• @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    994 months ago

    and just like in biology, you need a system to fight the cancer, you can’t just wish it away.

    since we’ve refused to maintain such an immune system, we’re now going to have to go through a miserable period of chemo treatment to rid ourselves of the tumors.

    • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -254 months ago

      I thought the chemo treatment was WW1.

      Are we really gonna pretend killing a bunch of people is better than doing business with them?

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        WW1? I;m curious as to why your mind went there? I assumed they were referring to WW2, and having to fight against fascism AGAIN. Fascism is the malignant tumor.

      • Dynamo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The rich will eventually pay with their blood. Probably too late, but it’ll happen.

  • @ntma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    634 months ago

    If this post gets 100 upvotes then capitalism will fail and everyone will get sex.

  • @XTL@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    494 months ago

    But if you measure growth in made up numbers, you can just keep rolling them up indefinitely.

  • @TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    434 months ago

    Greed seems to be the inevitable outcome, at the expense of other humans and animals around us all. It’s disturbing and has no real end-game of benefit now that we have automation. The question is how do we take back control from the authoritarians?

    • @the_q@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      144 months ago

      We can’t. People like to think it’s possible by voting in the “right” type of person and things like peacefully protesting etc. The truth is that it’s a lost cause. We can’t make the changes necessary to fix the planet, stop the ultra rich or any other large scale issue. I know I sound defeatist, but it’s true. Short of bloody violence we’re stuck like this.

      • @___@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        43 months ago

        This is the sad truth that kills me.

        Until we have a world war that outs those in power, at great loss of life, we will only get worse.

        Even if we magically voted for principled politicians. The money holders would simply hide behind a foreign flag.

      • @TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        204 months ago

        I still don’t know why communism gets a bad rap, as a CONCEPT, not IMPLEMENTATION. People seem to conflate the two, whereas in the modern age of technology it makes the most sense.

    • @jwagner7813@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 months ago

      Oh there’s a benefit. Me me me. That’s the core issue with Greed. Selfishness. In the end, that’s what drives the greedy.

      Sure there are examples of them sharing their wealth in ways (usually minimally) but at no point like it be at a major expense to themselves.

    • @JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      94 months ago

      I’m all for an individual decreasing their own consumption for the environment. I try to do that. But decreasing someone else’s quality of life is where it gets dicy. You can very easily get discrimination.

      • @potatar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        224 months ago

        Put a high upper limit only. Don’t touch the bottomline.

        For example, no more than 4 cars per person: Average Joe won’t even know this rule exists but it will still reduce mineral mining due to people who collect cars.

        Possible problems with my shitty example: Now a car is a controlled substance. Who decides the limit and how? What if there is a mental disease (with a better example this would make more sense) which requires a person to have 20 cars?

        • Zehzin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I believe that’s called Clarkson’s Disease and mostly affects lovable assholes.

          I think a better solution is to give everyone less reasons to need and use cars, that a ban becomes unnecessary. But if we’re putting limits on things to reduce their consumption, that’s what excise taxes are for, most places already do it for fuel.

          And of course there could always be taxation relative to a person or company’s environmental impact. People get angry at this one.

        • Dynamo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          Hell yeah, 100% tax over certain net worth.

        • @PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -14 months ago

          Cars already have defined limits. You already have to have insurance, for example. They are already registered in a person’s name. This could be actually easily implemented.

      • @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        124 months ago

        degrowth doesn’t mean worse quality of life, in many instances it very much increases quality of life.

        would you not prefer to work half as much as you do? we can have that with degrowth.

        • @JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          94 months ago

          Maybe I’m misunderstanding degrowth. Is it trying to decrease GDP? How does it do that? Or is it moreso increased worker rights and protections with decreased GDP growth as a byproduct? Because I’m all for the second version.

          • @kmaismith@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            74 months ago

            IMO Degrowth would have to start with finding better, less destructive metrics than GDP to measure and plan economic prosperity with

          • @SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 months ago

            I believe that the intent is to shift focus away from material goods, since we have long passed the point of diminishing returns on increasing material wealth increasing individual well-being, and focusing on things that actually do improve it, which our system overall neglects. That would be things like meaningful work, community, art, leisure, et cetera. In short, the things that make us happy, but which GDP doesn’t measure.

          • @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            at least to my understanding degrowth is about not doing things that are ultimately not actually productive for our quality of life, the prime example being the clothing industry which churns out more clothes than we would ever need every year and literally just throws it in the garbage, going so far as cutting things up just so people won’t fish it out of the container and wear it without paying.

            There are a ton of things like that, which basically only serve to enrich the already wealthy, and if we stop doing that shit and just give people what they need to live regardless of if they have an employment, we can all enjoy life more while also being more sustainable.

            The solarpunk movement shows one take on what degrowth can look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk

        • @rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          Yeah, but if everyone decreases work, you get less production and less stuff, and then increased poverty. It’s easy to say more stuff isn’t always better from the comfort of the Internet, but the truth is that abundance of material production is responsible for the relative extreme wealth we do have today.

          • @masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            54 months ago

            you get less production and less stuff

            Not really.

            then increased poverty.

            You mean the poverty we already have thanks to capitalism?

            • @rchive@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24 months ago

              Yes, really.

              And poverty is many many times lower today than it was a few hundred years ago before capitalism. Even entertaining the idea that it’s not is completely insane. Capitalism correlates extremely strongly with low poverty country to country within a single time period, as well. 2023, for example.

              • @masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                24 months ago

                No. Not really.

                And poverty is many many times lower

                Did you come up with this galaxy-brained tripe before or after considering the crushing 3rd world poverty that sustains global capitalism?

                Capitalism correlates

                According to whom, Clyde? Capitalists?

                • @rchive@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  24 months ago

                  If your argument is basically just conspiracy theory, than I don’t know what to tell you.

        • @JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -14 months ago

          Decreasing someones consumption will likely decrease their quality of life. Assuming they wanted to maximize their quality of life, they would consume what would do that. Though there are exceptions, like limiting addiction or short range fights.

          • @Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            9
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Lemme give you a very small concrete example where reduced consumption will not alter the quality of life.

            Take a small neighbourhood, maybe 10ish families there. Everybody in that neighbourhood has basic tools that they use maybe once a month or less. Hammers, screwdrivers, spanners, etc. Instead of each family having those tools, have a tool library where you have 2-3 of each tool. Anyone in the neighbourhood can borrow the tools they need when they need them and give them back when done. Congratulations, you’ve reduced tool consumption by 70-80% with no downsides.

            This is just one small example, but there are methods for more efficiently allocating resources within communities.

            • @huge_clock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Nothing about capitalism prevents you from doing this. I just looked online and there are multiple apps that let you do this. It’s just a hammer is a relatively inconsequential purchase and fairly cheap. It might take $5 in gas and $20 in lost wages just to save the materials in a $10 tool. Not too mention the administration required to maintain this system. Car sharing though and parking share have become popular though.

            • BombOmOm
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -5
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I have seen what other people do to communal tools. I bought my own tools because I know they will function and actually exist every time I need them.

              I will not stop you from sharing tools, don’t stop me from using the fruits of my labor to buy my own tools.

              • @Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                54 months ago

                I have seen what other people do to communal tools.

                Could you elaborate a bit on that? I used to be part of a maker space and the tools were generally well cared for, and members normally donated anything we were missing

                • BombOmOm
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  04 months ago

                  The biggest thing is tools just going missing. Joe brings it home to work on whatever and never brings it back. It’s pretty common with hand tools if people are allowed to bring them to their homes.

                  Other common problems are people not caring for stuff properly. Not changing the oil on lawn mowers, for example.

          • @uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Or not going into store to buy a new knife every time previous one dulls and just sharpening it instead somehow decreases quality of life. TIL.

          • @masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            54 months ago

            Decreasing someones consumption will likely decrease their quality of life.

            Riiight… because the sugary sewage water sold by Coke and Pepsi is so vital for life, eh?

            • @Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              03 months ago

              So you’re going to ban products that you personally don’t like? Or anything that isn’t strictly utilitarian? No flavour in our drinks, no snacks, no smoking, no anything else…

              • @masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                23 months ago

                No flavour in our drinks

                You barely have any flavor in your drinks right now. Do you even know what real orange juice tastes like?

                Tell you what… after we get rid of all the class-enemies and collectivised everyone’s toothbrushes we’ll decriminalize cocaine, okay?

                It won’t be communism… but everyone will be too high to care - which is close enough.

                • @Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Are you suggesting I’ve never had oranges squeezed then drunk the juice? What an absolutely bizarre assumption.

                  I’m fascinated to be honest, like at some point you’ve had fresh orange juice and it was such a magical experience you can’t imagine anyone else living through it? Or you found a dusty shack in the woods where a wizened old man let you use the juicer hes been hiding ever since whatever dystopian hell you’re from banned them.

                  Fresh orange is pretty good, I very much recommend spending a day in a spanish orange grove, smoking weed, listening to miles Davis and drinking fresh orange over ice. The stuff in bottles is pretty much as good, in the US they do frozen concentrate which is really good because it’s frozen when fresh so you still get all the nutrition and taste plus it takes up less volume so easier to transport and better for the environment.

                  By almost as good I mean like good stuff is a tier, fresh off the tree on a sunny day is a tier

          • @aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 months ago

            I would argue that a lot of consumption, at least in “developed” nations, is driven by artificial demand. Some examples: the tobacco industry, the invention of “halitosis,” bottled water, planned obsolescence. So much of what we produce doesn’t raise, and often lowers, quality of life. Having to meet these levels of demand is deleterious directly and indirectly; being overworked and living in a polluted environment also lowers quality of life.

            But that’s not really the point. Viewing quality of life as identical to consumption is pathological and borderline offensive. If you want to increase your quality of life, spend more time with your friends, family, and neighbors. Create in ways that inspire you. Rest and relax. Spend more time in the moment. Go outside and visit nature. Volunteer and give back to others. There is so much more to being human than having the latest phone.

          • @uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            So if I consume 0 bullets with my body instead of 4 bullets will somehow decrease my quality of life?

      • @Zacryon@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yeah, those billionaires will have a hard time to be only allowed millions instead. /s

    • @buzz86us@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Buh degrowth is genocide 😅🤣

      Literally what some ignoramus on Facebook said when I suggested this.

      • @Torvum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -13
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Objectively if we were to scale back enough, many people currently struggling would die. Excess is the only reason they’re still living. Think the rainforest and rain passing the canopy trees enough to still allow life below. Remove the mass amount of rain, that ecosystem suffers.

        • @aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          124 months ago

          enough

          I mean, yes, if we scaled back enough, people would die. But if we scaled up enough, people would also die. If you drink enough water it will kill you.

          many people currently struggling would die

          Many people currently struggling are dying because of how much consumption is taking place.