Meh. I’m no fan of capitalism, but I’d say the problem is humanity itself, or maybe an evolutionary system that favors short sighted local advantage at the expense of eventual extinction.
I already posted the great filter today, so…
Capitalism is an unrealistic death cult.
Submitted 3 weeks ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to workreform@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/3ef8b98c-f81c-4401-a5a3-f314b648c188.jpeg
Comments
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Hackworth@piefed.ca 3 weeks ago
Yeah, the AI are the bad guys in that movie. But it’s the humans that blot out the sun.
mrdown@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yes but some systems push the bad side of human, but other the good sids
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The systems that can feed the most bodies and enslave the most minds conquer, Borg-like, the ones the feed & enslave less. Wars grow bigger as their opponents grow bigger. Eventually we are all engulfed in a fragile system that has to fail but once.
rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
COVID-19 has drawn much of this discussion into the public sphere. Whereas it’s generally seen as poor taste to refer to groups of people as infections, diseases, and plagues – for good reason – this seems to be forgiven when the group being referred to is non-specific. Hand waving at humanity in general, as if being vague is ethical bulletproofing, gets a pass. It is relatively common today to find another viral tweet with tens of thousands of likes gesturing towards the clearing waters of Venetian canals, or the wandering deer of Japan navigating neon-lit city centres and declaring that the Earth is healing itself; the smog-cleared skies of California receive a probing enquiry – perhaps we were the real virus all along?
Strange as though it may seem, musings of this kind have become more and more common as the weeks have gone by and the evidence of nature ‘reclaiming’ previously populated areas has begun to accumulate. Suffice it to say, there is more than a little of the eco-fascist ideology floating around in the assumptions of that question; when somebody asks if humanity is the ‘real virus’, they set up a system in which the Earth is a being and humanity a problem that needs to be solved. The solution being proposed is rarely stated outright, but it doesn’t have to be because it’s implicit in the question; you cure a virus by getting rid of it. Beneath the surface level wonder at seeing a wild boar shuffle across Italian cobblestones, there is a lurking belief that maybe the world would be better off without us. Or, more commonly, the world would be better off without some of us, with who that some is being left as a blank to be filled in by the subconscious of the questioner. Unquestionably, whoever that somebody is, will be someone else.
[…]
The language of the eco-fascist claims that human beings are the problem, and that with their self-isolation – that is, their removal from the system – has come ecological recovery. Such individualised and atomised analysis prevents the ever-important systematic approach; the real problem is capitalism, and it is with the interruptions and staggerings of capitalism that recovery has come along. Deeply embedded in the language of the right wing, the misattribution of the worst elements of capitalism to the mere existence of human beings exists as a dual weapon.
Firstly, it allows them to turn their vitriol upon individuals… Secondly, it allows them to imply a connection between the two; to link the existence of capitalism to the existence of individuals and bind them together ideologically; to present capitalism as human and therefore inevitable and inescapable.
Fraser, J. (2020). Eco-Fascism: The Rhetoric of the Virus. Organise Magazine. Archived at theanarchistlibrary.org/…/jay-fraser-eco-fascism-….
EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Humans have beenaaround a lot longer than capitalism, and we didn’t destroy the planet until recently.
The problem is not humans, as many small groups of people across the globe have proven they can live with the environment, and take care of it.
merc@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Evolution only cares about passing on genes. It’s rare in the animal kingdom for menopause to exist. For the most part there’s no point in an animal living if it’s unable to mate. Scientists have the “grandmother hypothesis” for why this happens in a few whales, humans and some chimps: in a species where the grandmother might help care for a baby that has some of her genes, the grandmother can be useful to the mechanism of passing on genes even if she’s no longer able to pass on her own.
That means that a creature might care about how the world looks maybe 25 years past the point where it can have offspring. Caring about environmental degradation that takes place on a multi-century scale is just not something that evolution prepared us for. Why would it? No creature in history has ever been able to modify its environment the way humans can.
Viruses are actually a good analogy. A virus depends on a living host. But, viruses often kill their hosts. Like humans, it can actually modify its environment in a way that that environment becomes toxic to the virus’s existence. That seems bad. For any individual virus though, its “life” is so short compared to the life of the host that any mechanism that made it try to avoid killing the host would just be a useless genetic trait that would not be optimal.
Humans have these immense brains, and they allow us to do things that aren’t simply the result of evolutionary drives. But, we’re still animals. Those drives really structure everything we do.
Markus29@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
Altruism can actually be evolutionarily advantageous. For example, vampire bats share food with hungry individuals, and this can be reciprocated later. Insects like ants and bees have workers that give up their own reproduction to help raise relatives, thereby still passing on shared genes. Even among unrelated animals, repeated cooperation can favour altruistic behaviour.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Viruses eventually evolve to be less deadly to their host. It just takes many failed viruses to get there. In that context, the collapse of the US and the rise of the EU, and China, just means that we are seeing one breed dying out.
I think that humanity will do fine, it is just that some societies will not be around in the centuries to come.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
the great filter
The problem with “Great Filter” Theory is that we have yet to identify even non-intelligent life outside of Earth.
It’s one thing to say intelligence is self-terminating. Or, at least, incapable of sustained extra-terrestrial expansion. It’s quite another to say every other observable planet in the galaxy must have already experienced intelligent life and wiped itself out before we started looking.
Far more likely that we’re in a Dark Forest than a Great Filter. Or, at a minimum, that we are unable to identify extraterrestrial life because we haven’t figured out how to spot it at such a large distance.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I don’t think there’s a conclusion that’s “far more likely” than other; multiple explanations explain the data equally well.
My preference for the great filter is just based on my pessimism on how not only power works, but how the human mind works. Since life is everywhere and always competitive, short-term survival is what life will always be programmed for; and beyond biology, we have systems. Greedy systems–systems that seek power at the expense of everything else–will be advantaged over systems that seek equilibrium.
snowdriftissue@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Cringe ecofash r/im14andthisisdeep take.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I remember learning that the sun would go out in 3rd grade earth science and it really fucked me up. It wasn’t until 30 years later that I realized I’d had a childhood existential crisis, and now I had the capacity to read, well, if not existentialist philosophers, at least comic books about existential philosophy.
You seem willing to quickly discredit ideas that make you uncomfortable, which, congratulations, is a very mature and adult take.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
I wouldn’t say human beings are a virus, but parasitism is a survival strategy for about 65% of life. In the case of human beings, we have complex social structures which allows for parasitism of ourselves.
The owner class behaves like a parasite, and we’ve seen this in feudal ages, in which the warrior castes dominate agricultural castes.
In capitalism, the ownership class behaves very much like a cancer. Resources consolidate at the very top with those who are in the owner class getting smaller and smaller. Currently, in the US, the difference of wealth between the 0.1%, the 0.01% and the 0.001% are stark, not to mention between them and the rest of us.
Multiple economists, including Nobel laureates are saying the ultra-wealthy are too rich, and have more wealth (total or percentage of the whole) than any other time in history, and the only way out of this mess is to redistribute it all. If we don’t then the oligarchs dominating the US will soon turn their eyes and power to the rest of the developed world.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Yes, 100% agree with on the inherent dangers of the current economic system. But I also can’t ignore that parasitic wealth concentration was not invented by capitalism and has been a feature of human societies since forever. Look at any empire in history and you’ll find a class of parasites sitting at the top; therefore there is likely no permanent solution to this problem, just a constant struggle away from it (or, more realistically speaking, revolutions that happen cyclically or cyclical societal collapse).
Rothe@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
You have been lost to right wing propaganda. That is exactly what they want you to believe, so you stop believing in a way out. So why not just keep the status quo with oligarchs using all of our resources and destroying our planet?
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Meh. So you’re choosing to evaluate a claim not based on whether or not it is true, but whether or not it supports political change. Fine.
What I’m directly attacking is the “Myth of Progress”, a hangover from Christianity, the idea that we are inexorably progressing to a materially perfect future. When Obama quotes MLK, “The arc history is long, but it bends towards justice,” that is what he is talking about. If he just wait it out, all our problems will be solved. So believing in progress can potentially be as debilitating as not believing in progress.
For my part, I think change is possible, but I do not need the motivation of heaven on earth to motivate me. There will always be a struggle to share power and resources in a society, no matter what the system.
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I mean, I guess in theory that’s how it’s supposed to work. Imagine something just outside our grasp, like a structuralists geometry of social dynamics. Or rather, something processed by our learned ability to comprehend the world in ever deeper ways over generations — a quality that inherently merits certain risks which we’ve never had the wisdom to take a discerning look at. One where you could say, such intelligence risks self annihilation more greatly so when structured as individual carbon-based agents. Such a roadblock would hit you like a train, would it not? Boom…
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
What probably lead to the ultimate destruction of the neanderthals was a lack of calories. They are like a SUV: Big, and powerful, but takes a lot of energy to keep going. Odds are that they are just as smart as us, but the human brain is very expensive. Combine that with an ice age, and an economical competitor, it is pretty likely for the more efficient critter to become numerous.
Also, their raw power might have disincentivized the adoption of technology. They were just better than us at surviving trauma and in athletics, so things like bows, spears, and so forth, likely weren’t a big priority. Why bother with fancy sticks, when you can walk up to a giant sloth and cave in its brain with a heavy log?
Malyca@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
That scene has always haunted me with how accurate it was
DupaCycki@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
One of the reasons why capitalism seems to work so well in Western democracies is because it’s short-sighted.
Capitalism focuses on the immediate future - the next year or a few years, and any material gains that can be made in that time frame. Businesses rarely plan for 10+ years into the future, because their products or services may no longer be financially feasible by then.
Just like our democratic governments focus on the next 4 years or less, because afterwards the government will likely change. No point making plans that your political opponents will benefit from. Which is also why the West can’t get anything substantial done.
Rooster326@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
short-sighted
years
You need to think shorter. No one above me talks in anything except the next quarter. That is the next 89 days. Nothing else matters.
OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
That depends a lot on the industry. Next quarter almost always takes priority over next year, but it’s not that uncommon for companies to take things a year to it at a time.
That’s still crazy, Short-sighted, and ruining our planet tho.
DupaCycki@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You’re right. I was way too generous.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The US railroad was somewhat capitalistic and very forward thinking, it even liberated useless land from the previous inhabitants that lacked proper industrialization
Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I keep repeating this to people. In less then 200 years we destroyed a balance that took millions of years to build itself.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
We’ve had a few extinction events, and I suspect even the Holocene extinction event (which is already in progress) will not be as bad as the Permian–Triassic.
Right now, three possibilities are in the running to kill off humans:
~ Climate-change induced famine and drought
~ Nuclear escalation (The US is looking at broader options… using low-yield nuclear weapons in a regional conflict)
~ AI takeover, which will likely look like the owner class developing armies of murderbots to annex the world before the AI accidentally determines they are a target as well. (And less so the Yudkowsky and Soares scenario.)But humans are more likely to do what Homo Erectus did and go through a low population phase. They had a population less than 10,000 for millennia for a while before expanding again, only to get wiped out by competition with their cousins.
But even if humans die, life on earth will regrow across millions of years, and may even evolve intelligence and technology.
im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 3 weeks ago
A “low population phase” is a nice way to say “post apocalypse”.
I really enjoy this genre of fiction, but I don’t think I would enjoy it IRL.
benjirenji@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Yeah, I don’t think you would. Many post-apocalyptic stories “forget” that most technology requires global supply lines that shouldn’t exist anymore. Even just food, water and electricity would be non-trivial depending on the scenario. Definitely not exciting
Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Futurama episode 1 timelapse but remove the aliens
osanna@lemmy.vg 3 weeks ago
yeah, but another billion dollars and being so rich that you’ll never be able to spend it in MANY lifetimes is so great.
/s
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I keep hearing this claim that “you can’t spend it in a lifetime” but other than silly anti crashing the market laws, what prevents them from commissioning personal fleets of luxury aircraft carriers to spend billions right there?
elucubra@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
While not denying it is one of the main factors, let’s not forget the massive, continuous and egregious ecological disregard the directed economies have, and have.
starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Yeah we’ve gotten such a force multiplier from technology, people were always like this. Capitalism just adds on to it because people and businesses feel like they can’t stop sprinting towards catastrophe or they’re the ones losing out.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
You should measure by existence of society, not earth’s age. Same conclusion though.
PissMissile@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Dinosaurs had capitalism.
Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Birds were socialists.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Glad I live now then 100 years from now, I’ll be dead before the earth implodes
Uli@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Yeah, turns out we experienced the peak of civilization. Someday, people will be begging to party like it’s 1999.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Hasn’t every generation experienced “the peak of civilization” absent a few minor regional fluctuations, such as the European Dark Ages?
Seems a bit premature to say the ride is over, unless you’re only concerned with a handful of Western counties consciously bucking a global trend.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
capitalism needs systems to internalize the negative externalities certian processes create
save_the_humans@leminal.space 3 weeks ago
I don’t think any working class citizen should want to keep capitalism in any form. But I really don’t understand how we’ve decided democracy in government is necessary but not in our workplaces/economy. Somehow the objectively flawed system needs just a few more regulations? Its insanity to me.
Co-ops offer a path towards democratic control of the economy and it is more than just idealistic.
Greater job stability than traditional businesses
Higher productivity
Higher profits
More resiliant during economic downturn
Decrease in inequality
Greater job satisfactionoliverwyman.com/…/why-the-us-needs-more-worker-ow…
Its just a start but what’s not to want?
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
publicly traded companies do generally have some level of democratic control, proportional to how much of it you own.
The fact that midt workers are too poor to afford stocks is one of failing to develop generational wealth.
patruelis@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So true. All fed by greed.
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I don’t think Capitalism is the problem at all, the problem is a government that supports big corporations over small business
You want to go to the store and see a variety of TVs made by a variety of companies all competing with each other for sales by producing higher quality products for less money
The problem is that this is not what happens. Not because of Capitalism, but because of the government
I like to use the example of NYC Hot Dog carts
In theory I could pull out my grill, cook up a hot dog, and sell it to you for a buck. Why would you buy a $6 hot dog from the Nathan’s Hot Dog cart when you could by mine for $1? Now Nathan’s Hot Dogs have to compete with me, so they lower their prices or lose all their sales to me; capitalism
But, the government won’t let me do that
Now on one hand, that’s good. You want to know that the hot dog you buy is cooked well and cooked on a clean grill. If anybody could sell hot dogs anywhere at anytime the streets would be lines with hot dog carts and walking down the sidewalk would be near impossible. So you want the government to force business licenses on people, require inspections, and issue permits on who can sell where
However, you need the government to care more about you than they do Nathan’s Hot Dogs. Let’s pretend there are four spots available on the corners at Times Square. If the government gives all four spots to Nathan’s Hot Dogs they now have a small monopoly on that block and can sell worse hot dogs at higher prices because people will still buy them due to a lack of options. It’s not technically a Monopoly because there are other hot dog sellers in NYC, but locally, they control Times Square
So you need the government to not do that. You need them to make sure that all four corners go to different hot dog sellers
But, you need the government to do their homework. Giving the four corners to Nathan’s, Ball Park, Oscar Myer, and Bores doesn’t really do you, as a consumer, a lot of good. These are four huge corporations and while it’s not technically legal we all understand that they could easily just agree to sell hot dogs for $7. Not that they have to sell them at this price, they just all kind of agreed to do so because they’re all greedy corporations
Maybe they met up at a high-roller casino or charity event. Or maybe it’s just a simple nod and a wink or a friendly email informing the other corporations that “unfortunately” Ball Park has to raise prices on hot dogs and the other CEO’s understanding that this is a request asking if they want to do the same. “We at Oscar Myer are also in the unfortunate position of possibly having to raise prices to $7. We hope Ball Park understands”
How it happens, I don’t know, that’s not my point. My point is, the government handed the corners out to major corporations who continue to price gouge and offer worse and worse products. It looks like there is competition at Times Square, but there’s not.
Or worse, the government doesn’t do their homework (or they do and just don’t care) and they hand the four corners of Times Square to Nathans, Sheinhardt, and Williams. Now it looks like there are two small companies competing with a corporation. But upon further inspection we find that Sheinhardg and Williams are owned by Nathans and Nathans Hot Dog corporation owns Times Square. You have the illusion of choice, but there is no actual choice. The name on the cart is meaningless as all of them belong to Nathan’s
So you need the government to make sure shit like that doesn’t happen. That Nathan’s and Ball Park get two spots, but the other two go to small companies that will actually force real competition
The problem we have today is that the government does not want to help you, they want to help Nathan’s and Pepsi and Google. So the laws and regulations in place aren’t designed to hold them back and give you the upper hand, it’s designed to keep you from being able to even begin to compete while handing them what is essentially a Monopoly on markets
So yeah, you can go to Best Buy and find rows of TVs all from different companies but every single one of them is essentially the same over priced piece of shit trash filled with spy ware and advertisements
And yeah, maybe you do have the skills to make a TV without that shit and sell it, but good luck actually doing so. You need licences, permits, inspections, etc… you have to strike deals with Best Buy to get your TV on the shelf, you have to purchase licences from Netflix or Disney to run their apps, you have to buy licences from Microsoft or Apple or Roku or whatever for their OS, etc…
By the time you do all of this, you have to cut corners to lower the cost of production and jack up the price
But if the government cared about you, they’d make it so that those companies can’t do that shit to you. They’d work with you to encourage you to make a better TV
But you don’t have enough money to grease the right palms in congress
So Capitalism isn’t your problem, a government that doesn’t care about small business is
starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
True, I put cadmium in my hot dogs to save money and outcompeted everyone, and the effects won’t be felt for 20 years so the consumer is none the wiser! Yet another win for unregulated capitalism!
Alexfire@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
An extinction event is currently ongoing that humans caused
TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
We aren’t let another asteroid beat us to it. Not again, anyways.
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
That’s because it’s coupled with modern medical marvels, like the discovery of antibiotics, which has led to a wildfire of population growth. Also, the “Industrial Revolution” where we yoke machines into assembly thus yielding more output, which encouraged more population growth – especially within the food sector.
Capitalism did exist in the 19th Century, but because Gangrene, Rickets, and other maladies, it was slowed. It was also slowed because electricity hadn’t been harnessed yet.
Basically, this assertion is ignoring the crossroad of human progress: discoveries in medicine, harnessing electricity, Industrial Revolution and assembly lines, and recent electrolytic tabulation (aka computers).
beejboytyson@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
We were well on the way before that
knitwitt@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The soviet union wasn’t exactly great environmental stewards either. Perhaps the problem is a technological gap between industrilization and sustainability.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 3 weeks ago
China also pollutes significantly more than India, even if the Chinese per person emission is lower than some other developed nations.
Plus, Capitalists invented the newer green power used by China and instead China inventes bigger Coal power plants.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
India remains heavily underdeveloped domestically. And the cultural gap - most remarkably, India’s enormous vegetarian community - plays a bigger role than it’s economic model in curbing gross emissions.
It should also be noted that India has had and continues to have one of the largest active Communist Parties in the world.. In fact, the 34 years of the Left Front rule in West Bengal is the longest-serving democratically elected communist-led government in the world.
So you can’t really use India as a pure capitalist counterexample, unless you only want to discuss the corners of the county under decisive BJP rule.
knitwitt@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I think that’s a bit reductive. Firstly, I wouldn’t describe China as non-capatalist. Secondly, China has a nuanced relationship with environmentalism and green energy as one would expect from a nation that large.
Goodeye8@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
China is the manufacturing hub of the entire world. Of course it’s going to pollute significantly more than India, its energy consumption is 5 times of what India consumes.
And I don’t get this insinuation that China invests in coal power. China invests the most into renewable energy than anyone else in the world, almost 40% of global renewable investments come from China. And last I checked almost half of the energy China produces comes from renewables.
And the reason China had use fossil fuels in the first place is because renewable tech didn’t exist when they needed the energy. Why didn’t it exist? Because capitalists refused to invest into green energy even though the oil companies did the research and knew that fossil fuels are a dead end (that research was done back in the 70s and Exxon decided to bury it instead of acting on it). We see in Africa that countries are skipping fossil fuels and are going straight to renewable because the tech exists, so it’s reasonable assume the same would’ve happened in China had the tech existed.
If you want to shit on China, there are legitimate points to criticize. Renewable energy is not one of those points.
greenbit@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Why you bring that up
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sort of a famous counter-example.
A seventy year long break from capitalist economic practices over half of Europe and most of Asia seems like it should have produced a noticeably different set of ecological outcomes.
But industrialization appears to take the same ecological toll from Beijing to Belgrade.
knitwitt@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Because I believe ecological sustainability is achivable under any economic system!
jimmy90@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
i’m amazed this whole post didn’t get brigaded by ml’s
it almost like there’s no point being federated with them any more
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 2 weeks ago
ML and Today because last time I checked Today is still federated with Hexbear. But I haven’t checked in a while.
Bgugi@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
ITT: “God I’m sick of getting stabbed in the spleen”.
“You should try unlimited free blowjobs instead!”
“I don’t know, the last seven buildings I went into with ‘unlimited free blowjobs’ signs also stabbed me in the spleen”
“OH, those weren’t real unlimited free blowjobs. No real unlimited free blowjobs has ever existed. You need to watch more porn.”
knitwitt@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Maybe I’m too stupid but I don’t get the analogy. 💀