664
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ysysel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

If we take into consideration the destruction of the ecosystems necessary to sustain human life, capitalism is a net-negative.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

They draw the box around the part that is a net positive.

The destruction of the Commons is not accounted for.

The impacts outside their box are not accounted for.

[-] w2qw@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

This is true but not a necessity of capitalism. Pigouvian can put the destruction of the commons back in that box.

[-] infotainment@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That’s the tragedy of the commons, and you’ll find it’s true for basically every possible societal organization.

[-] orrk@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

the tragedy of the commons was a bit of British aristocrat propaganda to take the land peasants worked...

[-] Spaniard@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Before Capitalism Humanity drove mammoths into exctintion, and that was a hunter-gatherer society.

https://www.earth.com/news/humans-drove-woolly-mammoths-to-extinction/

What I mean with this is that the effect of humanity in the environment is an human issue independent to the economic system issue the humans use.

[-] nomadjoanne@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Incredible that you can say that seriously. Human development and civilization causes ecosystem destruction. The particular economic system may affect the specifics of how this happens not whether or not it does.

[-] Ysysel@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Capitalism means always looking for more profits. Endless efforts of private owners to expand and increase their profits leads to the perpetual circle of suproduction and overconsumption which destroy ressources and ecosystems.

This particular system is the main reason it's happening.

[-] havokdj@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Do you honestly think a communist or socialist society which is wealthy would be any healthier for the environment than a capitalist one that is also wealthy?

We have been destroying the planet long before economy was a concept.

[-] Ysysel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

A socialist or communist society could be healthier. Not saying it automatically would be. The only people theorizing a sustainable economy are on the (far) left though.

And the last 50 years proved that sustainability is impossible in a capitalist system. It hinders profits, and the basis of capitalism is: always more profits.

[-] w2qw@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

A socialist society would be better for the environment because all the people would starve /s

this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
664 points (80.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

29525 readers
1016 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS