Capitalism is a pyramid. Heirarchies are pyramids. The strong/clever rise to the top, the weak/unintelligent settle at the bottom. I can't see how it could possibly be closer to the natural world. You mention that in the natural world packs or herds work as a social unit and that Humans are social animals. I agree but fail to see how that doesn't fit into Capitalism. Capitalism is based on lots of heirarchies, competitng for dominance. For each "social unit" or business to survive it requires the input of all the people involved, but within that structure there is a heirarchy. An example in the natural world might be a herd of wild horses - they have to work together to survive but have a very clear social structure by which the top horses eat first etc.. Despite having to work together there is always going to be competition and dominance within a group. Just because it is neccessary to work together to achieve certain goals does not mean competitiveness can't be a very normal part of it. So i don't think Capitalism is purely competition - it requires a whole business to succeed not just a CEO with a big wallet. I think it completely fits with your points on social cohesion. It's just that there is an emphasis on being able to reach the top and be the best - that competition and possibility is what keeps everyone pushing forward. Without capitalism, in my opinion the human race as a whole would advance on a technological level at a far slower rate. As for there being enough resources for every man, woman and child. That may be the case but which genius is going to be the person who works out exactly how to go about stripping everyone of the wealth and assets and re-distributing everything in a fair way? I feel that despite the fact that you can say "oh there is enough of everything for everyone" the actual process of trying to put that in place would be a monumental task far beyond anything the human race has done so far - it would require a total overhaul of the way society works and people think, not to mention the planning, the organisation the logistics - i think you are underestimating the level of change and work that would be required. It would need the whole world on board to start with (good luck with that), then you have to deal with corruption. Even if everyone decides "oh we are gonna be fair and split everyhing up" there are still people with power and people who have to handle goods etc... Also if everyone has an equal amount of food, shelter etc, what is the incentive to try hard in life? No matter how hard you work or what you do you'll never get anywhere. Life stagnates and becomes pointless. It'd be like being stuck in a dead end job! And war, occupation etc happens in the natural world. I was watching a programme about some monkeys just the other day. They have tribes, there is enough food for all the different monkeys, but certain areas have much more accessable food (some great trees). The leaders of the little tribes or packs lead there groups into full on fights over these fruitfull territories. If they think they can win they'll go for it, because the prize is more food in one place, as opposed to working harder for your food but still eating. Some of the monkeys would get very hurt or even die in the process. We are just monkeys who have the technology to fight on a much larger scale. I then notice you say "the real model is one based on co-operation and competition", which is capitalism. So i'm confused as to what your point was now! I don't think a completely competitive system would work, but thats not what we have. I also don't think a system without any competition can work.
Also the answer to all the problems you cite: Famine, War, homelessness - for me does not lie in a political system but rather in technological advancements, in particular Nuclear Fussion. Unlimited energy, means endless possibilities and one of the first things we will see is a basic standard for everyone which is far above how the current bottom of the social pile live. Then there really will be no excuse for everyone in the world not to have food, water, light, heat and shelter. Also i can't agree with you that consumerism is killing the planet. I assume your taking an enviornmental point on that? Please clarify before i argue a point that you havent made
Excellent answer, i think you answered all the questions to a tee. Unfortunately, if we continue to follow this very flawed method of rule, it will only end one way. A change needs to come about and come very fast. We are living in a temporary bubble and when it bursts, all hell will break loose. Looking at the problems Greece is having is just the tip of the iceburg. It's only when you take away what people have, is when people stand up and take notice of what is going on. Our nation has debts of over 1 trillion, yes 1 trillion, sooner or later the borrowers will want their money back...
Greece are not screwed because of capitalism. They are screwed because non of them pay tax and there governments have been weak and unable to control there own people.
But it's not just Greece is it? It's also Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal.....Are you saying none of them pay taxes? The only European nation that is economically fine is German, and France to a lesser degree. The rest are in trouble.
That's actually false, since a lot of ****ing idiots rise to the top. I know somebody who's super super rich, and the guys a ****ing idiot. He was my class mate, and was one of the biggest idiots in class. I remember him wanting to cheat off me one time as well. He failed like 2 times or something and had to repeat the grade etc. And yet now, he's very rich, and mingles with celebrity singers and sportsmen at nightclubs, all because he comes from a family that is wealthy.
Maybe this could be moved to **calling all gooners** or it's own non-football thread? It's good stuff. And lord knows that GC isn't the place for it, unless you want it littered with gape porn and tentacle sex.
@A87 - your missing the point totally. If your friend is rich because his parents are rich then they must have had some skill that enabled them to acquire said wealth in the first place. Thus they where the strong/clever element that enables his rise to the top as opposed to settling at the bottom. If he is the total idiot you say he is then i wouldn't worry about it too much because when it comes his turn to maintain and increase that wealth he will fail. @lazarus - a couple of those countries have not helped themselves (spain for example where always going to be effected largely, due to the focus on the housing market and tourism - a reccession was always going to hit them hard). But i get the point you are making that it's not just one or two poorly run countries that are struggling financialy. That being said recession and slumps are a perfectly natural part of the economic cycle and considerign the size and integration of the world economy in this day and age it's not suprising that a recession could have such large effects. But there will be a recovery and we will end up back on top.
George W Bush was able to get to the top because his father had already been President thus he had some prior reputation he could use to his benefit and because he surounded himself with the right people to get him where he wanted to be. Plus he is likeable. He might be a total doghnut but people liked him, he was friendly and approachable. Sometimes a persons skills and good attributes are not obvious at first glance.
Nuclear fusion is still very far from a practical reality. Also, itâs still not unlimited energy - it relies on finite sources of fuel. Problem is, in a society hell bent on making profits thereâs no incentive to give a free product out to poor people who need it, and there is very little incentive for businesses to invest in a technology thatâll be a less successful money making strategy than what they have. Considering the costs of the technology it would also be out of reach for most countries outside of the West and the BRICS countries. Politically, there may be very strong objections by Western nations to places like Iran working towards such technology. Weâre already seeing this with their fission plans (though Iâll concede there are differences in process) We are heading into uncharted waters regarding climate change. You were talking of a monumental task changing society to a more egalitarian one earlier â at least that would be through choice. The scenarios that a large scale rise in temperature could bring â really quite realistic, and looking more so as time moves on â would be completely thrust upon us. We need to address these, but our current way of thinking isnât working. At all. Emissions are at a record high this year, and the only time they went down in recent years was in 2008, which was largely due to the global financial crisis. Consumerism, the strive for profit and competitive notions have taken us to this place.
Meh. I was just a bit lost, that's all. Now I have gone back and read all of it, it's a good read. It's fine, a bit of distraction.
True, we do go through cycles, but this one is more worrying than normal. With dwindling resources and the power shift moving from West to East, how long will we be able to live the privileged lives we do at the moment? Only time will tell i guess.
Well as far as i am aware the earliest predictions for a fully functional Fussion reactor are 20 odd years from now and the more pessimistic scientists think it will take closer to 50 odd years. We currently can run the reaction for a short period of time but are unable to keep the reaction going long enough for it to sustain itself and be at a point we can actually extract any energy from it. As it stands it costs much much more to do than we could gain from it. However - A lot of money (billions) has been invested into a project in Europe and similar funding has been given to a rival project in the USA. If the money and time is put into this technology it will solve the majority of the problems the human race faces today. This funding was made available on the belief that with the right resources we could bring forward the time this technology is available. It would generate such levels of energy that it simply would not make any moral sense to not provide it for free or very close to free to the majority of the world. Once we crack fussion the public pressure to use it for the good of humanity will be huge. Te posiblities really are endless. And the environmet will be saved the day Fussio is cracked. All energy on grids would be provided by the Fussion reactors and any battery cells would be Hydrogen (produced far cheaper than now due to the energy availble from fussion making the process so much cheaper). Thus no carbon emissions ruining the world. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr Hawking when i say Fussion will be the greatest break through in all of Human History. It will completely change the world as we know it (for the better). Now the interesting thing is whether we get to this point before we change our planet too much. How long will it take at current levels to screw over the planet and make it uninhabitable? A long time. Personally i think the money that is pumped into green technology currently should be diverted to Fussion research as ultimately it is the perfect solution. Also on a side not about global temperature - for me it seems that global temperature fluctuates and changes based on factors not limited to human interation. For example in the Medievil period there were temperatures which where very high, temperatures then dropped and again rised. We have only just gone past the temperature of the globe during the Medievil period in which im certain we where not pumping out emissions. No im not going to try and deny that we are having a direct impact on the enviroment/temperature/atmosphere - it is clear we are, just pointing otu that there are other factors as well to consider when doom mongering
Also you say that it is not unlimited - but its about as close as you could possibly get. It requires things which are available in abundance. "the fuel is virtually unlimited. All you need is lithium and hydrogen. Sea water alone could fuel current human consumption levels for 30 million years" - quote from the direcor for nuclear fussion development agreement in europe.
Problem is, like arguing about the benefits and pitfalls of capitalism (something I like doing but usually over the space of hours/days/weeks/months/years and face to face for sake of ease), the science of climate change (another thing I like talking about) is incredibly complex. The research on the subject is intense and there is an absolute wealth of information on the subject. The causes of the current warming have been very largely established, and the other potential variables are extensively mapped and can be ruled out with ease. If you're interested in the subject, then this is a good website to start on (largely because of it's reliance on peer reviewed scientific literature and input from active scientists in the field): Skeptical Science One thing you can definitely take from the Medieval Warm Period (which we have little to no evidence of being global and can say for sure was not warming at a level we've seen over the last 150 years) is that climate sensitivity is high. This should really make us worry even more about the potential dangers of our contributions.
I must admit my understanding of nuclear fusion is very small. I'll look into it Morality isn't really in the vocabulary of the capitalist. Public pressure is all fine and well, but the might and resources to quell public pressure lies in the hands of the richest. We've seen how this pans out millions of times. I hope you're right of course, but I get the feeling this free energy will either be stopped by force by those with the most to lose or it'll have to be pried out of their cold, dead hands.
I'm on the side of the fence that says we are having a big effect (i've used that site before as well ^^ ) My disagreement is with the best ways to deal with it - For me the progressive thing to do and the best step for humanity as a whole is to focus on Fussion as opposed to short term changes like wind farms. I'm not against green energy - the idea behind it is great - i just think that in the long run Fussion is what is going to have the biggest impact and help actualy solve the problems as opposed to slowing them down.
