Not that I’m capitalism’s greatest fan, but this sounds about as clever as, “evolution is impossible because the second law of thermodynamics says chaos always increases, and the sun doesn’t exist.”
Evolution and the stars reside in a local entropy minimum but they speed up the increase of entropy by converting a lot of energy. So low entropy and the global increase aren’t contradicting each other. But yes, I agree equating cancer and capitalism isn’t very useful. Especially when the main problem with capitalism is distribution and not scarcity.
I had an argument with someone about the nature of motivation within a capitalist system. Specifically related to people who find their motivations in non-monetary ends such as personal pride, the greater good, morality, etc. He said that those people were rubes, but I countered that surely those people were suckers. We still haven’t resolved…
I don’t think greed is necessary. I’d argue markets exist to cater to human wants and needs. If someone is using an inherently fucky system (as all non-voluntary systems are to some extent) to find happiness, then it’s working at least a little.
“evolution is impossible because the second law of thermodynamics says chaos always increases, and the sun doesn’t exist.”
The second law only applies to closed system systems. Neither earth nor sun are closed systems (they interact with each other) and if they were there your statement would probably be true but not for the reason you suggested.
Not that I’m capitalism’s greatest fan, but this sounds about as clever as, “evolution is impossible because the second law of thermodynamics says chaos always increases, and the sun doesn’t exist.”
Evolution and the stars reside in a local entropy minimum but they speed up the increase of entropy by converting a lot of energy. So low entropy and the global increase aren’t contradicting each other. But yes, I agree equating cancer and capitalism isn’t very useful. Especially when the main problem with capitalism is distribution and not scarcity.
I had an argument with someone about the nature of motivation within a capitalist system. Specifically related to people who find their motivations in non-monetary ends such as personal pride, the greater good, morality, etc. He said that those people were rubes, but I countered that surely those people were suckers. We still haven’t resolved…
You are trying to resolve whether to call them rubes or suckers?
Yep. Hard to tell from a pure capitalist point of view. I’m firmly in the “suckers” camp.
I don’t think greed is necessary. I’d argue markets exist to cater to human wants and needs. If someone is using an inherently fucky system (as all non-voluntary systems are to some extent) to find happiness, then it’s working at least a little.
The second law only applies to closed system systems. Neither earth nor sun are closed systems (they interact with each other) and if they were there your statement would probably be true but not for the reason you suggested.
Okay you don’t think it sounds clever. Does it sound wrong?
I think their point is that it sounds clever but it’s wrong.
Yeah no shit that’s their point. My point is they have no substance.
You said they thought it didn’t sound clever.
Holy shit this is boring. Can you get to a point if you have one already? Why are you talking to me?