> making other people more rich at the cost of others
Not everything is zero sum. There is a reason that when you purchase something both sides say thank you.
Not everything is zero sum. There is a reason that when you purchase something both sides say thank you.
This is the society we live in, created by capitalism that demands unsustainable growth.
Scarcity is the problem, not capitalism.
Attention and logistics. The cost of getting things where they need to go, the administration of an empire, frequently dwarves by orders of magnitude the cost of the materials being transported to and fro. The problem is not solved by localisation given the increased exposure to volatility that brings.
I’d say the capitalists do a better job.
Capitalism is the framework that makes all those people work together: The nun, the family guy, the corporate shark, the idealist who can buy land and create an inefficient community based on non-monetary exchange.
Capitalism also makes us globally quite rich (by virtue of allowing us to simply take the revenue we generate in our startups), which affords us the luxury of giving 63% to the state. Supposedly in exchange for the state taking care of poor people. It’s the capitalism that allows me that money.
So I get it, you pin everything bad on capitalism. It’s just that you allow CEOs to pactise with the state to remove freedoms from you. Meanwhile you forget that this unprecedented lifestyle improvement since the industrial revolution, it’s also due to capitalism.
Who are you blaming? If you're so virtuous, why don't you give away half of your money to a homeless person?
Sorry but I get really frustrated by this lazy kind of 'well why don't you do it?' response. It just feels like you're trying to convince yourself that you're right not to care (to be clear, I have no idea whether you do or not), and implying that anyone who does, and hopes for something better, is just a hypocrite.
But that is a very uncharitable framing of their philanthropy.
The whole point, is to point out that some people have enough money to uplift hundreds of thousands out of poverty. Some have greater personal wealth than the GDP of an entire country, and that those people should either:
Give up some part of their wealth for the greater good.
Never be allowed to accumulate that much personal wealth in the first place.
The common person, like myself, doesn't have that kind of money. I cannot even afford a house for myself.
And you think they don’t?
So no. And especially so for the corporations they own.
unless you can legally appropriate property with no money or any other type of compensation then where is this magical free pie?
We may no longer be peasants (hard to prove), but a large number of extinct species and ecological disasters would like to argue the “not zero sum” point.
Nobody cares about your stupid degrowth ideology that advocates for death and people to be poorer. Just state what you actually are, which is anti-human.
>Nobody cares about your stupid degrowth ideology that advocates for death and people to be poorer.
Is also not true. Having a 1km lawn is excess. Flying solo on a private plane to visit an office halfway across the world for 1-2 days every other week is excess. No sane person arguing for this position is claiming that people who can barely find food every day is living in excess and must suffer degrowth. It is the privileged that needs to degrowth and redistribute their excess wealth. Do you really think that the Earth can sustain had every single person on Earth lives like the ultra wealthy? Or even as the middle-class American with single unit home in the suburb? We would probably annihilate almost all of "interesting" flora/fauna and be left with chickens and cows if that at all. Maybe that's a perfectly reasonable trade? AFAIK humanity must take priority over every other being AFAIC.
I think this depends on how you classify peasant. If we can agree that it's about income inequality, and not quality of life, then there was a study done comparing income inequality in the late eighteenth century to current day, which concluded that "Incomes were much more equally distributed in colonial America than in America today, or in other countries in the late eighteenth century". https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396
Ultimately it depends on the specifics and the dates we are comparing. I don't think people fully realize how significant income inequality really is today.
Is it a problem, say, if we all achieved nirvana but some achieved better nirvana? Must we rebel against them too?
> Calling the modern middle-class human a peasant is quite misguided imo.
The modern middle class is shrinking fast. About 17%. Most people are either low income or poor.
> It is important to acknowledge that we have fared much better than our ancestors.
Look, we generally live much longer these days, so I think that's a decent measurement that we're far better off in aggregate compared to the middle ages. However life expectancy has actually been decreasing recently in many places, and we have some really big global problems to solve if we don't want that trend to continue. If that trend does continue though, then it becomes very hard to say we're better off than our ancestors.
> Is it a problem, say, if we all achieved nirvana but some achieved better nirvana? Must we rebel against them too?
Probably yes. Most people aren't zen. It's in our nature to measure our status among our peers, and probably responsible for most people's wealth and their drive to do better. Better is always relative. Before arguing the morality of this, you'll need to also defend the morality of billionaires (what's the point really?).
This statement is straight up false. Obviously you gain and lose value, and are interested in whether it's a net gain or loss. It's worth noting that a gain or a loss here is only anecdotal to our own human experience so far and without accounting for potential debts (externalities) still owed... like global warming, monoculture, antibiotic resistance, nukes, etc. You're attempting to make a rule in an extremely non-scientific manner, and making a ton of assumptions to boot.
> Nobody cares about your stupid degrowth ideology that advocates for death and people to be poorer. Just state what you actually are, which is anti-human.
I've never even heard of this Degrowth ideology... My ideology, if you can call it that, is simply taking responsibility for our actions instead of making up a bunch of buzzword horseshit. I'm not advocating for anything but the basic admission that it stinks when we fart. This "not zero sum" statement is as much a fantasy as religion is. I'm not asking you to stop farting or to save a whale. Just stop polluting our eyes and ears with corporate doublespeak.
Suicide is quickly becoming the leading cause of death
I’m not sure we’re any better off now holistically
So... If you are complaining about destruction of habits for animals, and global warming, then yeah. If you are complaining about us extracting minerals... Rocks don't have feelings, they don't get a vote. If we could mine them without polluting and destroying ecosystems, not only we probably should, but we should start thinking on how to also mine asteroids and stuff.
> decimated humanity
How did we do that? There are more people now than in any previous point in history. There are a lot of people suffering, but quality of life by numbers is probably a lot better now than it has ever been.
> globally hopeless (look at birth rates)
So is population growth a good thing cause it shows people are happy, or a bad thing cause it means we won't have enough resources? I prefer us to have a stable population for the long run, at least until we can get to space.
> individual alienation has never been wider spread
How informed do you think illiterate peasants used to be?
What is happening, is that the American empire is in a state of decay right now. But the world is bigger than just the Western cultural world. Yeah, it might suck to not get getting all the fruits of imperialism that the US and European countries used to get. It makes the imperialist countries poorer not to have that. But for the formerly colonized people, their life gets better.
But if we're considering utility-- how useful stuff is to me-- it is far from zero sum.
If I produce lots of wheat, being able to trade some of it for my neighbor's beef makes both of us richer.
You have a fixed amount of already acquired property
You do specified labor on that
You exchange your labor + property for someone else’s labor + property
That’s commerce and has nothing to do with the question I’m talking about, which is: How you acquired the property in the first place is the ethical question.
What’s unethical is if your a neighbor was struggling to survive and instead of caring for him out of your property and labor, you convinced him to trade your excess money for a portion of his property in perpetuity.
So no, there is no more uncaptured “pie.” It should have never been caputured in the first place - it’s equally everyone’s right