3 ms·

Because in nature, organisms don't grow to the limits of their environment, right? They willingly limit their growth so that all enlightened organisms can shar

by adekok 9y ago

Because in nature, organisms don't grow to the limits of their environment, right? They willingly limit their growth so that all enlightened organisms can share equally in a workers paradise, amidst songs of empowerment and fraternity, while marching collectively towards a bold new future! Yeah... no. Evolution shows us that organisms do grow to the limits of their environment. A "capitalist" system is no different. Making thinly-veiled religious statements about the evils of capitalism means rhetoric is more important to you than understanding. Edit: for the nay-sayers, who seem to have missed my point: These behaviors aren't a result of capitalism. Blaming capitalism, or using ideological rehetoric, is wrong. These behaviors are a result of reality. Of evolution. Of the Dariwnian struggle for existence. Blaming capitalism for these behaviors makes no more sense than blaming capitalism for a disease like malaria. Malaria was around long before capitalism, or even people, existed.

betaby 9y ago
But we pretend we are smart and capitalism is the best system. We believe we are better than amoebas.
- adekok 9y ago
  For all my dislike of capitalism, there aren't many better systems. Perhaps capitalism leavened with some socialism (public roads, police, health care, etc.) i.e. what most rich western societies have.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    To add some detail here: The last hundred years a number of political systems has been tested. Compared to how almost every single communist experiment has ended, - and also nazism (far fewer examples but for some reason I really don’t want that either :-/) I far prefer what select lucky European countries and USA as well has done. Specifically I really think the European democracies has almost nailed it with reasonably good public health care, reasonable taxes all while still allowing and encouraging competition between for-profit companies. "The advantage of communism is that everyone is equally poor. The disadvantage of capitalism is that some people are richer than others." - something I heard as a kid "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" Winston S Churchill
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
musage 9y ago
You could replace capitalism with Nazism in a world ruled by it and you'd have the same "point". What you call understanding is obedience and sophistry, merely trying to get your subjective self out of the picture and trying to call the remaining mess objective. > The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself. -- Noam Chomsky > Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
pygy_ 9y ago
Provided resources are finite and the sun's output is constant, gradually limiting growth would indeed be wise unless we want to fall off a cliff at some point. ———— Edit: in response to your edit: Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium. If a species consumes more energy than its environment can supply or produces more entropy than its environment can dissipate, things go bad for the environment and for the species unless it can move to greener pastures. What is true for species is also true for non-biological dissipative processes. Capitalism and the growth-fueled financial system are not perennial. In this context, humanity is part of the environment, and greener pastures is the automation epidemics, where capital is becoming self-sufficient. This is dangerous for humans.
- adekok 9y ago
  > Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium. Nonsense. The only reason systems are in equilibrium is because of negative feedback. Predators eat prey. Diseases kill plants / animals, etc. Remove the negative feedback, and you get un-checked growth. This is basic biology...
  - pygy_ 9y ago
    Negative feedback is part of healthy ecosystems, because resources _are_ limited. These loops are necessary for long term survival. What you describe is cancer.
    - adekok 9y ago
      Systems do NOT "strive for equilibrium". The only reason we see multiple systems at (roughly) equilibrium is that the ones not at equilibrium destroy themselves and their environment. I'm not denying that negative feedback exists. I'm saying that without such feedback, systems always run out of control, because that's the biological imperative. And no, growing systems are not cancer. That's just a ridiculous statement to make. Don't straw-man me FFS.
      - pygy_ 9y ago

by adekok 9y ago

betaby 9y ago

But we pretend we are smart and capitalism is the best system. We believe we are better than amoebas.

adekok 9y ago
For all my dislike of capitalism, there aren't many better systems. Perhaps capitalism leavened with some socialism (public roads, police, health care, etc.) i.e. what most rich western societies have.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  To add some detail here: The last hundred years a number of political systems has been tested. Compared to how almost every single communist experiment has ended, - and also nazism (far fewer examples but for some reason I really don’t want that either :-/) I far prefer what select lucky European countries and USA as well has done. Specifically I really think the European democracies has almost nailed it with reasonably good public health care, reasonable taxes all while still allowing and encouraging competition between for-profit companies. "The advantage of communism is that everyone is equally poor. The disadvantage of capitalism is that some people are richer than others." - something I heard as a kid "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" Winston S Churchill

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

musage 9y ago

You could replace capitalism with Nazism in a world ruled by it and you'd have the same "point". What you call understanding is obedience and sophistry, merely trying to get your subjective self out of the picture and trying to call the remaining mess objective. > The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself. -- Noam Chomsky > Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself. -- Friedrich Nietzsche

pygy_ 9y ago

Provided resources are finite and the sun's output is constant, gradually limiting growth would indeed be wise unless we want to fall off a cliff at some point. ———— Edit: in response to your edit: Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium. If a species consumes more energy than its environment can supply or produces more entropy than its environment can dissipate, things go bad for the environment and for the species unless it can move to greener pastures. What is true for species is also true for non-biological dissipative processes. Capitalism and the growth-fueled financial system are not perennial. In this context, humanity is part of the environment, and greener pastures is the automation epidemics, where capital is becoming self-sufficient. This is dangerous for humans.

adekok 9y ago
> Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium. Nonsense. The only reason systems are in equilibrium is because of negative feedback. Predators eat prey. Diseases kill plants / animals, etc. Remove the negative feedback, and you get un-checked growth. This is basic biology...
- pygy_ 9y ago
  Negative feedback is part of healthy ecosystems, because resources _are_ limited. These loops are necessary for long term survival. What you describe is cancer.
  - adekok 9y ago
    Systems do NOT "strive for equilibrium". The only reason we see multiple systems at (roughly) equilibrium is that the ones not at equilibrium destroy themselves and their environment. I'm not denying that negative feedback exists. I'm saying that without such feedback, systems always run out of control, because that's the biological imperative. And no, growing systems are not cancer. That's just a ridiculous statement to make. Don't straw-man me FFS.
    - pygy_ 9y ago