Rhoeri ,
@Rhoeri@lemmy.world avatar

Spot on analogy.

Something_Complex ,

The base of the economic problem is how to divide finite resources to an infinite need.

I got bad news, we are the cancer

Cowbee ,

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.

Something_Complex ,

Dude open an economy or macroeconomics book. It’s the first thing they say

TotallynotJessica ,

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.

thefloweracidic ,

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.

TotallynotJessica ,

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.

MaximumPower ,

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.

Not_Alec_Baldwin ,

I think there’s one important distinction.

Capitalism is a “rich-get-richer” system.

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”.

huge_clock ,

Just because the rich get richer doesn’t mean the poor get poorer. Look at the data.

Not_Alec_Baldwin ,

… The data that shows that as worker productivity increases, worker income doesn’t increase proportionally?

Cannacheques ,

Agreed. Assuming such a thing is playing with the meaning behind words more than understanding the purpose and function of the dogma itself.

DigitalFrank ,

Ok. With what do we replace it?

Shardikprime ,

You don’t. The planet will be fine

njm1314 ,

Perhaps, but we’d all like it if it were still habitable for us. That it would survive without us isn’t all that comforting.

dislocate_expansion Bot ,

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

LostWon ,

What forms of profit-making are you proposing that can grow infinitely without consuming any resources?

dislocate_expansion Bot ,

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”

FastAndBulbous ,

I’m 14 and this is so deep.

ftatateeta ,

It’s really not that deep lol

mob ,

I think that’s the point. It seems deep to 14 year olds, but it’s really just a shallow observation if you really think about it.

Rhoeri ,
@Rhoeri@lemmy.world avatar

When you grow up, you’ll see that it’s not.

sk_slice ,

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.

vinhill ,

Kurzgesagt

Zehzin , (edited )
@Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

Oversimplification: Their cancers get so big their cancers get cancer and die before harming the animal

Unfortunately in real life the cancers form a cancer Monopoly and the immune system prefers to protect the cancer over normal cells

LostWon ,

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.)

pirat ,

Kurzkezadt

Are you thinking of Kurzgesagt?

(Bonus info: the word is German and means “shortly said”)

Pixlbabble ,

If you take Technology and Space into consideration there’s an infinite amount of growth.

frezik ,

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.

Pixlbabble ,

Asteroid mining will come.

frezik ,

How does that change anything in the face of exponential growth?

Cowbee ,

If wages stagnate with respect to productivity, why does it matter?

Pixlbabble ,

Because for some reason people are driven to do things and people will people follow to do those things,

SpaceCadet ,
@SpaceCadet@feddit.nl avatar

Reminds me of this article: Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist

milicent_bystandr ,

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.”

Arcity ,
@Arcity@feddit.nl avatar

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.

OrteilGenou ,

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…

Arcity ,
@Arcity@feddit.nl avatar

You are trying to resolve whether to call them rubes or suckers?

OrteilGenou ,

Yep. Hard to tell from a pure capitalist point of view. I’m firmly in the “suckers” camp.

PsychedSy ,

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.

RichCaffeineFlavor ,

Okay you don’t think it sounds clever. Does it sound wrong?

Donkter ,

I think their point is that it sounds clever but it’s wrong.

RichCaffeineFlavor ,

Yeah no shit that’s their point. My point is they have no substance.

Donkter ,

You said they thought it didn’t sound clever.

RichCaffeineFlavor ,

Holy shit this is boring. Can you get to a point if you have one already? Why are you talking to me?

ftatateeta ,

“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.

jcdenton ,
@jcdenton@lemy.lol avatar

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

ssd ,

worked really well till big tech showed up and gained a monopoly on everything

Were there any monopolies before big tech? idk maybe oil, steel and trains

jcdenton ,
@jcdenton@lemy.lol avatar

At least the government stepped in then

steeznson ,

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.

unknown ,

Also astroid mining will be a thing very soon.

GiM ,

“very soon” lmao

unknown ,
AceFuzzLord ,
@AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee avatar

Best way to deal with late stage cancer is radiation.

ohmijan ,

Soo, nuke it is then

Noodle07 ,

Can’t fucking wait

crackdroid ,

From orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

nyakojiru ,
@nyakojiru@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Wow, such a… deep comparison

greenmarty ,

Let me tell you my experience with communism centralized economy as the alternative.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  1. Nature almost recovered because crazy amount of efforts put into it’s protection despite it being expensive.
  2. 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.
  3. Wellbeing went up 10fold.

I don’t know about OP but capitalism seems kinda best option to me ATM

fosforus , (edited )

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.

greenmarty ,

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.

v81 ,

So extreme communism is bad? And extreme capitalism is good? And we can’t pick an inbetween?

FastAndBulbous ,

We do pick an in-between. The people complaining about capitalism just don’t realise we live in the in-between.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • microblogmemes@lemmy.world
  • kamenrider
  • Lexington
  • cragsand
  • WarhammerFantasy
  • itdept
  • mead
  • RetroGamingNetwork
  • bjj
  • xyz
  • PowerRangers
  • AnarchoCapitalism
  • WatchParties
  • brutaldeathmetal
  • pixo
  • electropalaeography
  • Rutgers
  • AgeRegression
  • slaythespire
  • Teensy
  • neondivide
  • learnviet
  • mauerstrassenwetten
  • loren
  • steinbach
  • MidnightClan
  • jeremy
  • space_engine
  • artificial
  • All magazines