4 ms·

Controlled consumption.

by yeahitslikethat 7y ago

pitaj 7y ago
That's kind of vague, do you mind going into some more detail?
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  Only allow people to own and control what is naturally reasonable. If a lion kills more than will fit in its belly it shares the rest with the pride. If there's still more than the Lions can eat, the hyenas eat. Then the vultures. Then the bacteria. Humans have no such natural limit on their ability to consume. Bank accounts can be infinite. One person can own all the houses. The logical conclusion of capitalism as we know it is this: One person owns everything. Things that can't go on forever, don't.
  - andrenth 7y ago
    Who decides what’s reasonable? The logical and factual conclusion from capitalism thus far is that more people have owned more stuff than each previous generation.
    - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
      Only a benevolent dictator could make that decision. As it stands people who already have more than they, plus several generations of their progeny, need make that decision. The owning of more stuff has contributed to an accelerated carbon cycle and the untimely advance of a major global extinction, likely rendering humanity extinct. Source (book): https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062364807/the-ends-of-the-world/ https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062364807/the-ends-of-the-... Hn says I'm posting to fast, so that's it from me. Which is ironic because knowing this will happen causes me to want to invest less in each post, rather than more like the Hn guidelines say to do in conversations like this.
      - andrenth 7y ago
        I think you’re moving the goalpost here. Initially you said the problem was one person owning everything. Now you say people owning too much is the end of the world. We don’t have and will not have benevolent dictators, so we have to make do with the real world. Given that, our best bet seems to be the system which has brought us to the unmatched current levels of prosperity.
        yeahitslikethat 7y ago
        They are both problems. Just stated in response to the arguments for capitalism. I say capitalism creates a world where ownership accumulates to too few people. We see that in the wealth gap. 6 people own as much as 50% of the all people in the world. Yes you can say those 50% also have better lives, however those better lives came without any controls on consumption. Capitalism has promoted green house gas emissions and lots of other bad things too. So while on the surface it seems good that we have more, it's not. It's worse. If we all had less right now, we'd be fine. If we don't have more tomorrow, we'll be fine. If we start having less, we might be better off. We don't even know well need the things we will think in 10 years are critical to own. See where I'm going? Capitalism needs limits. If you as 1 person own as much as 1% of all people, isn't that enough? Is time to divest some assets. likely assets you didn't earn.
        andrenth 7y ago
        > So while on the surface it seems good that we have more, it's not. It's worse. We are objectively not worse though. We have more life expectancy, quality of life, basically no more hunger, etc. This was given to us by capitalism. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's responsible for these extraordinary advances. Consumption in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It just means people have the means of acquiring whatever they believe will make their lives better. To blame environmental problems on capitalism is misguided, I think. To give an example, before the invention of the car, streets were full of horse manure and associated diseases. So you could argue that fossil fuels have made our cities cleaner. Yes, industrialization has led to air pollution. Technology advancements are taking care of that, again thanks to the incentives of capitalism. If you allow me some snark, I must say that the Soviet Union wasn't exactly an environmentalist paradise, so is it really capitalism that is the problem?

Controlled consumption.

pitaj 7y ago

That's kind of vague, do you mind going into some more detail?

yeahitslikethat 7y ago
Only allow people to own and control what is naturally reasonable. If a lion kills more than will fit in its belly it shares the rest with the pride. If there's still more than the Lions can eat, the hyenas eat. Then the vultures. Then the bacteria. Humans have no such natural limit on their ability to consume. Bank accounts can be infinite. One person can own all the houses. The logical conclusion of capitalism as we know it is this: One person owns everything. Things that can't go on forever, don't.
- andrenth 7y ago
  Who decides what’s reasonable? The logical and factual conclusion from capitalism thus far is that more people have owned more stuff than each previous generation.
  - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
    Only a benevolent dictator could make that decision. As it stands people who already have more than they, plus several generations of their progeny, need make that decision. The owning of more stuff has contributed to an accelerated carbon cycle and the untimely advance of a major global extinction, likely rendering humanity extinct. Source (book): https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062364807/the-ends-of-the-world/ https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062364807/the-ends-of-the-... Hn says I'm posting to fast, so that's it from me. Which is ironic because knowing this will happen causes me to want to invest less in each post, rather than more like the Hn guidelines say to do in conversations like this.
    - andrenth 7y ago
      I think you’re moving the goalpost here. Initially you said the problem was one person owning everything. Now you say people owning too much is the end of the world. We don’t have and will not have benevolent dictators, so we have to make do with the real world. Given that, our best bet seems to be the system which has brought us to the unmatched current levels of prosperity.
      - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
        They are both problems. Just stated in response to the arguments for capitalism. I say capitalism creates a world where ownership accumulates to too few people. We see that in the wealth gap. 6 people own as much as 50% of the all people in the world. Yes you can say those 50% also have better lives, however those better lives came without any controls on consumption. Capitalism has promoted green house gas emissions and lots of other bad things too. So while on the surface it seems good that we have more, it's not. It's worse. If we all had less right now, we'd be fine. If we don't have more tomorrow, we'll be fine. If we start having less, we might be better off. We don't even know well need the things we will think in 10 years are critical to own. See where I'm going? Capitalism needs limits. If you as 1 person own as much as 1% of all people, isn't that enough? Is time to divest some assets. likely assets you didn't earn.
        andrenth 7y ago
        > So while on the surface it seems good that we have more, it's not. It's worse. We are objectively not worse though. We have more life expectancy, quality of life, basically no more hunger, etc. This was given to us by capitalism. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's responsible for these extraordinary advances. Consumption in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It just means people have the means of acquiring whatever they believe will make their lives better. To blame environmental problems on capitalism is misguided, I think. To give an example, before the invention of the car, streets were full of horse manure and associated diseases. So you could argue that fossil fuels have made our cities cleaner. Yes, industrialization has led to air pollution. Technology advancements are taking care of that, again thanks to the incentives of capitalism. If you allow me some snark, I must say that the Soviet Union wasn't exactly an environmentalist paradise, so is it really capitalism that is the problem?