I'm of two minds in this regard. On one hand, the people who are pushing for "a growing economy" usually are worried about rich people's yacht money. OTOH, the economy makes things like the ways we feed ourselves, and the way we heat our homes, and other stuff we need to not die.
It seems like too many people are focused on the evils of the former without considering the evils of harming the latter. Having to choose between freezing to death and starving to death isn't a good place to be.
It seems like too many people are focused on the evils of the former without considering the evils of harming the latter. Having to choose between freezing to death and starving to death isn't a good place to be.
- replies
- 4
- announces
- 2
- likes
- 11
I think you're mistaking capitalism for something else, and ascribing all the sins of humanity to what is an extremely recent and limited phenomenon.
Throughout most of human history, societies were not primarily organized around the principles of capitalism, which include a market economy based on the exchange of goods and services for profit, private ownership of the means of production, and the pursuit of individual wealth and accumulation. Instead, many societies were organized around different economic systems, such as command economy, feudalism, communitarianism, tribal communism, or some hybrid of several economic systems.
Capitalism as a dominant economic system only began to emerge in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries that it became the dominant economic system in the Western world.
Most societies historically were centered around different forms of strong central state control. The creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as agriculture requires a complex system of organization and regulation to support large-scale food production. A strong central state is able to provide the infrastructure and resources needed to support agriculture, such as irrigation systems, transportation networks, and markets.
Agriculture is typically more productive than hunting and gathering, and it allows societies to support larger populations and create a more stable and reliable food supply. As a result, agriculture often crowds out hunting and gathering as the dominant mode of food production, as it allows societies to support larger populations and to produce a more diverse range of foods.
However, the adoption of agriculture also has a number of consequences for societies, including changes in social and economic organization, the development of social hierarchies, and the loss of traditional ways of life. In many cases, the adoption of agriculture has led to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies, as they are unable to compete with the productivity of agriculture and are often forced to adapt to new ways of life.
Overall, the creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as it provides the resources and infrastructure needed to support large-scale food production. However, the adoption of agriculture also has significant social and economic consequences, and it can lead to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies.
There are a number of examples of economies that are explicitly non-capitalist where environmental and human rights abuses took place.
The forests England were heavily exploited during the medieval period, as the demand for wood and other forest products increased with the growing population and the development of the economy. This led to widespread deforestation, as large areas of forest were cleared to meet the demand for timber, fuel, and other products. The deforestation of England had significant environmental consequences, including soil erosion, loss of habitat, and the decline of many species.
Easter Island in South Asia was an island where the people were apparently wiped out as the people focused all their resources on building giant stone heads. The economy of Easter Island was based on a system of subsistence agriculture and fishing, and the island's resources were collectively owned and managed by the community as a whole. The Rapa Nui people did not engage in trade or commerce with other societies, and there was no system of money or currency on the island.
The Mayan civilization was formed from people who diverged from eurasian civilizations 20,000 years ago and despite that had its own set of environmental and human rights issues. Some of the environmental problems faced by the Maya civilization included deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution, which were the result of the civilization's reliance on agriculture and urban development.
The Maya civilization also had a hierarchical social structure, and it is believed that there were significant inequalities in terms of wealth, power, and access to resources. The ruling class of the Maya civilization, which included the nobles, priests, and rulers, enjoyed a higher standard of living than the common people, who were often subject to harsh working conditions and had few rights or protections.
Now all that being said, I don't mean to insinuate that capitalism is an economic system without sin either. England under industrialist capitalism also suffered deforestation and the london fog was a result of mass air pollution from burning coal, and the industrial revolution may have led to massive increases in quality of living, but it also led to massive wealth inequality and injustice. Today, we live with many legacies of pure greed, including the bulk of the United States being a fundamentally different ecosystem then it would have been prior to colonization, and I would argue the United States is one of the most capitalist civilizations in history so it can't be discounted. Clearly there's a lot of issues with wealth inequality there too, and it's indisputable that compared to the post baby boomer economic boom the average worker and the average CEO have much different lives comparatively speaking. That said, I don't need to prove capitalism is a system without faults to prove that it is not the root cause of all problems in the world.
The pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are two different goals that have driven human behavior throughout history. Both the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power can be motivated by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. No matter what economic system people live under, individuals will always crave advantage compared to others and will use the systems available to them to achieve that end.
In capitalist societies, the pursuit of money is often seen as a primary goal, and people may use their wealth and resources to gain influence and power. In non-capitalist societies, the pursuit of political power may be more important, and people may use their connections and influence to gain control over resources and decision-making.
Ultimately, the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are both driven by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. While the specific systems that people use to achieve these goals may vary, the underlying motivations are often the same.
tl;dr: why would anyone write this much about something nobody is going to read, and even if they read it their opinion isn't likely to be changed? Oh well, it was fun to research and write.
Throughout most of human history, societies were not primarily organized around the principles of capitalism, which include a market economy based on the exchange of goods and services for profit, private ownership of the means of production, and the pursuit of individual wealth and accumulation. Instead, many societies were organized around different economic systems, such as command economy, feudalism, communitarianism, tribal communism, or some hybrid of several economic systems.
Capitalism as a dominant economic system only began to emerge in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries that it became the dominant economic system in the Western world.
Most societies historically were centered around different forms of strong central state control. The creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as agriculture requires a complex system of organization and regulation to support large-scale food production. A strong central state is able to provide the infrastructure and resources needed to support agriculture, such as irrigation systems, transportation networks, and markets.
Agriculture is typically more productive than hunting and gathering, and it allows societies to support larger populations and create a more stable and reliable food supply. As a result, agriculture often crowds out hunting and gathering as the dominant mode of food production, as it allows societies to support larger populations and to produce a more diverse range of foods.
However, the adoption of agriculture also has a number of consequences for societies, including changes in social and economic organization, the development of social hierarchies, and the loss of traditional ways of life. In many cases, the adoption of agriculture has led to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies, as they are unable to compete with the productivity of agriculture and are often forced to adapt to new ways of life.
Overall, the creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as it provides the resources and infrastructure needed to support large-scale food production. However, the adoption of agriculture also has significant social and economic consequences, and it can lead to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies.
There are a number of examples of economies that are explicitly non-capitalist where environmental and human rights abuses took place.
The forests England were heavily exploited during the medieval period, as the demand for wood and other forest products increased with the growing population and the development of the economy. This led to widespread deforestation, as large areas of forest were cleared to meet the demand for timber, fuel, and other products. The deforestation of England had significant environmental consequences, including soil erosion, loss of habitat, and the decline of many species.
Easter Island in South Asia was an island where the people were apparently wiped out as the people focused all their resources on building giant stone heads. The economy of Easter Island was based on a system of subsistence agriculture and fishing, and the island's resources were collectively owned and managed by the community as a whole. The Rapa Nui people did not engage in trade or commerce with other societies, and there was no system of money or currency on the island.
The Mayan civilization was formed from people who diverged from eurasian civilizations 20,000 years ago and despite that had its own set of environmental and human rights issues. Some of the environmental problems faced by the Maya civilization included deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution, which were the result of the civilization's reliance on agriculture and urban development.
The Maya civilization also had a hierarchical social structure, and it is believed that there were significant inequalities in terms of wealth, power, and access to resources. The ruling class of the Maya civilization, which included the nobles, priests, and rulers, enjoyed a higher standard of living than the common people, who were often subject to harsh working conditions and had few rights or protections.
Now all that being said, I don't mean to insinuate that capitalism is an economic system without sin either. England under industrialist capitalism also suffered deforestation and the london fog was a result of mass air pollution from burning coal, and the industrial revolution may have led to massive increases in quality of living, but it also led to massive wealth inequality and injustice. Today, we live with many legacies of pure greed, including the bulk of the United States being a fundamentally different ecosystem then it would have been prior to colonization, and I would argue the United States is one of the most capitalist civilizations in history so it can't be discounted. Clearly there's a lot of issues with wealth inequality there too, and it's indisputable that compared to the post baby boomer economic boom the average worker and the average CEO have much different lives comparatively speaking. That said, I don't need to prove capitalism is a system without faults to prove that it is not the root cause of all problems in the world.
The pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are two different goals that have driven human behavior throughout history. Both the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power can be motivated by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. No matter what economic system people live under, individuals will always crave advantage compared to others and will use the systems available to them to achieve that end.
In capitalist societies, the pursuit of money is often seen as a primary goal, and people may use their wealth and resources to gain influence and power. In non-capitalist societies, the pursuit of political power may be more important, and people may use their connections and influence to gain control over resources and decision-making.
Ultimately, the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are both driven by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. While the specific systems that people use to achieve these goals may vary, the underlying motivations are often the same.
tl;dr: why would anyone write this much about something nobody is going to read, and even if they read it their opinion isn't likely to be changed? Oh well, it was fun to research and write.
Im not proving that there is a perfect all encompassing model of history, I'm proving the opposite. I'm proving my original point that you can't just blame one phenomenon for all the ills of the world, particularly a very recent phenomenon such as capitalism as an entire economic system.
I will say that if you think that there was ever a period in history where individuals didn't crave an advantage over others, put the textbook down and go be with people for a while, you've become disconnected from humanity.
I will say that if you think that there was ever a period in history where individuals didn't crave an advantage over others, put the textbook down and go be with people for a while, you've become disconnected from humanity.
If only people like you were in charge of the world, everything would just be so much better. Right?
Humility is not cynicism. It's important to have the humility to recognise the many factors of our humanity. It is hubris to assume that we have transcended negative parts of our humanity, and people who claim to have done so are being deceptive, perhaps even with themselves.
Taking the long view of history, within every human neccessarily lies a light side and a dark side, because human beings are fragile, and the human race is fragile. All humans have one recent common ancestor called Mitochondrial Eve because humanity was driven to the edge of extinction at one point in history, and the brutal history that brought us near extinction many times forced humans to employ many strategies on an individual for the human race to survive.
Everyone who came before you had to survive, and the needed to reproduce. Anyone who didn't survive long enough had their bloodline ended, and anyone who didn't reproduce had their bloodline ended. There's a lot of stuff written into your blood that you don't even realize is there because it's ingrained into you by millions of years of our different ancestors who survived and reproduced being the ones who passed their genetics down, and both light and dark traits result.
Selfishness may sometimes be beneficial for an individual's own survival and reproduction, but it may also have negative consequences for others in the group. On the other hand, selflessness and cooperation can also be beneficial for the survival and reproduction of a group, but they may sometimes come at a cost to the individual. Aggression can be useful for defending oneself or one's group, but it can also be destructive if it leads to unnecessary conflicts. Cooperation can help individuals and groups work together to achieve common goals, but it can also lead to exploitation if not properly managed. Risk-taking can lead to new opportunities and innovations, but it can also be dangerous if it leads to reckless behavior. Short-term thinking can help individuals make quick decisions in times of danger, but it can also lead to neglect of long-term consequences. Long-term thinking can help individuals and groups plan for the future, but it can also lead to inaction in the present. All of these traits must exist in one person, and individuals and societies must find ways to balance them in order to achieve long-term success.
Making things more complicated is interplay between dark and light traits such that one can express positive traits for inherently selfish reasons. For example, by helping and protecting members of their own family, an individual is more likely to ensure the survival and reproduction of their own genes, which are shared with their family members. Similarly, by forming cooperative relationships with others and helping to protect and support the group, an individual can increase their own chances of survival and reproduction by being part of a stronger and more cohesive unit. In this way, selflessness can be seen as a strategy for promoting the individual's own long-term survival and reproduction, even though the immediate actions may not be directly focused on the individual's own interests. We've seen this in particular during this generation with "Nice Guy" syndrome, where an individual with motives that are from the darker side of the spectrum pretends to be a "nice guy" to get the rewards of access to sex, and when that reward isn't immediately apparent the true motives end up revealed.
You may support democracy today because you feel it adequetely represents your interests and values at this time, but I suspect you will become less supportive of it in the future if you feel that the system is not adequately representing your interests or values. For example, if the dominant ideology of society shifts in a direction that is opposed to your beliefs, you may feel that the democratic process is no longer serving your needs and may become less supportive of it as a result. As well, it's common to get frustrated by the limitations of democracy, such as the inability to pass desired policy changes, which often results in calls to streamline what is ultimately a messy system that works slowly.
You may not be aware, but a number of people who will preach all day about democracy have violated the law (Specifically the first amendment, this isn't related to alleged voting fraud) to swing elections in a direction they'd prefer. Their justification is that the people who won elections that they don't like are so evil that the rules must be bent to prevent them from winning, even if that win is legitimate.
tl;dr: Why do I keep doing this to myself? Stop writing Essays, SJ!
Taking the long view of history, within every human neccessarily lies a light side and a dark side, because human beings are fragile, and the human race is fragile. All humans have one recent common ancestor called Mitochondrial Eve because humanity was driven to the edge of extinction at one point in history, and the brutal history that brought us near extinction many times forced humans to employ many strategies on an individual for the human race to survive.
Everyone who came before you had to survive, and the needed to reproduce. Anyone who didn't survive long enough had their bloodline ended, and anyone who didn't reproduce had their bloodline ended. There's a lot of stuff written into your blood that you don't even realize is there because it's ingrained into you by millions of years of our different ancestors who survived and reproduced being the ones who passed their genetics down, and both light and dark traits result.
Selfishness may sometimes be beneficial for an individual's own survival and reproduction, but it may also have negative consequences for others in the group. On the other hand, selflessness and cooperation can also be beneficial for the survival and reproduction of a group, but they may sometimes come at a cost to the individual. Aggression can be useful for defending oneself or one's group, but it can also be destructive if it leads to unnecessary conflicts. Cooperation can help individuals and groups work together to achieve common goals, but it can also lead to exploitation if not properly managed. Risk-taking can lead to new opportunities and innovations, but it can also be dangerous if it leads to reckless behavior. Short-term thinking can help individuals make quick decisions in times of danger, but it can also lead to neglect of long-term consequences. Long-term thinking can help individuals and groups plan for the future, but it can also lead to inaction in the present. All of these traits must exist in one person, and individuals and societies must find ways to balance them in order to achieve long-term success.
Making things more complicated is interplay between dark and light traits such that one can express positive traits for inherently selfish reasons. For example, by helping and protecting members of their own family, an individual is more likely to ensure the survival and reproduction of their own genes, which are shared with their family members. Similarly, by forming cooperative relationships with others and helping to protect and support the group, an individual can increase their own chances of survival and reproduction by being part of a stronger and more cohesive unit. In this way, selflessness can be seen as a strategy for promoting the individual's own long-term survival and reproduction, even though the immediate actions may not be directly focused on the individual's own interests. We've seen this in particular during this generation with "Nice Guy" syndrome, where an individual with motives that are from the darker side of the spectrum pretends to be a "nice guy" to get the rewards of access to sex, and when that reward isn't immediately apparent the true motives end up revealed.
You may support democracy today because you feel it adequetely represents your interests and values at this time, but I suspect you will become less supportive of it in the future if you feel that the system is not adequately representing your interests or values. For example, if the dominant ideology of society shifts in a direction that is opposed to your beliefs, you may feel that the democratic process is no longer serving your needs and may become less supportive of it as a result. As well, it's common to get frustrated by the limitations of democracy, such as the inability to pass desired policy changes, which often results in calls to streamline what is ultimately a messy system that works slowly.
You may not be aware, but a number of people who will preach all day about democracy have violated the law (Specifically the first amendment, this isn't related to alleged voting fraud) to swing elections in a direction they'd prefer. Their justification is that the people who won elections that they don't like are so evil that the rules must be bent to prevent them from winning, even if that win is legitimate.
tl;dr: Why do I keep doing this to myself? Stop writing Essays, SJ!