3 ms·
> Problem is these benefits are superficial. On one hand you get cell phones and cheap flights, on the other rivers of plastic and land devastated by mining. I
by darawk 7y ago
> Problem is these benefits are superficial. On one hand you get cell phones and cheap flights, on the other rivers of plastic and land devastated by mining.
It's not superficial to the people that are no longer starving and dying of preventable diseases.
> And it isn't even worth it, because a large part of the profit inevitably goes to those responsible for this devastation, so wealth is actually extracted from these places.
So, it's not worth lifting people out of poverty if some other people also get rich?
> It is in this system only, which allows it in the name of profits for the powerful.
You think you've got a design for a social system that would lift more people out of poverty while harming the environment less? I'm all ears.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago> You think you've got a design for a social system that would lift more people out of poverty while harming the environment less? I'm all ears. If you’re actually serious, look up Communalism or Murray Bookchin. There are in fact real and detailed ideas about alternatives that would still lift people out of poverty without a wealthy class extracting wealth from those places and people.
- darawk 7y agoOk. I looked this up a bit, it seems to essentially be a variant of anarcho-syndicalism. The essential conceit of which appears to be "we're going to do centralized planning, but local, so it'll be good instead of bad". It's unclear to me why this would substantially resolve any of the serious criticisms of central planning (calculation problem, local knowledge problem, etc.)