4 ms·
> Capitalism makes production incredibly efficient (a great thing) I'm not so sure. If you think about it, capitalism along with the industrial age are only po
by bad_user 11y ago
> Capitalism makes production incredibly efficient (a great thing)
I'm not so sure. If you think about it, capitalism along with the industrial age are only possible because of and have been subsidized by fossil fuels. By subsidized, I mean that this increase in productivity is a simple conversion of energy from fossil fuels to products and services many of which we don't really need. The industrial age is basically the usage of cheap and readily available fossil fuels. But that also has had a great cost to our environment and this is an implicit cost that has been ignored.
Furthermore, in this modern age most advances that we've made tend to be zero sum. For example the advances that we've made in health-care tend to be nullified by modern cronic diseases, like diabetes, obesity, heart diseases, allergies or cancer. And why do these happen? We live in really crowded and polluted cities of course. And many scientists have been warning us for example about the "western diet", a diet consisting of mostly corn, soy, animals raised from corn and mono-cultures raised with pesticides and transported thousands of miles before reaching consumers, which is basically what you get when industrializing our food chain. And we may have access to education or information, yet we are burdened by debt, we are none the wiser and we are probably not happier. The only real advances we've made as a species has been in the form of individuals rights, which have been eroded lately in the name of security.
So personally I'm having a hard time lately seeing what's great about it.
> Capitalists may not feel comfortable with workers owning the means of production, but they will have to make some concessions to society (example: single payer healthcare, free education, basic income, something else?) in order to maintain a healthy stability.
Capitalism only works if the means of production is not concentrated in few hands. Once that happens, then the whole system goes crumbling down because who is going to pay for those products and services? The people that are on a basic income and that are also paid by those with the means for production? No, that's not going to happen because it doesn't make sense.
More realistic would be to say that we'll end up with a handful of masters that have billions of slaves. Unless we change the economic system to face the new reality of course.
- maxerickson 11y agoYou should be careful to say Type II diabetes. Technology is a pretty huge win against Type I. It's also unlikely that technology has directly increased mortality from cancer (it's almost certainly indirectly increased it by enabling more people to live and to live longer).
- bad_user 11y agoPollution, obesity and modern processing of food (remember artificial trans fats?) are directly responsible for increased cancer rates.
- maxerickson 11y agoI meant net increase, I should have made that more clear.