3 ms·
That's pretty short term and pessimistic thinking. If you no longer had the burden of providing for yourself and your family would you seriously not do anythin
by loewenskind 16y ago
That's pretty short term and pessimistic thinking. If you no longer had the burden of providing for yourself and your family would you seriously not do anything productive? Do you seriously not have any projects or things you would love to work on but never will because you can't easily get paid to do so?
Further, capitalism can't possibly be the solution to every problem. For example, capitalism will probably never take us "to the stars". There isn't enough money in it to cover such a massive expense. But yet, going to the stars is the only possible way to defend against the thread of a "planet killer" meteor/asteroid. The only time there would be money in it is when we knew such an event was imminent but by then it would be too late.
- kiba 16y agoSuper-rich people interested in space exploration? Ordinary people donating money for space exploration?
- loewenskind 16y agoNeither of these are examples of capitalism.
- kiba 16y agoI made the wrong presumption that we should use government to funds these kind of projects. But if life problems, accidents, aren't as urgent due to capitalism solving most of our problem, I am assuming we would be thinking of large aspiration beyond a nice house and 2 1/2 kids.
- loewenskind 16y agoExcept we've had capitalism for thousands of years now and the majority of people who seem to have those large aspirations are psychopaths who want to rule the world (or at least the ones who manage to achieve really large scale success of their goals). I also think "due to capitalism solving most of our problem" is a bit of a stretch. It's solving most of the problems of the rich people of the west but I bet the world's hungry don't find it so grand. Especially since there is plenty of food to feed them. There's just no money in doing so.