How can someone be a good person in most respects and then just completely drop the fucking ball in the cases which are really fucking easy and obvious to get right
@sir unfortunately our cultural mythology runs contrary to ideas that are recognized as basic courtesy/humanity
somehow we're able to maintain the cognitive dissonance that
- certain things are fundamental necessities in order to maintain one's humanity and moral fiber
and, at the same time
- being "realistic" or "pragmatic" means completely ignoring all of those basic fucking guidelines on how to be a decent member of a society at scale
@syntacticsugarglider @sir Also sadly a lot of people act out of complete desperation. The shit rolls downhill right? If someone comfortable does your "$X benefits me, but it hurts other people" move, then someone hurt by that does it, it just keeps getting worse until people think "hell, my situation sucks so much that if I dont do $X I or my family are screwed."
If a lot of us comfy people behaved better the effects could be magnified.
people shouldn't have to hurt others to survive
we have more than enough resources in every regime, at this point a lot of scarcity is highly artificial
and don't get me wrong, I think the profit motive is *useful* and markets optimize effectively toward a goal
but they're a tool, not a panacea or a system of government in and of themselves
the goal they target is set by cultural mythology and where authority sets the QoL baseline
@syntacticsugarglider @sir I totally agree. Honestly I'm even sceptical of the market's usefulness relative to it's cost 😅
I'm not convinced you can have anything resembling our 'markets' without people being exploited and dragged into a race to the bottom. QoL guarantees are a must for sure though :)
a mixed economy where basic goods are provided for to an extent by a managed system and innovation is driven by market-oriented capitalism is working out pretty well for a certain rising power right now
and while nobody has really achieved those QoL guarantees at least the prerequisite system is viable
@syntacticsugarglider @sir I think it's important to define what we consider 'success' here. If, and I assume you're referring to China, you're trying to become a global hegemon then sure, that's working for them. If you're trying to develop a utopia where we can have global human emancipation, then not so much. I don't really care about economic output so long as it's sufficient to maintain post-scarcity, which ours was long ago.
Furthermore, the Chinese government is far from providing a high QoL to its citizens and is comically far from even approaching any form of 'communism.' That government's only metric is profit, human rights be damned, and sadly our government shares that view. To assume a market solution, or anything resembling what we would call a market, can solve our problem is, in my view, an ahistoric analysis.
and managed systems don't always degrade into corruption
china has a wide variety of issues, some of which you mentioned, but I'm using it as a viability example, not an example of my target society
i don't think a market solution is the solution to our problems
i think we need solutions in **addition** to existing markets that are independently useful
@sir Modern "social" capitalism:
- "Engineers" from reputable uni produce garbage
- Sales dept is supposed to make gold from it - which is usually possible to some degree
- Sales don't pay the excessive management bonuses...
- therefore they apply for a bailout from the govt for being "Too big to fail" - which is newspeak for "Too SNAFU to be profitable"
rinse & repeat
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!