• masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    the universe has basically infinite resources

    Sci-fi is fictional, Clyde - not prophecy.

    allowed us to do so much more with fewer resources than generations previous

    Riiight… that’s why we’re the most destructive agent on the planet since the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs - because we “do more with less.” Wtf?

    and as societies get richer in material wealth

    Which societies, Clyde? The ones that capitalism has impoverished so that a small minority can pretend their privileged lives are (somehow) “normal?”

    they produce fewer children

    And that’s a good thing, is it? You know we could just achieve that easily by giving women reproductive rights, don’t you? As in… no capitalism required at all?

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      90% of the stuff you encounter day to day would have been considered science fiction only a few decades ago. That doesn’t answer whether capitalism actually requires growth, which it doesn’t, or where the meme came from.

      Our production efficiency, production per inputs, is larger now than in the past. That’s doing more with less.

      Which societies

      These countries tend to be the most capitalist, meaning private ownership of the means and subsequent free exchange of goods and services, and they also tend to be the most wealthy with low poverty. That distribution matches fertility fairly closely. Link

      that’s a good thing, is it?

      It is if the thing you’re worried about is the impact of the human species on the rest of the planet. Fewer people means less impact with the same per person impact.

      we could just achieve that easily by giving women reproductive rights

      The capitalist west is the most abortion permitting part of the world. Legal rights are a luxury good, unfortunately. Kinda seems like capitalism is in fact required.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        been considered science fiction only a few decades ago.

        Feel free to show us the “infinite” resources you have access to any time you feel like, Clyde.

        That’s doing more with less.

        No. We are doing more with more. The rate at which our industries are churning through resources would have been unimaginable to anyone a century ago… and so would the wastage it creates.

        private ownership - free exchange of goods

        Try not to get entangled in logical contradictions in the very same sentence, Clyde. When everything is privately owned, it’s only the private owners that gets to engage in a “free exchange of goods.”

        the most wealthy with low poverty.

        And the fact that these countries are all beneficiaries of hundreds of years of hyper-violent colonialism has nothing to do with any of this, of course.

        It is if the thing you’re worried

        No, I’m actually not worried about it. The “overpopulation” myth is right-wing propaganda and nothing else - it’s the ravenous and utterly parasitic profiteering of capitalists themselves that are driving over-consumption. Not the world’s poor.

        Legal rights are a luxury good, unfortunately. Kinda seems like capitalism is in fact required.

        So you are fine with your modern-day feudalism… as long as your capitalist overlords throws slightly more crumbs your way than they do everybody else.

    • adeoxymus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sci-fi is fictional, Clyde - not prophecy.

      They’re just referring to the fact that the universe we live in is no “finite system” per the meme

      Riiight… that’s why we’re the most destructive agent on the planet since the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs - because we “do more with less.” Wtf?

      Yes exactly! They’re not saying that’s a good thing but that’s exactly why!

      Which societies, Clyde? The ones that capitalism has impoverished so that a small minority can pretend their privileged lives are (somehow) “normal?”

      Regardless if the distribution of that wealth is acceptable, growth has made the overall society richer in material wealth. The distribution of that wealth is an entirely different question.

      And that’s a good thing, is it? You know we could just achieve that easily by giving women reproductive rights, don’t you? As in… no capitalism required at all?

      You have any proof for that statement?

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Other person here.

        I’d say destructiveness of humans is kind of a Bell curve shape where the X axis is wealth. Cavemen don’t affect the environment that much mostly because there can’t be that many of them. Their production methods can’t sustain large or dense populations. Then people in 1900 are quite destructive because they can sustain billions of people while spewing pollutants, etc. Then people today are less destructive because we have the wealth to care about such things. Wealthy countries are doing pretty well.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the universe we live in is no “finite system”

        They are free to show us the oxygen they harvested from Pluto any time they feel like it.

        growth has made the overall society richer in material wealth

        Your proof for this?

        You have any proof for that statement?

        For crying out loud, Clyde… you need a bunch of science nerds to tell you something this obvious? Fine.

        • adeoxymus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          For crying out loud, Clyde… you need a bunch of science nerds to tell you something this obvious? Fine.

          Lol, very first sentence in that source:

          Three mechanisms influence the fertility decision of educated women: (1) the relatively higher incomes and thus higher income forgone due to childbearing leads them to want fewer children. […]

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I swear… it’s moments like these that it really seems like liberal brain-rot is even more debilitating than the fascist variety.

            Which part of…

            You know we could just achieve that easily by giving women reproductive rights, don’t you? As in… no capitalism required at all?

            didin’t you understand the first time around?

            • adeoxymus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because you were replying to this statement by OP:

              and as societies get richer in material wealth they produce fewer children and have the luxury to pay attention to things like the environment and their impact on it.

              In short your source doesn’t support your claim, but it does story OP’s claim

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                How deep does one’s head have to be up one’s own arrse to believe that this…

                and as societies get richer in material wealth they produce fewer children and have the luxury to pay attention to things like the environment and their impact on it.

                …requires capitalism?