the depressed population with prevalence of mass shootings, hate marches, drug addiction, rising homelessness, moral decadence and one wonders why people fell for the propaganda of American exceptionalism for so long.
The American project won 2 world wars, then re-created the world in it's image of freedom and liberty, won the Cold War, won the war on terror, freed women blacks gay trans people , holds 70% of recent medical patents and now polices the world for free in the name of liberty to save civilization on earth every day.
Noooo, you can only point out our wrongdoings. The good stuff doesn't fit his narrative. China has never done anything wrong, every other country outside of the west is pure and US is Satan incarnated
China has never done anything wrong except slowly starve 60 million people to death
That's some fascist mumbo jumbo
I love how so many people have the "return to Monke" meme in different flavors. I'm guilty of it too, and agree that a lot of things would be better if we had a more primitive lifestyle. But I'm not going to pretend it's that simple. So many of us have this strange view of the past, simultaneously viewing it as better and worse than it actually was. But the fact is, going back to that would result in billions of deaths. It will be hard and so much more work for less benefit. >We already have the technology to grow food in deserts, so why not focus on this and improving such tech? We are improving that tech, and similar technologies. It doesn't get much focus because it requires the abundance you're decrying. It's expensive and difficult and provides only small benefits, and it isn't sustainable yet.
First of all, cutting off the myriad of wasteful, polluting industries and directing investment towards sustainable food production and human development is not regression but progress. The scarcity problem we have today does not stem from lack, the food generated is enough to feed the population 1.5 times over, and this is only with a quarter of the potential arable land cultivated and more than 30% of the world being unemployed, The rate of technological innovation has been stifled with much of industry gatekeeping valuable information for profit, we also have huge green energy potential which could be easily realized if we redirected the resources we spend on this wasteful industries. What we have in our world is problems of our own creation, luxuries we now equate to needs, expenses we generate for ourselves including that required for tech innovation and scientific development, we generate scarcity in order to make profits,create conflict for the same,wasting valuable resources to sate our vanity and greed yet the potential of a much better society is so poignant.
>First of all, cutting off the myriad of wasteful, polluting industries and directing investment towards sustainable food production and human development is not regression but progress. Cutting off those industries removes the wealth and resources you're trying to redirect. That's regression. >The scarcity problem we have today does not stem from lack, the food generated is enough to feed the population 1.5 times over, and this is only with a quarter of the potential arable land cultivated and more than 30% of the world being unemployed Correct. It stems from reality, and food having a finite shelf life, and requiring it to be transported. It's exasperated by inefficiencies and conflict. >The rate of technological innovation has been stifled with much of industry gatekeeping valuable information for profit, I partially agree, although it's usually not directly for profit. It's a combination from established systems being more profitable, entrenched leadership being unwilling to change, and anti capitalist forces using government to remove competition and generate revenue from government programs. >we also have huge green energy potential which could be easily realized if we redirected the resources we spend on this wasteful industries Green industries are also wasteful and tend to be less efficient. >What we have in our world is problems of our own creation, luxuries we now equate to needs, expenses we generate for ourselves including that required for tech innovation and scientific development Yes, one of our big problems is so many are so rich that we assume we've conquered reality and think problems are fake. Our wealth makes it extremely easy for people to ignore reality. >we generate scarcity in order to make profits,create conflict for the same,wasting valuable resources to sate our vanity and greed yet the potential of a much better society is so poignant. We don't generate scarcity. Those "wasteful" industries have created the illusion you're mistaking for reality. But yes, we can do much better.
You've missed the main problem: the number of constituents. The one thing humans have not gathered clearly is that the biome itself is relatively indestructible prior to a point and absolutely guaranteed to be destroyed after a certain point. To put this into understanding a human having everything they want, including a private jet to get around, with a global population of 100M is probably not going to harm the Earth at all meanwhile everyone working under the most sustainable system imaginable with a global population of 20B will cause the biome to just collapse. The sustainability argument is aligned with the infinite population concept but there is no infinite population allowed so the sustainability argument doesn't really matter. This is not to say that people should do their worst and pollute as much as possible but it is to say that the critical mass of the biome is what really matters and the damage dealt to the biome is done through sheer volume rather than individualized actions. In other words: >In short, **humanity needs to move its economy away from a culture of individualism, needless consumerism, profiteering, and waste**, which does nothing but destroy the environment, drive the majority of humanity to poverty, take away quality human time, and reduce humanity to pointless machines working to gather more and more stuff it doesn't ever need, all while destroying the planet it resides on. Even the statements about how to fix the problem are written through the lens of individualism with emphasis being on individualistic problems (i.e. consumerism, profiteering, and waste) rather than communal problems (i.e. resource scarcity, real-space management, etc.) so all of your suggestions specifically come through the lens of individualism by default. It's kind of like talking about the system within the system thinking you're outside the grasp of the system. You're not. It's kind of like the public transportation statement. It only makes sense from the individual level to even look at; communally speaking the transportation system should support whatever is best for the community, i.e. rural places do not work well with public transportation, and while it has been tried it has never been economical because of the fact that people live accordingly, i.e. someone buys a big truck and goes grocery shopping twice a month with a huge deep freezer to keep stocked up, but because there's no thought process regarding human adaptation to these conditions present there's no real analysis here. The next natural response becomes something about reducing innercity travel and nothing is wrong with that but it isn't a counterpoint so much as it, again, misses the point. You've created a lose-lose system of understanding the world by declaring that humanity should march forward with what sounds good but doing so through a lens that has no public interest in mind and is driven almost entirely by individualism. This still supports the infinite human capacity model and that's just a shit model. TL;DR: "We can feed everybody!" "But that's actually not a good idea..."
Throw your phone away right now and go use your neighbors. I'm glad you have the ability to express a radical opinion such as this, but kindly fuck that I'd rather die than live in a dystopia where the state or you get to decide how much I eat, what I wear, and what I get to own in my own home.
The hubris of this post is jaw-dropping.
It's none of your fucking business to tell me or anyone else what I "need" and can or cannot have.
I mean considering the current ecological trend it'll be your business very soon.
Good luck trying
A future is not something you "build". That's a metaphor used in every piece of corporate jargon since the Democrats made Building A Stronger Future Together their campaign slogan. How have you not noticed? Or do you just have a thing for corporations?