Another insane figure: wild mammals make up only 4% of all mammal biomass in the world, the other 96% is humans and our livestock. That 4% includes all whales, elephants, bears, etc.
I know the left really (and rightfully) hates capitalism, but this isn’t a capitalism problem; it’s a society problem. You’ll always need a certain amount of labor to sustain non-working portions of the populations. Thanks to advances in technology the necessary working person percentage is decreasing but you still can’t have the majority of the population be elderly people who will never again be productive.
Other system are more stable, Egypt lasted for thousands of years, the Ottoman Empire was fairly stable without growth for a 1000. Capitalism is the the system were part of the profit is reinvested into new machinery ‘for efficiency’ to undercut competition. Once we do not have competition because there are only 2 or 3 companies (Coke and Pepsi), they fix prices and work to corrupt government to become an Oligarchy. This is why people make the state that we are entering a ‘post capital’ world.
It’s called “ancient Egypt” for convenience’s sake, but it’s not just one continuous state; it’s many states that either succeeded or competed with each other as the country went through cycles of rise, decline, fragmentation and reunification. For a more familiar example think of it as another, much smaller China.
the Ottoman Empire was fairly stable without growth for a 1000.
Da fuck “productive” is, for fuck’s sake. Anyone thought of not running human intelligence into fucking ground over a period of… what? Roughly 60 - 20 = 40 years?
Or what, humans can’t think after retirement age because <insert some bullshit>?
You absolutely can have any percentage of <insert random age group>, provided human wellbeing is being taken care of, constantly and in all aspects
Be productive as in literally just that: produce the goods society uses to sustain itself. Intelligence is only one part of the equation here (the rest of it being energy, physical wellness, etc), and even that deteriorates shortly after retirement age when people enter their 70s.
Also I have no issue with swear words, but just spamming them doesn’t substitute for an actual basis for your argument. Unless you want 70 YO people to work factory production lines, they are for all societal purposes unproductive.
I’ve got flash news then: unless I want 70 years old people to work production lines, my job (a developer) can be done by a seventy years old person. Or a job of an artist. Or <insert bunch of professions here>. Physical strength does naturally deteriorate, and that is the only thing that actually is does.
Now, to the more important: producing goods? Really? Since when has it become the only thing you look at? And since when producing goods is something only people-under-random-age-limit can do?
If wage growth went up at the same rate as GDP, one part time worker could support multiple elderly people
Then prices would have to go up at the same rate, and one part time worker would not be able to support multiple elderly people at a reasonable quality of life. It’s not about money; under capitalism money is a shorthand for how much power one has in and over society and isn’t directly convertible into useful goods at a constant rate. What you need to be looking at is total productivity, because that’s the bottleneck here. If X working people can only make Y things a day and X+Z people need 2Y things a day to survive then a society with X working people and Z non-working people can’t survive.
I get what you’re saying, but I feel like you are ignoring how much automation has allowed one person to do the work of many in the recent past. If allowed, this should continue to improve.
Carrying capacity of the earth is something like 15 billion with current technology, our wastefulness and overconsumption (of the rich, globally speaking) is the problem. Which reduction in population can mitigate, but not fix
But do we want to keep heading to capacity? We could have artificial scarcity eliminated with wealth redistribution and waste reduction (cars, fast fashion, food waste, many many etc). The more humans on the earth, the less possible this becomes.
World population is projected to peak out at about 10 billion, likely less because of climate change, so we won’t be getting much closer to the 15 bil limit anyway.
I don’t think climate change will prevent reaching that number, but it will increase the suffering. If we don’t start reversing climate change I believe we will try to adapt to it until we reach the limit of our ability to adapt before we perish. If we are lucky, a small fraction of the species will survive long enough for something to be able to change, but I’m talking a really long time.
Good. We need to depopulate by 50%. The earth can’t have 8 billion people. There are less than 30,000 polar bears in the whole world.
Another insane figure: wild mammals make up only 4% of all mammal biomass in the world, the other 96% is humans and our livestock. That 4% includes all whales, elephants, bears, etc.
Sorry, can’t do that under capitalism perpetual growth
line must go up forever
I know the left really (and rightfully) hates capitalism, but this isn’t a capitalism problem; it’s a society problem. You’ll always need a certain amount of labor to sustain non-working portions of the populations. Thanks to advances in technology the necessary working person percentage is decreasing but you still can’t have the majority of the population be elderly people who will never again be productive.
Other system are more stable, Egypt lasted for thousands of years, the Ottoman Empire was fairly stable without growth for a 1000. Capitalism is the the system were part of the profit is reinvested into new machinery ‘for efficiency’ to undercut competition. Once we do not have competition because there are only 2 or 3 companies (Coke and Pepsi), they fix prices and work to corrupt government to become an Oligarchy. This is why people make the state that we are entering a ‘post capital’ world.
It’s called “ancient Egypt” for convenience’s sake, but it’s not just one continuous state; it’s many states that either succeeded or competed with each other as the country went through cycles of rise, decline, fragmentation and reunification. For a more familiar example think of it as another, much smaller China.
Uh… No?
The boundaries changed, plagues came through. But politically it was mostly stable-ish of sorts ¯_(ツ)_/¯ as an economic system
Warning: swear language ahead
Da fuck “productive” is, for fuck’s sake. Anyone thought of not running human intelligence into fucking ground over a period of… what? Roughly 60 - 20 = 40 years?
Or what, humans can’t think after retirement age because <insert some bullshit>?
You absolutely can have any percentage of <insert random age group>, provided human wellbeing is being taken care of, constantly and in all aspects
Be productive as in literally just that: produce the goods society uses to sustain itself. Intelligence is only one part of the equation here (the rest of it being energy, physical wellness, etc), and even that deteriorates shortly after retirement age when people enter their 70s.
Also I have no issue with swear words, but just spamming them doesn’t substitute for an actual basis for your argument. Unless you want 70 YO people to work factory production lines, they are for all societal purposes unproductive.
I’ve got flash news then: unless I want 70 years old people to work production lines, my job (a developer) can be done by a seventy years old person. Or a job of an artist. Or <insert bunch of professions here>. Physical strength does naturally deteriorate, and that is the only thing that actually
isdoes.Now, to the more important: producing goods? Really? Since when has it become the only thing you look at? And since when producing goods is something only people-under-random-age-limit can do?
I think it’s entirely possible if we reduce waste and redistribute wealth. The US pays farmers to NOT grow food to keep the price up. Total insanity.
If wage growth went up at the same rate as GDP, one part time worker could support multiple elderly people.
Then prices would have to go up at the same rate, and one part time worker would not be able to support multiple elderly people at a reasonable quality of life. It’s not about money; under capitalism money is a shorthand for how much power one has in and over society and isn’t directly convertible into useful goods at a constant rate. What you need to be looking at is total productivity, because that’s the bottleneck here. If X working people can only make Y things a day and X+Z people need 2Y things a day to survive then a society with X working people and Z non-working people can’t survive.
I get what you’re saying, but I feel like you are ignoring how much automation has allowed one person to do the work of many in the recent past. If allowed, this should continue to improve.
Edit: by recent past I mean the last 50-80 years.
Carrying capacity of the earth is something like 15 billion with current technology, our wastefulness and overconsumption (of the rich, globally speaking) is the problem. Which reduction in population can mitigate, but not fix
But do we want to keep heading to capacity? We could have artificial scarcity eliminated with wealth redistribution and waste reduction (cars, fast fashion, food waste, many many etc). The more humans on the earth, the less possible this becomes.
World population is projected to peak out at about 10 billion, likely less because of climate change, so we won’t be getting much closer to the 15 bil limit anyway.
I don’t think climate change will prevent reaching that number, but it will increase the suffering. If we don’t start reversing climate change I believe we will try to adapt to it until we reach the limit of our ability to adapt before we perish. If we are lucky, a small fraction of the species will survive long enough for something to be able to change, but I’m talking a really long time.
Thats mainly indians and countries around and africans. Why people ignore this small little fact?