|
U-Know! Forum » What is better than Capitalism? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 00:15
|
||
|
The problems with food distribution are more political than economic. Food is often used as a weapon in places like Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan (the guys in control deliberately withhold it from their enemies.) Is food and shelter all that a money-free system would provide? Why would the "developed world" agree to turn the clock back a thousand years? Are you ready to give up your computer and Internet connection? Even if you would, do you think everyone else in Europe, N America, etc. would? And if they won't do it voluntarily, how are you going to bring it about? I am deliberately asking you tough questions. Thanks for your patience.
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 00:38
|
||
|
Going back a 1000 years would mean every one farming their own food on a plot of land and giving over part of it to their feudal lord. Modern agricultural means that a few people can produce food for thousands. As I said earlier farmers are payed not to produce and to destroy produce, I don't see how feeding the planet would require far greater amounts of people involved in food production than at the moment. Also better farming equipment & methods can be supplied to people in countries who don't really have anything better to do than to starve to death at the moment, let alone log on the net. Surely many people can still build computers and keep the internet running.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 01:27
|
||
That's too simplistic, if you are going to attack 'capitalism' per se, there needs to be a better reason than "I don't like it". Just as you exemplified the laziness inherent in: "would you rather he was here" is essentially the same argument as "if you are for capitalism you are also for sweatshops and globalisation"
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 01:31
|
||
Two major problems, yet they aren't just problems that come with capitalism? My main argument against current capitalism is the fallacy of endless expansionism, i.e. It's a finite world, and in the pursuit of a so called 'better' standard of living for all (the argument by capitalists for capitalists) we are in the process of overpopulating the planet and destroying it at the same time.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 01:34
|
||
Do you believe everything could be free? There is no regulation in that other than the incentives for people to produce goods which would regulate the supply? Sporadic at worst I'd imagine? Would that mean more or less conflict?
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 01:37
|
||
|
Proserpine, I agreee!!! There had to be one :-)
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 02:16
|
||
|
Technology abrogates the "finite" resources on the planet. As Monkeyboy said on another thread, agriculture has improved to the point where we need very few farmers in order to feed everybody. Similarly improved energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy (like solar power, which isn't going to run out anytime soon) means that the finite amount of oil and coal is not a limiting factor either. In short, living standards can rise without creating more resources. Technology is the key. I think the "overpopulation" argument is overdone too. There is plenty of room for more people in many parts of the world. In the long run "overpopulation" is a self-correcting problem anyway. When it is impossible to feed new mouths, people will stop having babies (or worse, babies born will not live.) And again, I don't see how overpopulation is related to "capitalism." "Capitalist" countries tend to have lower birthrates.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 02:20
|
||
|
You seem to be avoiding my questions about "incentives" and who is going to do the dirty jobs if there is no money and everything is voluntary. Who is going to scrub the floors? Work in coal mines and slaughterhouses? Stand on an assembly line all day? Work as prison guards? Wash dishes in restaurants? There are so many crappy jobs out there, somebody has to do them. But why would they with no incentive? Have you heard of "the tragedy of the commons"?
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 03:24
|
||
You can't 'abrogate' finite resources, you can only adopt sustainability/renewabilty. I'm not so worried that we are going to suffer because of our voracity and dependence on oil, that's pretty much a foregone conclusion (where's Grufty Jim, anyone??), and I agree that the world population isn't something that capitalism is responsible for, but continuous growth and expansionist mentality IS likely to be a problem. What I am worried about is the race for consumerism (so far oil-fuelled for nearly a century) is a 'party' that has to stop. I believe that the inherent short-termism of market-led planning (which is a bit of an oxymoron I agree) is going to meet it's maker (oil) on the way out and have nowhere to go? Sustainable energy cannot meet our current demand, nor will it, if the figures are correct. War for oil is an ever present fact and future likelihood in an economy built top heavy on that product alone?
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 04:03
|
||
|
I guess you don't understand what technology does . . . efficiency . . . productivity. Can you imagine how many trees we'd have to kill to have this discussion via paper instead of on the internet? As for oil, in 1975 the environmental movement insisted we'd run out before the year 2000 . . . yet magically here we are in 2003 with plenty of oil, in fact there are more known reserves today than there were in 1975! And you may have noticed hybrid cars with twice the efficiency of old fashioned internal combustion engines are already on the road . . . just wait til fuel cell technology becomes economically feasible. The only waste product produced: water! "Oil" is going to go the way of the horse and buggy. (And the effect will be devastating on countries where oil is the entire basis of the economy -- and you think the Mideast is a mess today!) And by the way energy is not a finite resource -- the sun pumps jillions of killowatts down to earth every day. Solar power won't run out until the sun explodes a few million years from now. You need electricity to produce the fuel to run fuel cells (hydrogen and oxygen) . . . that electrity can come from solar power . . . then why do you need oil? We'll stop needing the stuff for energy long before we run out.
|
| Pages: 18 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
