Back to Ted
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
1427 points (96.0% liked)
Memes
45189 readers
1465 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, but you should not be allowed to accumulate more than what you can consume when your community is starving
What should happen is that the people who haven't sowed the crops could do some work in order to earn access to the crops. Then we could create some kind of system whereby people get rewarded for the work they provide with an abstract token. We could call this money and people could exchange it for goods and services.
Or those that are able to farm can do that and provide the food for those that can cook and provide that for those that can build who can provide that for those who can sew etc etc and all that can be shared with those who can't do anything because at the end of the day a person's worth should not be determined by what they can provide.
How do we ensure the correct amount of people are doing the correct amount of work? The good thing about markets is that when demand is high and supply is low it suddenly becomes lucrative to do that thing and it attracts people to doing said thing. It becomes self correcting. If you leave people to just do what they most want to do everybody will choose to do what they consider fun rather than what is needed.
What's wrong with doing what's fun? Necessity is an interesting motivator. The problem is when capitalists commoditize necessity.
There's nothing wrong with having fun, but if people just did what they wanted to do all the time, society would just straight up collapse.
How likely is it that people's preferred jobs match up with exactly what is needed?
Squirrels don't have jobs. There isn't some overly complex system in place to keep the raccoons doing a repetitive task to ensure that hollowed or trees are available to them. The spiders don't own those trees and almost exclusively benefit from the raccoon's labor.
Human society should absolutely collapse if it can't exist without all the inequality and suffering.
We aren't any of those animals though so I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. We have evolved to form societies, and as such we need to work out the best frameworks given our fundamental human nature.
Other animals are in intense life and death competition with each other generally. There is not a single animal I'd rather be than a human. Non human wild animals have excruciatingly tough existences.
You're right. We aren't those animals; we're apes. Still animals though. Animals form communities. They feel emotions. They have problem solving skills. They communicate. They also can deviate from observed behaviors when food and safety are readily available. You don't think that's relevant? Hmm... That says a lot.
There are plenty of humans who are in intense life or death competitions with each other. What you mean to say is that you're happy being male, likely white and have McDonald's within driving distance.
I think you've gone completely off the rails here. You said everyone should be free to just do the job they want. I pointed out that perhaps what people want to do wouldn't match up with what actually needs to be done. You started banging on about squirrels rather than admit that what I said is actually probably the case.
I've never denied humans aren't in intense competition with each other. I just don't think it's relevant to point to squirrels as an example of how humans should work, they clearly are very different from us.
Alright. What needs to be done?
What, in the world generally? Do you genuinely want me to list every job that needs doing?
Go ahead and list a few.
You'll forgive me for not doing that just because you've entirely missed the point of my argument.
Humans on the other hand, travel to the other half of the earth in order to kill other humans because they're afraid that other humans will destroy their economy in the other side of the earth.
Talk to me more about the superiority of humans over animals. I'm listening
I'd rather not engage with you. This conversation has derailed into silliness.
Goodbye
If you can't provide anything at all please tell me what the value of their life is? They better provide some dam good conversations. Cuz if the people are starving? I'm not wasting food on people that can't contribute anything.
Sounds about right. You vote Republican, right?
You poor soul. You've been indoctrinated so hard by capitalism that you can't value a human life if that life can't give you something.
I hope you don't have pets.
You can still have money and markets. The fundamental problem is the ownership of land and businesses.
Yeah so what? The problem is the disproportionate accumulation of resources, goods or money. Which leads to accumulation of more of them, which lead to accumulation of power. There must be a limit on personal concentration of these. Anything above a level that is considered personal should belong to the community. Then there will be no incentive to make people capable of exploiting other people.
There would also be no incentive for anyone to produce anything beyond what they personally need, which would definitely lead to widespread food shortages. The more food that is produced at once the more efficient the labour is per crop, which is exactly why farms boomed in size after the industrial revolution and advent of farming machinery.
They incentive would be the prosperity of the community as long as people stop seeing each other competitive. Personal gain over dead bodies is only cancer.
So you think human beings should change their basic hardwired nature? Obviously humans have a tendency to care for the people closest to them over complete strangers. Humans always will come into conflicts of interest. What you're asking for is for humanity to basically act perfectly all the time.
Sure, they developed this mentality when surviving could also be competitive. When there was not enough food for all and somehow surviving meant that it will not be for all. Now we prefer to destroy tones of food in favor of economy because if there is extra food this means that the price go down
I think there is only so much humans can change. We aren't beings of infinite moral potential and there will always be points of conflict.
But you can throw people out of your community? Then some communities will be a lot better off than others
Yes, but as long as the "better" community doesn't interfere and doesn't try to take advantage of the less good communities I don't see a problem. And of course doesn't steal them their area and resources. Or does't try to expand in ways that they accumulate more goods and resources than they need and can consume
Hmm, who decides when they have too much area, and stops them from not following rules?
Is this a genuine question wanting to find an answer? Only their consciousness can really prevent them or a "law enforcement" that we should first find a way to be uncorrupted. Is this realistic nowadays? Of course not, but we were talking hypothetically I think