• Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    and just like in biology, you need a system to fight the cancer, you can’t just wish it away.

    since we’ve refused to maintain such an immune system, we’re now going to have to go through a miserable period of chemo treatment to rid ourselves of the tumors.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought the chemo treatment was WW1.

      Are we really gonna pretend killing a bunch of people is better than doing business with them?

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        WW1? I;m curious as to why your mind went there? I assumed they were referring to WW2, and having to fight against fascism AGAIN. Fascism is the malignant tumor.

      • Dynamo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The rich will eventually pay with their blood. Probably too late, but it’ll happen.

  • Rolder@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m a fan of capitalism with tight regulations and checks on corruption, personally

    • SeethingSloth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The very nature of capitalism facilitates concentrations of power, which will utilize that power to accumulate even more in any conceivable way. The system is fundamentally flawed and needs to be replaced if we care at all for basic human rights and a future for this species.

        • SeethingSloth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Get into anarcho-syndicalism. Form and join existing anarcho-communist worker’s associations. The only sustainable way for us to end capitalism is if we start collectively associating and operating outside the framework of capitalism today.

          • dangblingus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly. No revolution occurred because everyone wished really hard it would happen but still played by the oppressor’s rules.

          • MonkRome@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ll bite. Until we have machines doing most things, communism is unlikely to work, especially in post agrarian societies. We need to first fully realize not just post scarcity, but post work. In theory it seems like things like anarcho syndicalism and basic communism should work, but I don’t think they really function at a large scale. Socialized democracy and worker owned cooperatives within a capitalism system gets the closest to solving the problems imo. I like the idea of anarcho syndicalism the most, but I just don’t see how it can survive in todays world.

            With all systems the same problems crop up. Powerful people seek to exploit ANY system to their benefit, and unmotivated people seek to do the least to get by. Who cleans toilets in a equitable communist country, who picks up the trash? Do we force people into job roles to fill the need? Without economic incentives I don’t see how the system stays healthy. Removing class barriers to some jobs does not always make them desirable enough to fill the need. Capitalisms structure inherently results in people that are strongly incentivized into those roles, because the wage will usually rise to meet the demand for employees. (Low educated citizens seeing opportunity in jobs that make a living wage.)

            Currently the biggest problem we have, imo, is really that people with power expend tremendous resources on controlling the flow of information, and that has left a lot of people very misinformed. No matter the system, those same people will be fooled into voting for things that benefit the powerful to the detriment of the rest of us. That’s not so much a capitalism problem, but an information problem. That’s a problem we have no solution for. It has been an issue with humans since civilization has existed. We can’t individually know everything, so we rely on others to fill in the gaps in our thinking and assumptions, and many of those people have a motive to only give you the information that benefits them, or worse off just lie. A lot of peoples anger towards capitalism, is a result of unbridled capitalism in a world where most people have incomplete information to make good decisions at the voting booth. We only have unbridled capitalism because of misinformation, not because capitalism is inherently bad.

              • MonkRome@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I AM left wing, have read about many social theories in my life all over the spectrum. There isn’t much one can do to distill that down to one post. Not one of the solutions to communisms problems I’ve seen in my lifetime are ever very fair or realistic. It comes with all of the same problems as capitalism as it pertains to power and it is infinitely less agile than capitalism. You can get to nearly the same place that communism wants to get, by adapting socialist ideals into capitalism while keeping capitalisms agility in the marketplace of needs.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            One was implemented and is actively ruining the planet.

            The other was only used as a façade by dictators that didn’t feel like labeling themselves as right-wing.

              • Syrc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You can’t tell me the Great Purge is something a left-wing person would do. He thought Hitler was “a great man”.

                I’m far from an expert in political history, but if we were to look at controversial figures on the left, Guevara and Castro are probably the “worst” I can think of that still clearly had left-wing ideals in mind.

      • Tat
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Human nature is a mf though

      • stella@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m a fan of pragmatism: real solutions to real problems.

          • stella@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah, but I don’t think communism is a bulletproof solution either. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.

            The real issue is that people think the disparity in wealth should grow instead of shrink.

            • dangblingus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe there’s a sweet spot in between Capitalism and Communism. They are basically the 2 extremes of the political spectrum after all. Surely there’s a spot on the spectrum that embraces worker’s rights while also incentivising commercial enterprise. Checks and balances are always necessary, even in a utopia.

            • random65837@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Who literally says that? Capitalism is the only system that allows people to dig themselves out of that hole. Know any Cubans? Socialism works awesome…says nobody crushed by it.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think many of the socialist states of Asia and Eastern Europe are or were ridiculously corrupt. How democratic those were is of course questionable.

            • dangblingus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There was never socialism in Asia or Eastern Europe. At no point have the workers seized the means of production and had a dictatorship of the proletariat.

              • rchive@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You can apply this No True Scotsman logic to capitalism, too. Its biggest fans say True capitalism has never been tried, either.

    • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a fan of any overarching system, however capitalism is the one I, and I suspect most of the people reading this, live in. Therefore the best way of addressing the problems our society faces is to do so using the tools that our capitalistic system provides (such as regulation and oversight) rather than twiddle our thumbs waiting for some grand revolution to fix everything.

      Claiming that the only way to improve our situation is to completely overturn the system does nothing but promote inaction.

    • credit crazy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly I think capitalism works so long as you can make sure greedy people can only satisfy their greed through productivity rather than insider trading and buying companies that are competitive or implementing micro transactions into fully priced games infact that’s the reason why I’ve been against stock markets just like how are these people improving life for others

    • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can’t have it. It simply does not work like that. We saw what happens when you try that and it’s the world we’re living in. And when I say ‘the world we’re living in’ I mean exclusively the west. This kind of thing gets you and your entire town killed if you try it where the US is allowed to set off bombs.

    • random65837@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      So is anybody that’s actually sane. I love all the make believe “links” made with the anti-capitalism crowd. Keep in mind those are the same ones that are highly educated, went to good schools, worked their way up the corporate ladder so they could have their big house and nice cars… but against Capitalism LOL. It’s all talk.

    • JustMy2c@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why did you think a well thought out thought would get you upvotes? I mean, it did. But that’s not normal! 🤣

        • JustMy2c@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m joking. Replies don’t matter either.

          Actually, very little that we do is important.

          But still, just try and laugh when you can (to compensate crying at night)

            • JustMy2c@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks man for the compliment! It really means something to me :) And I’m not even being sarcastic. Just lack of attention & human affection I guess.

  • XTL@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    But if you measure growth in made up numbers, you can just keep rolling them up indefinitely.

  • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Greed seems to be the inevitable outcome, at the expense of other humans and animals around us all. It’s disturbing and has no real end-game of benefit now that we have automation. The question is how do we take back control from the authoritarians?

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m all for an individual decreasing their own consumption for the environment. I try to do that. But decreasing someone else’s quality of life is where it gets dicy. You can very easily get discrimination.

      • potatar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Put a high upper limit only. Don’t touch the bottomline.

        For example, no more than 4 cars per person: Average Joe won’t even know this rule exists but it will still reduce mineral mining due to people who collect cars.

        Possible problems with my shitty example: Now a car is a controlled substance. Who decides the limit and how? What if there is a mental disease (with a better example this would make more sense) which requires a person to have 20 cars?

        • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I believe that’s called Clarkson’s Disease and mostly affects lovable assholes.

          I think a better solution is to give everyone less reasons to need and use cars, that a ban becomes unnecessary. But if we’re putting limits on things to reduce their consumption, that’s what excise taxes are for, most places already do it for fuel.

          And of course there could always be taxation relative to a person or company’s environmental impact. People get angry at this one.

        • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cars already have defined limits. You already have to have insurance, for example. They are already registered in a person’s name. This could be actually easily implemented.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        degrowth doesn’t mean worse quality of life, in many instances it very much increases quality of life.

        would you not prefer to work half as much as you do? we can have that with degrowth.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe I’m misunderstanding degrowth. Is it trying to decrease GDP? How does it do that? Or is it moreso increased worker rights and protections with decreased GDP growth as a byproduct? Because I’m all for the second version.

          • kmaismith@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            IMO Degrowth would have to start with finding better, less destructive metrics than GDP to measure and plan economic prosperity with

          • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I believe that the intent is to shift focus away from material goods, since we have long passed the point of diminishing returns on increasing material wealth increasing individual well-being, and focusing on things that actually do improve it, which our system overall neglects. That would be things like meaningful work, community, art, leisure, et cetera. In short, the things that make us happy, but which GDP doesn’t measure.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That makes sense. Those activities are still adding value, but not usually taken into account in economic metrics.

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            at least to my understanding degrowth is about not doing things that are ultimately not actually productive for our quality of life, the prime example being the clothing industry which churns out more clothes than we would ever need every year and literally just throws it in the garbage, going so far as cutting things up just so people won’t fish it out of the container and wear it without paying.

            There are a ton of things like that, which basically only serve to enrich the already wealthy, and if we stop doing that shit and just give people what they need to live regardless of if they have an employment, we can all enjoy life more while also being more sustainable.

            The solarpunk movement shows one take on what degrowth can look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, but if everyone decreases work, you get less production and less stuff, and then increased poverty. It’s easy to say more stuff isn’t always better from the comfort of the Internet, but the truth is that abundance of material production is responsible for the relative extreme wealth we do have today.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            you get less production and less stuff

            Not really.

            then increased poverty.

            You mean the poverty we already have thanks to capitalism?

            • rchive@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, really.

              And poverty is many many times lower today than it was a few hundred years ago before capitalism. Even entertaining the idea that it’s not is completely insane. Capitalism correlates extremely strongly with low poverty country to country within a single time period, as well. 2023, for example.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No. Not really.

                And poverty is many many times lower

                Did you come up with this galaxy-brained tripe before or after considering the crushing 3rd world poverty that sustains global capitalism?

                Capitalism correlates

                According to whom, Clyde? Capitalists?

                • rchive@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If your argument is basically just conspiracy theory, than I don’t know what to tell you.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Decreasing someones consumption will likely decrease their quality of life. Assuming they wanted to maximize their quality of life, they would consume what would do that. Though there are exceptions, like limiting addiction or short range fights.

          • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Lemme give you a very small concrete example where reduced consumption will not alter the quality of life.

            Take a small neighbourhood, maybe 10ish families there. Everybody in that neighbourhood has basic tools that they use maybe once a month or less. Hammers, screwdrivers, spanners, etc. Instead of each family having those tools, have a tool library where you have 2-3 of each tool. Anyone in the neighbourhood can borrow the tools they need when they need them and give them back when done. Congratulations, you’ve reduced tool consumption by 70-80% with no downsides.

            This is just one small example, but there are methods for more efficiently allocating resources within communities.

            • huge_clock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Nothing about capitalism prevents you from doing this. I just looked online and there are multiple apps that let you do this. It’s just a hammer is a relatively inconsequential purchase and fairly cheap. It might take $5 in gas and $20 in lost wages just to save the materials in a $10 tool. Not too mention the administration required to maintain this system. Car sharing though and parking share have become popular though.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              You decrease quality of life by increasing travel time and resistance to getting the tools, plus rarely not being able to use a tool because it’s in use. But it is an efficiency improvement. Same idea with gymns, everyone can share one place instead of duplicating resources. But then you need to make sure everything gets put away and you need to keep the lights on, so you need to charge for it. All that works under normal markets. It’s just not as good as ideal because people take advantage of each other. We need more oversight to minimize that, but I don’t think it means throwing out the system.

              • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think walking 1 minute to a library inside your immediate vicinity qualifies as a reduction in QoL. Fair point on the potential very unlikely case of 5 people all needing a screwdriver at the same time, but that can be solved by buying 1-2 extra screwdrivers.

                I went to this example specifically because I thought it was not controversial and low-hanging fruit. Nobody is talking about throwing out the system. Book libraries exist, and they haven’t caused the downfall of modern civilization. All I’m trying to say here is that even in the context of our modern capitalist reality, there are ways of reducing consumption without any aggreived parties that we’re just not doing.

            • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I have seen what other people do to communal tools. I bought my own tools because I know they will function and actually exist every time I need them.

              I will not stop you from sharing tools, don’t stop me from using the fruits of my labor to buy my own tools.

              • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I have seen what other people do to communal tools.

                Could you elaborate a bit on that? I used to be part of a maker space and the tools were generally well cared for, and members normally donated anything we were missing

                • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The biggest thing is tools just going missing. Joe brings it home to work on whatever and never brings it back. It’s pretty common with hand tools if people are allowed to bring them to their homes.

                  Other common problems are people not caring for stuff properly. Not changing the oil on lawn mowers, for example.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Or not going into store to buy a new knife every time previous one dulls and just sharpening it instead somehow decreases quality of life. TIL.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Decreasing someones consumption will likely decrease their quality of life.

            Riiight… because the sugary sewage water sold by Coke and Pepsi is so vital for life, eh?

            • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So you’re going to ban products that you personally don’t like? Or anything that isn’t strictly utilitarian? No flavour in our drinks, no snacks, no smoking, no anything else…

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No flavour in our drinks

                You barely have any flavor in your drinks right now. Do you even know what real orange juice tastes like?

                Tell you what… after we get rid of all the class-enemies and collectivised everyone’s toothbrushes we’ll decriminalize cocaine, okay?

                It won’t be communism… but everyone will be too high to care - which is close enough.

                • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Are you suggesting I’ve never had oranges squeezed then drunk the juice? What an absolutely bizarre assumption.

                  I’m fascinated to be honest, like at some point you’ve had fresh orange juice and it was such a magical experience you can’t imagine anyone else living through it? Or you found a dusty shack in the woods where a wizened old man let you use the juicer hes been hiding ever since whatever dystopian hell you’re from banned them.

                  Fresh orange is pretty good, I very much recommend spending a day in a spanish orange grove, smoking weed, listening to miles Davis and drinking fresh orange over ice. The stuff in bottles is pretty much as good, in the US they do frozen concentrate which is really good because it’s frozen when fresh so you still get all the nutrition and taste plus it takes up less volume so easier to transport and better for the environment.

                  By almost as good I mean like good stuff is a tier, fresh off the tree on a sunny day is a tier

          • aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would argue that a lot of consumption, at least in “developed” nations, is driven by artificial demand. Some examples: the tobacco industry, the invention of “halitosis,” bottled water, planned obsolescence. So much of what we produce doesn’t raise, and often lowers, quality of life. Having to meet these levels of demand is deleterious directly and indirectly; being overworked and living in a polluted environment also lowers quality of life.

            But that’s not really the point. Viewing quality of life as identical to consumption is pathological and borderline offensive. If you want to increase your quality of life, spend more time with your friends, family, and neighbors. Create in ways that inspire you. Rest and relax. Spend more time in the moment. Go outside and visit nature. Volunteer and give back to others. There is so much more to being human than having the latest phone.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I absolutely agree about artificial demand, especially in situations of addiction or mental trickery. So I think those should be regulated.

              I guess what I’m trying to say is, when you reduce someone else’s consumption, you’re saying you know better than them what is good for them. That can often be the case, like in gambling, scams, addiction, and a lot of marketing. But it can be dangerous if you don’t actually know better than them what’s best for them, but think you do.

              I guess consumption is a bad word for it. Those activities you mention still have an opportunity cost associated with them, but you’re right, they shouldn’t really be called consumption. Let’s say allocating your effort? People usually know themselves better than someone else how they can allocate their effort for their own good. Limiting how they can do that should only be done when you’re pretty sure you know better than them what’s good for them.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            So if I consume 0 bullets with my body instead of 4 bullets will somehow decrease my quality of life?

      • Zacryon@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, those billionaires will have a hard time to be only allowed millions instead. /s

    • buzz86us@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Buh degrowth is genocide 😅🤣

      Literally what some ignoramus on Facebook said when I suggested this.

      • Torvum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Objectively if we were to scale back enough, many people currently struggling would die. Excess is the only reason they’re still living. Think the rainforest and rain passing the canopy trees enough to still allow life below. Remove the mass amount of rain, that ecosystem suffers.

        • aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          enough

          I mean, yes, if we scaled back enough, people would die. But if we scaled up enough, people would also die. If you drink enough water it will kill you.

          many people currently struggling would die

          Many people currently struggling are dying because of how much consumption is taking place.

  • fleet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

    Edward Abbey

  • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not that I’m capitalism’s greatest fan, but this sounds about as clever as, “evolution is impossible because the second law of thermodynamics says chaos always increases, and the sun doesn’t exist.”

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Things like apps, media, or art can be more valuable without taking any more resources. Plus through greater efficiency, the same resources go much further. But it’s often easier to grow by just consuming more, so companies to that since they don’t really care. The sad thing is, I think we can have limitless growth if it’s slow and deliberate and conscious of it’s impact to the planet. But the current system doesn’t incentive that, instead everyone is flooring the growth pedal to catastrophic effect.

    • lugal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Things like apps, media, or art can be more valuable without taking any more resources.

      They take energy and memory on the local devices and in the cloud. Uploading and downloading also does. Better software often needs better (new) hardware. The developers take office space and hardware and energy. Do you want me to go on?

      The bigger question for my is why growth is supposed to be a good thing. With all the technology, we could work less but on the whole, we work more.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But better ones don’t require any more resources than worse ones. So you can increase value with the same resource consumption.

        • lugal@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The development of better ones does and so does design, advertisement, …

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            R&D resources are usually small compared to the efficacy improvements they allow. You don’t need advertisement. Though to achieve sustanability , you’d also need a very long life on products and almost complete recycling.

            • lugal@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The topic is growth. There is no growth in sustainability. For your company to grow, you need new features, new customers, … People say this is achievable without resources, I doubt it. That’s what I’m saying.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Better software often needs better (new) hardware.

        Example?

        • lugal@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I try to use my phones as long as I can and I ran into situations where I couldn’t update or install apps because my phone didn’t meet the requirements

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Games, but games can also just be better and more optimized on the same hardware. It’s just easier to throw more silicon at the problem, and we don’t incentive caring about the planet enough.

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Interestingly, better computer hardware is often actually less physical matter. What’s valuable about computers isn’t the amount of material, it’s the arrangement of matter. That applies to both hardware and software. A phone and that same phone smashed have the same number of atoms. That phone and an equivalent from 10 years earlier are pretty close in number of atoms. My monitors and TVs today are a tenth as many atoms as the ones I had years ago.

        • lugal@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Buying a phone every year is still about five times the matter of buying a phone every five years. Also: it is quite cynical to count atoms while children work in cobalt mines. The question of resources is more complex.

          • rchive@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The matter from previous phones can just be recycled. We don’t really do it now because we’re nowhere near the growth limit OP was hypothesizing, but if it really came to it we’d mine our landfills instead of mountains.

            Talking about children is changing the subject, important as that may be. We’re talking about finite materials.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Limitless growth of what? Limitless growth of time past is inevitable for example. Wealth can grow with increased comfort, so I guess to come to maximum wealth you’d need to achieve total human fulfillment. I hope you can agree we’ve got a long long way to go till that.

        • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wealth can grow with increased comfort

          That’s just another way of saying we should just keep on doing capitalism the way we are now.

          to come to maximum wealth you’d need to achieve total human fulfillment.

          Happiness, or human fulfillment, whatever you want to call it isn’t a state you just reach.

            • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re completely missing the point. Happiness, or whatever name you want to give it has very little to do with how much money you have.

              But again, infinite growth is not a thing in a finite system. That is a fact, not an opinion.

              • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                You think money can’t buy happiness? Somehow some rich people manage to still be miserable, but most poor people would be free to be much more happy with more money.

                Infinite growth of what? Is infinite growth of happiness possible?

                • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  People need to meet their most basic needs, doesn’t have to be through money. We’ve just set up society to work that way.

                  Capitalism in particular, is an incredibly stubborn idea that’s difficult to throw away. And we’ve rigged the system to make it difficult (almost impossible) to give up.

                  Hell, the U.S. is notorious for trying to overthrow governments around the world who don’t subscribe to capitalism, and the U.S. governments way of thinking.

      • bitflag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Economic growth is an accounting measure, and so it can definitely be limitless.

          • bitflag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, that’s literally the definition of growth (the variation of GDP from one year to the next, the GDP itself is defined as the sum of gross value added). We can make growth out of thin air if we want, it’s a purely accounting metric.

            I sell you a pebble for a $1000 and you sell it back to me and we created $2000 of growth without anything physically happening.

            • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You missed the point. Everything you are describing is hypothetical. Cash and dollars are physical, but “value” and “growth” that you have described are hypothetical.

              • bitflag@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not sure what you mean by “hypothetical”, these aren’t hypothesis, these are their definition. And their definition means they are limitless, just as the definition of “beauty” or “numbers” make them limitless. They aren’t bound by the physical world.

                (also dollars are equally abstract, currencies exists as human convention, having $1 billion more in your bank account is just a few bits flipped in a database)

        • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you have infinite supply of something, it ceases to be a scarce resource with any intrinsic value. Literally nothing in the universe is infinite.

          • bitflag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            At the scale of mankind, the universe is effectively infinite. The sun has another billion year to go and outputs so much energy it’s virtually infinite to us.

    • perviouslyiner@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There was an argument that marketing is the ultimate example of creating value without using raw resources by making an existing item more valuable.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It also consumes human labor when people absorb the marketing. This is an externality not accounted for in the cost of marketing, it is large, and it makes resources unavailable for more productive tasks.

          • rchive@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Marketing is the distribution of information. Its value is not just a trick or something. You can argue we’re over valuing it, but it’s definitely extremely valuable.

            • hglman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I am saying the costs that are not accounted for, namely the effort spent by every not buying a product consuming an advertisement, is extremely high and outweighs the value of products sold. Moreover, there is no clear reason to think the persuasion of people in mass is good based just on selling more products. Finally, if a person is only persuaded to buy a different brand of product the value is effectively only the small marginal difference between brands.

  • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t say capitalism is based on the notion of infinite growth, but it is an inevitability of there being no limits on capital accumulation. The notion that humans have endless desire for more, always needing a stronger hit to maintain personal satisfaction, is more psychological than something inherent to private ownership itself. Capitalism feeds the natural animal reward system to disastrous effect, but it isn’t required for capitalism to work. In fact, insatiable desires are the reason capitalism doesn’t work, because if people could be satisfied with a reasonable amount of resources, never trying to acquire more than they need, capitalism would be a fairly decent system.

  • Hobo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Threads like this make me miss the sort by controversial. Oh well. If you have chores, or something else to do, maybe go do that instead of reading this thread. It’s mostly shit slinging and people straw manning one another.

    If anyone else came here to just talk about stuff, I’m willing to talk about how great cats and dogs are. Also open to hearing you out if you don’t like cats or dogs, but I want you to know that I strongly disagree with your opinion.

  • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a popular take that is just completely wrong. Capitalism as a system does not require growth. Capitalism is a system in which the factors of production are owned by private parties and can be freely traded. The capitalists believe is that markets will allocate those factors of production to the owners that can best exploit them. This can result in growth, but it isn’t necessary for the system to function.

    There are literally a thousand issues with the system ranging from inequality to environmental concerns to market concentration (all of which capitalists tend to ignore). I really do not understand why people pick this one to quibble over.

    • Aurix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because shareholders demand almost always increasing growth despite the factual impossibility to provide that. The gaming sector is a good showcase where trust, release quality & creativity and monetization practices continually degrade the overall experience until the company starts to sink in its entirety. Ubisoft comes to mind. I have been burned so bad by them, started to refuse their products and certainly I seem to not be the only person.

    • adeoxymus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Adding to this, “limitless” growth just refers to the idea that it’s very hard to reach all limits in our present universe.

      I agree that there are more important problems with capitalism than if we’ve reached a limit or not.

    • awnery@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      the u.s. economy is measured in “growth” by average economy anylyst assholes since forever. it’s GPD per X. shitheads love that kind of metric.

      There are literally a thousand issues with the system ranging from inequality to environmental concerns to market concentration (all of which capitalists tend to ignore). I really do not understand why people pick this one to quibble over.

      so why are you yelling about tangential bullshit that other people are yelling about?