People don’t necessarily have infinite needs. Consumerism convinces people they “need” far more than they actually do, that’s the entire reason the fast fashion industry exists.
I wouldn’t say capitalism is based on the notion of infinite growth, but it is an inevitability of there being no limits on capital accumulation. The notion that humans have endless desire for more, always needing a stronger hit to maintain personal satisfaction, is more psychological than something inherent to private ownership itself. Capitalism feeds the natural animal reward system to disastrous effect, but it isn’t required for capitalism to work. In fact, insatiable desires are the reason capitalism doesn’t work, because if people could be satisfied with a reasonable amount of resources, never trying to acquire more than they need, capitalism would be a fairly decent system.
Living 100% sustainably on this planet is counterintuitive to what it means to be human. We don’t need a political revolution, we need a psychological one.
Exactly. Democratic systems serve society better than non democratic ones, but a strong democracy can only be as good as its people. If the voters lack the wisdom to limit their consumption, both for sustainability and their own satisfaction, they’re doomed to make things worse.
Someone with fewer resources can be much happier than someone with a ton of them. Philosophers have long recognized that certain pleasures only grow more demanding when you feed them, while having sustainable consumption and gratitude is much more stable. As you consume something like meth or opiates, your brain gets used to it, requiring larger and larger doses to get the same effect. With pleasures that are similar drugs, this will eventually harm your happiness and well-being. Our brains cannot remain in a perpetually euphoric state, so we must limit these pleasures.
Certain drugs or pleasures are so euphoria inducing that there is no moderate consumption. Some people have a harder time moderately consuming pleasures that others can tolerate, resulting in addiction disorders.
With the wealthy, their greed is dangerous and addictive, but because it often doesn’t directly harm them and they warped society to accommodate it, it should be handled as more of a criminal condition than a clinical disorder. They get hit after hit from opulent excess, but they always try to get more, and will never satisfy their desire. We must criminalize excessive consumption from individual wealthy people.
Average people also overconsume finite resources, but that is better addressed by taxes, regulations, and incentives for alternatives. Law will be used, but not in the same way as when dealing with the rich.
I would disagree, most people want a more sustainable life, be it economical or ecological, people actually vote for that. But we are never given what we vote for, because of pressure on government given by the big corps, we’re always given some half-assed version of what we actually want.
In any finite economy, this is immoral, because one person (or small group) wins, and everybody else loses. By definition. And once you’re a loser, you’re sunk.
So capitalist apologists rely on the illusion/dream of limitless growth because it means they get to pretend that when they steal from you they are somehow “creating value”.
so… capitalism doesn’t exist in a world with infinite growth potential. fiat currencies do and when tied in with capitalism, “infinite growth” is a goal. nuance is hard but not too difficult
none, infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. the nuance is that the goal of infinite growth can only be possible in fiat or debt based currencies. can’t just print more seashells to intice capitalists into an “infinite growth falacy”
Not to be that guy, but animals of certain size are seemingly unaffected by cancer. I think Kurzkezadt (or however you spell it lol) did a video on why whales don’t die from cancer.
It’s been a while since I read about this, but as I recall, most animals (might just be mammals) won’t die of cancer without genetic modification. They have immune system factors that humans are currently considered not to have. (Either that or we eat too much food for it to work, depending where the research is going these days, lol.)
There is not. It’s unlikely that FTL technology is possible. With exponential growth, limits will again be hit within our own solar system. On a scale of human history, this would happen quickly.
Not that I’m capitalism’s greatest fan, but this sounds about as clever as, “evolution is impossible because the second law of thermodynamics says chaos always increases, and the sun doesn’t exist.”
Evolution and the stars reside in a local entropy minimum but they speed up the increase of entropy by converting a lot of energy. So low entropy and the global increase aren’t contradicting each other. But yes, I agree equating cancer and capitalism isn’t very useful. Especially when the main problem with capitalism is distribution and not scarcity.
I had an argument with someone about the nature of motivation within a capitalist system. Specifically related to people who find their motivations in non-monetary ends such as personal pride, the greater good, morality, etc. He said that those people were rubes, but I countered that surely those people were suckers. We still haven’t resolved…
I don’t think greed is necessary. I’d argue markets exist to cater to human wants and needs. If someone is using an inherently fucky system (as all non-voluntary systems are to some extent) to find happiness, then it’s working at least a little.
“evolution is impossible because the second law of thermodynamics says chaos always increases, and the sun doesn’t exist.”
The second law only applies to closed system systems. Neither earth nor sun are closed systems (they interact with each other) and if they were there your statement would probably be true but not for the reason you suggested.
Limitless growth because competition and technology are supposed to grow with it. It worked really well till big tech showed up and gained a monopoly on everything
Economic output doesn’t have a 1:1 relationship with the planet’s resources. Many countries grow by offering services as opposed to goods. Not all goods have the same negative externalities in terms of harming the planet.
Let me tell you my experience with communism centralized economy as the alternative.
Planned economy = produce as much as possible, more you produce more you are rewarded. It doesn’t matter if you make 100x more then it’s needed than trow it away. Inefficiency doesn’t matter.
Ecology ? Foreign westerner propaganda. That there are no fish, animals, half of the plants spiecies disappeared is westerners fault. Emissions ? Nothing can stand in our plan.
We produce more than anyone yet people’s wellbeing is still behind west? That’s not true, there are fascist to the west and it’s just western propaganda. BTW if you mention it, you won’t see outside for quite while.
Now let me tell you what happened after end of communism.
Nature almost recovered because crazy amount of efforts put into it’s protection despite it being expensive.
If anyone produces more than people need, they ususally go bankrupt or at least are not rewarded for loss. Thus everyone tries to go as efficient as possible.
Wellbeing went up 10fold.
I don’t know about OP but capitalism seems kinda best option to me ATM
Many of those who claim to hate free market capitalism just hate their lives and want to blame someone else for it. Amusingly enough, in a dark way, many corporations are run like they were communistic organizations:
centralized control
strong hierarchies, most benefits go to the top
collective resources
economic planning
reduced autonomy of individuals inside the organization
propaganda, both internal and external
Perhaps marxist-leninists should just join corporations and get a reasonable approximation of everything they want ;) For me personally, it makes a lot of sense to hate/distrust corporations but not so much sense to hate free market capitalism.
I agree. Corporations are indeed similar to communist planned economy model in this regard. Free market is not. People vote with they wallets after all. Stop paying half eaten apple if you hate their practice. Stop paying for certain OS if you can get community developed Linux etc… in the end It’s about people weighting their comfort vs making things better.
Sometimes state has to help them by regulations. But Free market is still way better then commies.
Add comment