3 ms·
Certainly one predicates the other (i.e., there's no economy without humanity) and it's quite impractical for humanity to exist at any scale without trade, but
by h0l0cube 5y ago
Certainly one predicates the other (i.e., there's no economy without humanity) and it's quite impractical for humanity to exist at any scale without trade, but whether it makes sense to sacrifice human life for 'the greater good of the economy' or to sacrifice economic function for 'the greater good of humanity' entails a moral choice
- dnautics 5y agoTechnically you can have economies that don't operate with money; economies are just a (not necessarily good) quantitative lens to analyze human behavior.
- h0l0cube 5y agoI never made an assertion to the contrary, but I think economies are also useful for permitting specialization (and hence supply chains, to create more complex goods) and amortizing local disruptions to supply (e.g. food stores, trade) and probably a bunch of other useful things. They can also enable large scale waste, environmental destruction, debt traps, extreme inequality etc
- dnautics 5y agoNo you're still misunderstanding. Even in for example, a super primitive society, there are, say "obligation economies" that exist even though nobody inside the society is using it to understand their situation. Likewise, in a modern society there are economies of waste, economies of environmental destruction etc. The "economies" are just quantitative frameworks for understanding human interaction.
- h0l0cube 5y agoAh sure, I suppose I'm talking about what pops into mind when most people here the word 'economy', but certainly there's more going on as you've noted. When I use the word, I'm talking something a more to do with the systems of trade of goods and services, currency, etc. - the health of such systems are the concern of many anti-lockdown proponents.