4 ms·

Perhaps I am wrong, but for me that is super obvious (that it is an emergent phenomenon). Sadly that makes it a lot harder to solve, if it was planned we could

Perhaps I am wrong, but for me that is super obvious (that it is an emergent phenomenon). Sadly that makes it a lot harder to solve, if it was planned we could find the people planning it and take back control, but when it is just chaos and general greed that makes this happen it is really hard to stop.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
It doesn't make necessarily make it harder to solve. It potentially makes it easier to solve. The hardest part of solving social problems is getting buy-in from the necessary parties. If it caused by guilt and intentional malice, you have little to no hope of getting buy-in from those parties. If you can analyze it and figure out what went wrong without trying to find some scapegoat to pin the blame on, there is hope of something better arising from this. Something better may already be quietly arising from it, just as yet unnamed and not fully understood. Good information would be helpful, sort of like having a midwife attending a birth. The baby is likely to be born anyway, but the right help will make a difference in the health of both mother and child.
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  Well it's abundantly clear who is benefiting from the current situation, so it's unlikely they will voluntarily "buy-in" to any change. What is less clear is what the unwashed masses can do to stop ever-growing wealth inequality, when the institutions which are our only hope of prevention are willfully inactive, and have been for decades.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    Well it's abundantly clear who is benefiting from the current situation. That implicitly assumes that poor people are worse off than they used to be. I think it's more complicated than that, but I don't really want to invest more time and energy in this discussion today.
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      >That implicitly assumes that poor people are worse off than they used to be. No it doesn't. Poor people can be better off (debatable but could be true), while still not getting nearly their fair share of the profits from much increased productivity.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

It doesn't make necessarily make it harder to solve. It potentially makes it easier to solve. The hardest part of solving social problems is getting buy-in from the necessary parties. If it caused by guilt and intentional malice, you have little to no hope of getting buy-in from those parties. If you can analyze it and figure out what went wrong without trying to find some scapegoat to pin the blame on, there is hope of something better arising from this. Something better may already be quietly arising from it, just as yet unnamed and not fully understood. Good information would be helpful, sort of like having a midwife attending a birth. The baby is likely to be born anyway, but the right help will make a difference in the health of both mother and child.

brokenmachine 5y ago
Well it's abundantly clear who is benefiting from the current situation, so it's unlikely they will voluntarily "buy-in" to any change. What is less clear is what the unwashed masses can do to stop ever-growing wealth inequality, when the institutions which are our only hope of prevention are willfully inactive, and have been for decades.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Well it's abundantly clear who is benefiting from the current situation. That implicitly assumes that poor people are worse off than they used to be. I think it's more complicated than that, but I don't really want to invest more time and energy in this discussion today.
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    >That implicitly assumes that poor people are worse off than they used to be. No it doesn't. Poor people can be better off (debatable but could be true), while still not getting nearly their fair share of the profits from much increased productivity.