I find hunting, fishing, raising livestock, and gardening quite rewarding. Don't make the first ones vegan.

But plenty of people, per OP, don't "like" anything other than shoving food into their mouths, and sleeping.

This is such a stupid baby child perspective. Bitch, please, calories cost work. That's literally thermodynamics. Get over your erudite fantasies of fully automated luxury (gay optional) (space optional) communism being now. It's not now.

Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.

funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates. that those who don't work, don't deserve to eat. "useless eaters" and all that, my mother can (sadly) give you a long and stern lecture about that (she is very much what you would call a "conservative").

capitalism re-formulates that by saying that you need money to buy food, but to get that money, you have to work. in other words, who doesn't work, doesn't get food. that's why many people say it's cruel and inhumane because it makes people suffer who don't work. and that's exactly why we have things such as social safety nets etc. where the state gives money to people sothat they can buy basic stuff with it if they are poor. because society at large revolts against the concept of "who doesn't work, shouldn't eat". or at least that's how it is in most (civilized) countries, except of course in america people don't always see things that way.

Nature compells us to work for food anyway, that’s not exploitation and coercion, that’s just survival.

Not all of us ahem bourgeoisie ahem

The construct of society is predicated on the idea of “from each… to each…”

of course, however what makes a societies differ is exactly what gets filled in to the "..."

"from each slave to each slavemaster" -> slavery
"from each serf to each lord" -> feudalism
"from each worker to each owner" -> capitalism
"from each person (according to their ability) to each person (according to their need)" -> socialism 😄

ahem I know about e^-x^ and convergence thanks, I had some math in high school too.

I don't know what it means for the tendency of the rate of profit to be negative (or positive, or 0 for that matter). It's not a number. If you're talking about the rate of profit of course that can go negative. I think what you mean is that it will be balanced out, but not as high as it was before. Here is how its explained in Wage labour and capital, emphasis mine

We have just seen how the fluctuation of supply and demand always bring the price of a commodity back to its cost of production. The actual price of a commodity, indeed, stands always above or below the cost of production; but the rise and fall reciprocally balance each other, so that, within a certain period of time, if the ebbs and flows of the industry are reckoned up together, the commodities will be exchanged for one another in accordance with their cost of production. Their price is thus determined by their cost of production.

If you want to illustrate this movement a function like cos(x)/x would be more prudent. Here is 10*cos(x)/x to make it "pop" more:

Remember that convergence doesn't necessarily mean monotone convergence, and you'll be hard pressed to find a monotone graph in economics 😄 Here is a more illustrive graph for TRPF

You also say that "companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays" which is absolutely false! A companies profit absolutely can be zero, or even negative! Remember profit = m - m', where m' is the money you have after selling the commodity. Or in more plain words, if you have less money after selling than before producing you made negative profit. If you didn't get your investment back, you didn't make profit.