MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
First step when someone makes an affirmation should be “is this true?” before thinking “what should be done about the stated problem”. Also, realise that others see you differently from how you see yourself.
Yes, and I don't believe voters don't know what Trump stands for after how loud he's been about it for 8 years.
At least for food, they have the excuse that a lot of it will go bad on the way. A much bigger problem is that capitalist industries typically refuse to donate the results of overproduction. Their primary concern is that if scarcity falls, prices will fall, and they won't be able to recover their losses.
Under capitalism, even the term "overproduction" means too much production to sell at a profit, not too much production for people to use.
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
And food doesn’t come from the economy, it comes from ecology. After all, having no money and food growing all around is much better than having trillions of dollars on a burning infertile planet.
I didn't argue against environmentalism. Under socialism, it may really be the case that goods come primarily from environmental factors rather than work.
Besides, I don't believe you think this. If the economy doesn't do anything, abolish copyright law. If you care about what happens, stop boosting signals that no one believes. Please stop romanticizing the environment so that we can save it.
Goods come from the pipeline: Nuclear power, raw materials/tools and industry (and distribution, but that's another topic). What you call "ecology" provides raw materials, only one factor in production. Without industry, energy and materials can't be shaped into the forms sapient beings need for sustenance.
The default source of nuclear power is the sun. The default source of raw materials and tools is the immediate environment (i.e. ecology). Whatever animation you observe in the environment is thanks to the sun's nuclear power.
However, nothing prevents us from substituting these with other sources. The sun can be replaced with thorium reactors. Ecology can be replaced with imported materials and artificial tools. If materials are imported from under the ground or outer space, it may technically no longer be a part of any ecological closed loop.
Neither economy nor ecology are real, only particles interacting in space. There is ultimately no balance or primordial harmony to return to.
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
Money is not a shorthand for goods at all. It may be a means to obtain them but it is not the goods itself.
In context, "we need money" actually means "we need goods".
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
Producing more goods is a problem on a planet with limited resources where the resources have been overused for more than half a century.
An ecology without
economies of scale can no longer support our current population.
If you are not willing to make essential goods cheaper, you have nothing to offer the majority of humanity. They will vote for the other side whether they are fascist or not, whether they save the environment or destroy it, whether or not they will be directly responsible for the slaughter of their own grandkids.
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
That article argues for the importance of cities, not their lower ecological impact.
I'm positive zompist had something on this. If humans restrict themselves to cities, that could be better for the environment than us cutting down forests and spreading out all over the map. Of course, this would mean making the cities environmentally friendly first. Was it called Cities of the Future?
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
What do mean by capitalism?
Production through the profit motive.
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
So your approach to morality involves minimising harm?
It's not a moral position, just a Nash equilibrium.
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
What does redistribution mean to you?
Under capitalism, redistribution means snatching profits out of the mouths of ravenous business owners. If there is no profit, then the owners of nature will not be motivated to feed the people. If you redistribute this profit, then that lowers their incentive to produce. There is nothing wrong with redistribution from socialized industries.
If you redistribute their earnings, the businesses will become less profitable. If businesses become less profitable, it will be harder for people to find jobs. Even if the corporations manage to produce enough for everyone, they will artificially restrict distribution to prevent prices from falling.
For some reason, contemporary leftist intellectuals feel that these are weird, out of the way concerns compared to things like the environment. If you take away anything from my posts, I want to impress upon you that most of humanity would rather destroy the environment and wipe out all life if they can't fix these factors. Until the ivory tower left puts this at the center of their discourse, the world will keep sliding farther and farther towards fascism.
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
What is your alternative? Is it mutually incompatible with redistribution?
The problem is that production is currently skewed towards the interests of the wealthy. We need to measure demand by the popular vote instead of currency.
That's the basic idea. If you search, I have it elaborated in various degrees of detail in the past.
For background reading, try Classical Econophysics by Paul Cockshott:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15v5e44 ... sp=sharing
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
Generally, the more coherent and thought-out moral positions make less exceptions and less arbitrary ones.
Note that the Marx suggestion is not a moral argument as such. The argument is that it's coldly rational for the dispossessed to unite and dethrone their bosses.
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
Morality is subjective, of course, which is why we may at most accept that some moral stances may lead to genocide, not all. One’s identity may involve one’s class, or species or anything else. Life is not just about social class. Social class may be defined in different ways, including money, identity, education or any combination thereof. That is perhaps part of the subjectivity of morality.
If morality is subjective, what does it mean to make society more moral?
I'm worried that women and minority empowerment programs are leading dispossessed groups to see each other as powerful rather than the actual puppet masters.
I think the Marxist emphasis on work is much better at bringing the disempowered together. I think today's aversion to work is a passing fad. According to Marx, one's work is what gives meaning to human life. People's aversion to work is caused by capitalism, which incentivizes both underworking and overworking at the same time for no rationally justifiable reason.
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
I know other people I know think differently, as neighbour, friend, family member and activist. I do not believe in the interest of moorality because it is the only thing I am exposed to but because it is among the most convincing things that I am exposed to. When Zompist proposes to base our ideas and practices on science and moral philosophy, I get him on that. When Ryan Holiday, following on from Stoics and other ancient philosophers suggests basing our decisions on virtue, I get him too. Likewise with Stephen R. Covey and the importance on aligning oneself with one’s values. These are somewhat different positions but share characteristics: 1° based on morality, ethics, virtue 2° things I have read 3° things I have recently and rarely been exposed to 4° are convincing
Do you realize that the people who want mass deportations think they are enforcing moral principles? Do you realize that the Roman elites who opposed the grain dole based their ideology on Stoic principles?
Basically, it's not enough to appeal to abstract morality, which most people don't care about anyway. What we need is action in favor of the disadvantaged.
This is not to say you can't use morality, even Stoic morality, to draw inspiration.
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 6:15 am
rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:25 pm
I'm too poor to have books without screens.
How?
How will we get enough paper to educate everyone? Dead Congolese is at least reusable Congolese.
If books can't be spread through screens, books would be rare. If books were rare, people like me wouldn't have access to books. If we didn't have access to books, we would be uneducated. If we were uneducated, we'd vote for fascists even more than we do now. The actual solution is more education by any means necessary, and more critical thinking as opposed to memorizing textbooks.