It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
And further...but we humans are supposed to be more evolved and therefore more empathetic. Okay, I have no issue with this. But, let's not pretend it isn't that way, because no matter how you spin it, it's always that way. Always has been, and always will be. You can take the man out of the cave, but you can't take the cave out of the man.
originally posted by: jacobe001
originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
originally posted by: Elementalist
Capitalism feeds off of consumerism and hence profit and build.
Consumerism feeds of materialism.
Materialism feeds from the very elements and substances or resources from our very Earth.
Those resources or elements are limited on Earth and wont last forever, either will capitalism.
Without people consuming materialistic products or services, capitalism falls like a house of cards.
But I do agree, this diversity/inclusion crap our species is being molded into, can hurt capitalism.
Around 1850s or so, is a short window in the grand scheme of Earth/humanity.
A lot of damage to earth and humanity has happened since though.
It's all perspective.
To your point on the industrial revolution above, we’ll probably see that again.
Capitalism will forward efficiency. AI/Robotics will end up making most of our basic consumer needs dirt cheap to produce. That money will then go into other forms of innovation. Someone will slash prices on said consumer goods which will force the market to comply - margins thin for everyone as the race to being a cost leader continues.
In regards to damage to earth - capitalism can solve that as well via efficiency gains and technology (innovation).
Capitalism by design puts more importance on profits and says nothing about the damages it does. It is a side effect if it helps or hurts the earth.
Many items are made very cheap and break easy, which keeps the consumer coming back for more. Nothing efficient about that. Why not build products to last.
I bought a new printer that was the next model up from my old one.
I wanted to use the older toner cartridge I had and it would not fit because they molded a plastic tab onto the case. I broke the tab off and was able to use it.
There are many other examples like this where they create a lot of waste in order to keep them coming back.
originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: dlbott
What are you on about? No I don't aspire to be a Marxist, I aspire to seek a solution to our problems. I'm not even the one who brought up Marx. All I did was point out the ludicrousness of the statement that I'm a Marxist simply for being against unfettered Capitalism.
As for the US not getting right or others. No #, if anyone got it perfect we'd not be having these discussions.
Frankly as much as I hate the globalist corruption, I don't think a true functioning system can be made possible without a closed system, as without a closed system we have multiple nations racing to the bottom to get at the tit of the elite, selling their workers, often into slavery, to offer the best worker prices. Either a nation needs to be entirely self reliant or we need a one world government for a system to truly work.
The avowed purpose of these various human systems is to further a way of life that is considered to be the best for all or, at least, for “the greatest number.” They attach more or less importance to freedom or to equality as being basic to human happiness. Capitalism is willing to sacrifice equality in favor of freedom. Communism puts equality above freedom. Social democracy tries to make the best of both worlds. But not one of them has succeeded in changing human nature. Human selfishness brings out the worst in capitalists, making many of them unjust exploiters; it has converted communist experiments into state capitalism, the common people being exploited by the state instead of by individual capitalists or huge corporations; it has ruined socialist Utopian dreams.
In his book Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, R. H. Tawney denounces the “illusion of progress won from the mastery of the material environment by a race too selfish and superficial to determine the purpose to which its triumphs shall be applied.” He criticizes the idea “that the attainment of material riches is the supreme object of human endeavour and the final criterion of human success.” Additionally, he emphasizes the need of “a standard of values . . . based on some conception of the requirements of human nature as a whole, to which the satisfaction of economic needs is evidently vital, but which demands the satisfaction of other needs as well.”
Yes, for true happiness, man must have a “standard of values.” But the present state of the world shows beyond doubt that human philosophy, political economy, science and technology have all failed to supply man with a valid set of values. People would, therefore, do well not to despise the only book that does supply a reliable standard of values—the Bible.
In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, we find this basic truth: “Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.” (Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3) The Bible puts the emphasis where it belongs—on spiritual values. Giving a fundamental prerequisite for happiness, it states: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”—Matt. 5:3.
Man has proved incapable of filling such spiritual need. By making technology and materialistic goals his top priority, he has come face to face with a crisis summed up as follows: “For all his intelligence, man behaves in communities with a thoughtlessness for his environment that is potentially suicidal. It is debatable, then, whether technology is a blessing or a bane [cause of distress, death, or ruin]. The history of technology has led from the earliest technological achievements of man the toolmaker to the crossroads at which the species now stands, in the last third of the 20th century, confronted by a choice, that of self-destruction or a millennium of adventurous growth and expansion.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.