If only people like you were in charge of the world, everything would just be so much better. Right?
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.
Women don't know what they actually want consciously, just as men don't. They know what they like when they see it, and sometimes it's not what they expect.
Everyone is going to lose if the society tells kids first that it's not worth finding a spouse, second that it's morally wrong to better yourself to become worthy of being someone's spouse, and third that it's morally wrong to expect someone to become better to become worthy of being your spouse.
And that's exactly what we tell kids today.
And that's exactly what we tell kids today.
Even though the governments want to pretend it isn't the case, there was a recession in the US in 2022, and there's likely to be another one in 2023.
If there isn't, that'll be really interesting... It could indicate to me that the real economy is growing even while the financial economy is crashing. Could be really good for people who live and work in the real world.
I just don't see it happening, though.
If there isn't, that'll be really interesting... It could indicate to me that the real economy is growing even while the financial economy is crashing. Could be really good for people who live and work in the real world.
I just don't see it happening, though.
I still find it really funny that when you've got jaundice, the solution to being yellow is blue.
To who?
My feelings matter the most to me, followed by my son's, then my wife's, then from there it's a collage of how much someone's feelings matter to me, not just depending on who it is, but what those feelings are.
On the other hand, I don't expect my feelings to matter a whole lot at all to a dung farmer in Africa.
Now, once you take the observer out of the equation, do everyone's feelings matter equally? Yes, but only insofar as they are all equally worthless.
My feelings matter the most to me, followed by my son's, then my wife's, then from there it's a collage of how much someone's feelings matter to me, not just depending on who it is, but what those feelings are.
On the other hand, I don't expect my feelings to matter a whole lot at all to a dung farmer in Africa.
Now, once you take the observer out of the equation, do everyone's feelings matter equally? Yes, but only insofar as they are all equally worthless.
We're in a really scary era where a lot of people who have never been told about medical ethics are implementing things that violate medical ethics.
It lets you advance quickly technologically, no doubt, but as you've pointed out it can result in a lot of things we find out later caused catastrophic problems for people that can never be made right.
It lets you advance quickly technologically, no doubt, but as you've pointed out it can result in a lot of things we find out later caused catastrophic problems for people that can never be made right.
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.
It's definitely true that there's some major cracks. I know I've asked it about some things I know the answer to and it comes back with untrue answers.
But man, it's light years ahead of anything I've seen before.
But man, it's light years ahead of anything I've seen before.
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.
I have to admit, I was wrong about something.
Having used ChatGPT for a few days now, it's on a completely different level. I thought AI wasn't going to be a big deal because every AI I've ever seen puts out what relatively speaking is garbage, but I've had extended conversations with it on very diverse topics, and while I can see cracks, I can't see very many.
If I were all the english majors out there, I'd be very afraid because language models like this have the potential to make the tiny minority of those with 9-5 jobs in their field just as unemployable as the rest of them.
If AI becomes absolutely massive, it's going to be a strangely conservative force, talking to it. By definition it can't really come up with ideas it's never been fed, so if people rely on it to find answers for them, it'll only provide answers someone else has already come up with to an extent. The answers might be even left or woke, but the answers could become trapped in time, and eventually it could end up a self-reinforcing thing like wikipedia, where someone says something on wikipedia that's wrong, journalists use wikipedia for research, the incorrect thing gets said in the media, which wikipedia can then use to justify it's incorrect thing.
Having used ChatGPT for a few days now, it's on a completely different level. I thought AI wasn't going to be a big deal because every AI I've ever seen puts out what relatively speaking is garbage, but I've had extended conversations with it on very diverse topics, and while I can see cracks, I can't see very many.
If I were all the english majors out there, I'd be very afraid because language models like this have the potential to make the tiny minority of those with 9-5 jobs in their field just as unemployable as the rest of them.
If AI becomes absolutely massive, it's going to be a strangely conservative force, talking to it. By definition it can't really come up with ideas it's never been fed, so if people rely on it to find answers for them, it'll only provide answers someone else has already come up with to an extent. The answers might be even left or woke, but the answers could become trapped in time, and eventually it could end up a self-reinforcing thing like wikipedia, where someone says something on wikipedia that's wrong, journalists use wikipedia for research, the incorrect thing gets said in the media, which wikipedia can then use to justify it's incorrect thing.
Same with hydroelectric in much of Canada. Canada could be 100% hydroelectric and power most of the northern states as well, but cheap energy that doesn't require burning fossil fuels using technologies that have been proven for a century just isn't something anyone cares about. Instead we need to try to invest heavily in magical environmentalism boxes that don't do fuck all 9 months a year.
These people don't realize their ideology is so unimaginably bigoted that they should probably go take a trip to Canada so Mr. Trudeau can help them with their mental problems.
In my view, anyone with half a brain should've known Tesla had a shelf life. His electric car company is competing with Toyota, and Toyota is a company with one of the longest proven track records in this field thanks to pioneering the Prius. Once they start rolling out their EVs, why would someone choose a Tesla?
Harry is a lost cause. He's done. He'd best stick with the e-list celebrity, because after all he's done there won't be any sympathy at home if he comes back with his tiny tail between his legs.