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

    Because the focus wouldn’t be on profit just for profit’s sake. That is the main problem with capitalism. The technologies just allowed it. Plus, technologies are not sentient, you can’t blame a technology…

    • Primarily0617@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because the focus wouldn’t be on profit just for profit’s sake

      what socioeconomic system has existed where increased productivity was viewed as a bad thing?

      e.g.:

      • pure feudalism would’ve led to economies of scale because it would make the king of the castle wealthier.
      • any kind of socialism with a centrally planned economy would’ve led to economies of scale because it enables the government to more easily meet the needs of the people.
      • even pure marxist communism probably would’ve led to economies of scale eventually because any communities that worked together on a global scale would’ve been more prosperous for their community members, which is still a goal of the system

      The technologies just allowed it

      or in other words, their invention led to it, which was the original quote I was responding to

      Plus, technologies are not sentient, you can’t blame a technology…

      • socio-economic systems aren’t sentient either
      • nobody’s “blaming” a technology—there isn’t even really a consensus in this thread on whether economies of scale leading to increased meat consumption is a good or bad thing
      • abraxas
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t call “profit” synonymous with “productivity”. Quite the opposite. Profit is intentional market inefficiency for individual gain. I’m just calling it because so many people do make the mistake of treating them as the same, presuming the former is inherently good because productivity is.

        Pretty much everything else you said I agree with.