3 ms·
Points taken. And I agree that we should design systems to work with the natural tendencies of humans. But we can do better than (and I'm being reductive here)
by codydh 9y ago
Points taken. And I agree that we should design systems to work with the natural tendencies of humans. But we can do better than (and I'm being reductive here) capitalism's current "eventually everything will optimize out even if poor people starve to death because they weren't born with money." In fact, I'd argue that 'modern' capitalism really is only activating a small portion of human nature (that is, the self-interested part), and shielding us from those aspects of us that are caring for others and concerned for other human beings. When we put everything from the value of private jets to food, water, and healthcare on the same value metric (money), and then tell people that whatever amount of money they have is indicative of what they are worth, it's no wonder we as a society wind up treating people as objects instead of human beings.
Anecdotally, the US is a nation with more than enough food and shelter for all its inhabitants. Yet many people live on the streets, often because they were born into poverty. This goes against most people's "firmware." Yet capitalism takes no account of that part of human nature (I'd argue those parts that make us 'better than animals.').
- TeMPOraL 9y agoI agree with your points here, and I'm not endorsing more capitalism as a solution to problems of current capitalism. I was only answering the question "why such roundabout way" by pointing out that, when viewed through the lens of human nature, it's actually a pretty direct way. Though honestly, it's also easy to forget all the benefits capitalism brought us when criticizing it, and IMO it's worth to have them in mind when discussing alternatives.