4 ms·

I think you are implying that it’s “the modern system” that’s ruining the world. What’s the possibility that it’s just human nature, and the system is kinda sec

• aussiesnack 4y ago
  I would guess that's unknowable. The old proximate vs distal cause problem is hard enough for simple cases, let alone something like the interactions between thousands of ecosystems, 7 billion chunks of primate psychology, and global civilisation. I am sure that capitalism is incompatible with the continuing existence of healthy living ecosystems. So (for me) your question comes down to: is capitalism inevitable (& even if it wasn't, are we now stuck with it for historical reasons?). We can look at some things that seem salient. When you look at human societies over time and space, the vast differences in cultures are astonishing. Most people have little idea of just how different cultures have been, so their concept of 'human nature' actually just labels their own culture (I'm not suggesting that's how you're using 'human nature'). Even the subset of contemporary 'capitalist' nations are greatly variable, not the least in their levels of ecosystem destruction. Then capitalism itself, variation notwithstanding, does depend on the metaphor of growth (I insist on 'metaphor' because nothing defensibly 'grows' in the process of deconstructing complex evolved circular systems to build simple technological ones requiring ongoing inputs). Some think this can be fixed by building 'circular economies', but I've seen nothing to suggest that this is possible at all, let alone on a relevant timescale. We know for certain that the 'growth' metaphor/ideology doesn't spring cleanly/directly from human nature, as there's no shortage of human societies that have lived in a relatively steady relationship with their environment (here in Australia for 60,000 years or more). So who knows? Perhaps H. Sapiens can get free of the system it has made, perhaps not. If it can, it's not going to be in a hurry, so we'd need to slow down the rate of destruction while still capitalists. I do think that's possible with appropriate application of tech, "electrify everything", tough corporate regulation, land set-asides, urban greening, etc. But because of compounding, even slow dismantling of ecosystems eventually destroys them. So H Sapiens still needs to ditch capitalism at some point. There's certainly no guarantee that it can, because evolution, in making the species, wasn't looking to the future (and certainly not to a destiny).
  • jshen 4y ago
    “ We know for certain that the 'growth' metaphor/ideology doesn't spring cleanly/directly from human nature, as there's no shortage of human societies that have lived in a relatively steady relationship with their environment (here in Australia for 60,000 years or more).” In all seriousness, what societies that aren’t “hunter gatherers” or migratory that have lived in a steady state with their environment? Also, how do you define capitalism? I think we probably agree about some of the flaws of capitalism that need to change, for example infinite exponential growth, but I am very much against any kind of centrally planned system and I know of no other system that doesn’t ultimately succumb to the human desire to chase social status and ultimately excess that I would want to live in. Pre-industrial migratory societies don’t really count in my mind as a real alternative this challenge and I don’t think this problem is limited to or is driven by “capitalism”.
    • aussiesnack 4y ago
      > what societies that aren’t “hunter gatherers” or migratory that have lived in a steady state with their environment? The majority of indigenous Australian nations were not hunter-gatherers, though all did include hunting and gathering amongst their food production techniques to varying degrees. Though I don't see the relevance of the question. In any case, a 60,000 year civilisation not involving much in the way of capitalism seems to at least point to the possibility that what many contemporaries imagine from their very limited experience of the varieties of human experience to be 'human nature' is, in fact, merely a description of their own local culture. > Also, how do you define capitalism? While I find definitions to be rarely useful for physical-world concepts, capitalism to me is the system of political economy based on 'growth'. I also believe that the word 'growth' is a sort of misleading metaphor, supervening over the physical process of increasing entropy by converting complex evolved systems into cruder technological ones. There's a small academic literature on the question of whether or not capitalism does, in fact, require growth. I find the pro case convincing. You'll have to make your own judgement (given the existing literature it's not worth litigating here). I think this dependence on fake 'growth' is what most characteristically distinguishes capitalism from other ways of organising society. > I am very much against any kind of centrally planned system So the 3 categories of organising society you consider to contain the universe of possibilities is 'hunter-gatherer', 'capitalist' and 'centrally planned'. That's it, is it? For ever? For all our history to date? In any case it doesn't matter much what you or me are 'for' or 'against'. That's just punditry. My contention is about the physical world. I think capitalism is literally incompatible with the long-term continuing existence of a healthy living planet. But as all H. Sapiens that I am aware of are mammals, therefore are dependent on ecosystems, capitalism literally cannot continue. So it won't. It's not among the set of long-term possibilities, regardless of political wishes or preferences.