• dannoffs [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    15·
    27 days ago

    Yeah, but if you just get rid of capitalism you could end up with Feudalism.

    I’d get rid of cilantro. I wouldn’t have to read the whole ingredients list of every salad or salsa every time, and people who’s sense of taste is broken and can’t taste how bad it is would shut the fuck up about it.

    • novibeEnglish
      7·
      27 days ago

      Just because you are a mutant doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the rest of us… cilantro is delicious. Soap mouth.

      • Dessa [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        42·
        27 days ago

        Given the state of the environment, is it? I get one pick. There’s not much room for nuance and no second pick to cancel the monkey’s paw. As someone else pointed out, Feudalism could end up replacing capitalism. Removing humans is a surer fix for climate change than anything else I can think of.

        I guess I could say “Climate Change” but what would that mean in practical terms? The laws of physics have changed? People decide to come together and fix the problem? Resources are infinite and heat is set at predetermined levels? It feels like monkey paw territory

        If the question was about making it a better place for us, I would answer differently. But I think it would be a better place for Polar Bears.

        • Thallo [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
          12·
          27 days ago

          Yeah, I think if a solution to a problem is the extermination of all of humanity, it’s gonna be reactionary.

          Like the meme says capitalism is the right answer. Do you think the extermination of every human would be more beneficial than the end of capitalism?

          It’s predicated on the idea that humans are destructive and a blight on the earth. This has not been true for the vast majority of human history, and there’s no reason it needs to be true in the future. The climate crisis is being caused by a particular historical moment.

          Also, feudalism is not going to replace capitalism. That’s completely ahistorical.

          • Dessa [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
            31·
            27 days ago

            This has not been true for the vast majority of human history, and there’s no reason it needs to be true in the future.

            This is the case for capitalism as well. But capitalism is a blight today, and while capitalism is hurtling toward its own contradictions destroying it, will it do so before the climate change destroys us and most other life on this planet?

            I don’t think humans are inherently destructive. I do think that at this particular moment in time, we are a blight to the health and survival of nonhumansm

            Also, feudalism is not going to replace capitalism. That’s completely ahistorical.

            Yes, because capitalism won out over feudalism. But if capitalism is not there, reactionary forces will still seek ways to establish dominance and now the fuedalism-killer is magically disappeared. I don’t think history can really apply to this weird magical hypothetical so well

            • Dessa [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
              41·
              27 days ago

              I don’t think this argument, debate, what-have-you has any point, so I’m just gonna say my last piece and drown in the ratio:

              The causes of suffering in this world are great and many and complicated, and the elimination of this suffering will require more than any single thing to achieve. This exercise gives us the bluntest possible instrument with which to solve as much as possible.

              Eliminating capitalism would make the world a better place. But other evils would still exist, such as racism (despite the fact that capitalism created it, it will sustain itself without capitalism if we don’t act to combat it). Other evils would still exist as well.

              I read this question as what single thing would eliminate the most of the bad things. Capitalism would eliminate a lot of them, but is there a way to eliminate more of them? If the answer is yes, then capitalism is not the best solution, only a very good one.

              Thinking on it more I think I’d say “I’d eliminate suffering.” It’s the only answer that would eliminate all suffering (my previous answer is just another trolley switch scenario that puts humans on the top track.)

              This isnt a real-world scenario. It’s a philosophical game, and the “correct” solution is going to be equally detached from material reality