If you make the world a capitalistic hell hole where people are constantly worked to the bone without much reward and no time to enjoy their lives, then chances are, they won’t be motivated or even healthy enough to want to have children. In the premodern wild, people had many children because they had time and they knew that conditions had the possibility of improving in the future. Sure, many of their children died but they knew that the ones who did survive would have a chance to survive if they worked hard enough because they knew their work would be rewarded.
In our current world … you can work until your hands fall off and you won’t be rewarded. More and more people are realizing that they don’t want that for themselves so why should they do that to their unborn children?
The conditions for humanity are falling everywhere and people are so compassionate for their children that many of them feel like they don’t want to bring their children into this hell hole we’ve created if 99.99% of everyone has no chance at a good life.
Capitalism is all about using other people so that YOU can have an amazing quality of life. And even if you’re at the lower end of the economy in the US or Europe, your standard of living is propped up by third world labor, so really I strongly doubt that anyone here is in a position to say they’d be better off without capitalism. Most of the world, yes. Smartphone owning westerners: get real, colonizers.
This assumes that said smartphones can only feasibly be created the way they currently are, and no other way. Can you genuinely not imagine minerals being mined, electronics assembled, by well paid workers?
Thats not to say the current absurd rate would still be sustainable in such conditions, but i don’t think you can definitively say that losing capitalism would inevitably mean a decrease in living standards. A well managed transition to socialism could maintain much of our luxuries.
Where did I say most phones can never be fairly or sustainably produced? It’s almost like you’re replying to the wrong comment, because I never said I can’t imagine miners being well paid.
I happen to agree with the points you made. I was just describing the current conditions. I think that people at the lower end of the American economy believe they’re getting screwed by capitalism, when they don’t actually know what screwed is, or how they too are complicit in the same exploitation they cry out against, just with invisible foreign workers.
If we’re going to move beyond capitalism, we need to understand what we stand to gain and lose. I don’t think most do.
Capitalism as we have it absolutely favors westerners. Yes I’m saying that. How does that imply that I don’t think phones can ever be produced sustainably/fairly? Please explain the words you’re putting in my mouth.
Didn’t i just explain to you my thought process? I’m not putting words in your mouth, it just seemed that’s what you were getting at. Otherwise the smartphone reference seems totally random
Smartphones are made with cheap third world labor. Everyone in the US has one, even those of us supposedly getting so exploited by capitalism. Therefore, the smartphone is like a membership card in the “capitalist exploiters” club. Which I was saying we all belong to.
I know they’re made with cheap labour, that’s exactly what I talked about. Well if you weren’t saying socialism couldn’t make them, then whatever. Sorry I misunderstood. But I do think a well planned transition to a worldwide socialist economy could maintain our way of life, and introduce everyone else to it (should they desire)
Availability of education and basic needs is inversely proportional to birthrates.
This is a lie. It’s a lie promulgated by wealthy interests to fight against economic redistribution. You can only reach the conclusion that wealth has no impact on birth rate by making inappropriate comparisons between countries. But when you look within countries, the true relationship is revealed.
There is no relationship between wealth and number of kids…until you reach an income level of $300k or so. Then, there is a very strong correlation. It makes sense. In the US, that’s about the level of income you need to really be insulated from the worst aspects of the US’s economic system. At that point, you can afford to send your kids to a decent school. You don’t have to worry about going bankrupt from health care costs. You can likely afford to have a parent stay home if necessary. At that income level, you’re able to simply purchase the level of stability that would come with a proper social safety net. And once people have some stability and security, they start having kids.
You’re forgetting another portion of the calculation: amount of resources, and resource generation rate.
Take food for example. We have, and create, far more food than is needed. If that rate continues, we can theoretically keep pumping out people until the birth rates and food generation rates converge.
The actual problem, as it stands currently, is not the amount of resources, or how quickly we can create them: the problem is how they are distributed.
It also takes knowing stopping births is possible and having the access to it. In lthe midst of the worst atrocities in human history we have still had sex. Slaves in the American south still had children in conditions that vastly outstrip anything else in modern capitalism. Native Americans still had children as disease killed 90% of their population. As long as there is enough food to keep survivors healthy enough to concieve and carry to term we have always had children. Because we always seek comfort from one another and sometimes that’s sexual.
Now we have the opportunity to get that comfort without bringing in the child and we do.
I said it before and I’ll say it again …
It’s not about the quantity of life
It’s about the quality of life
If you make the world a capitalistic hell hole where people are constantly worked to the bone without much reward and no time to enjoy their lives, then chances are, they won’t be motivated or even healthy enough to want to have children. In the premodern wild, people had many children because they had time and they knew that conditions had the possibility of improving in the future. Sure, many of their children died but they knew that the ones who did survive would have a chance to survive if they worked hard enough because they knew their work would be rewarded.
In our current world … you can work until your hands fall off and you won’t be rewarded. More and more people are realizing that they don’t want that for themselves so why should they do that to their unborn children?
The conditions for humanity are falling everywhere and people are so compassionate for their children that many of them feel like they don’t want to bring their children into this hell hole we’ve created if 99.99% of everyone has no chance at a good life.
Capitalism is all about using other people so that YOU can have an amazing quality of life. And even if you’re at the lower end of the economy in the US or Europe, your standard of living is propped up by third world labor, so really I strongly doubt that anyone here is in a position to say they’d be better off without capitalism. Most of the world, yes. Smartphone owning westerners: get real, colonizers.
This assumes that said smartphones can only feasibly be created the way they currently are, and no other way. Can you genuinely not imagine minerals being mined, electronics assembled, by well paid workers?
Thats not to say the current absurd rate would still be sustainable in such conditions, but i don’t think you can definitively say that losing capitalism would inevitably mean a decrease in living standards. A well managed transition to socialism could maintain much of our luxuries.
Where did I say most phones can never be fairly or sustainably produced? It’s almost like you’re replying to the wrong comment, because I never said I can’t imagine miners being well paid.
I happen to agree with the points you made. I was just describing the current conditions. I think that people at the lower end of the American economy believe they’re getting screwed by capitalism, when they don’t actually know what screwed is, or how they too are complicit in the same exploitation they cry out against, just with invisible foreign workers.
If we’re going to move beyond capitalism, we need to understand what we stand to gain and lose. I don’t think most do.
You implied that westerners would be much worse off without capitalism, and specifically referred to smartphones, seemed clear to me
Capitalism as we have it absolutely favors westerners. Yes I’m saying that. How does that imply that I don’t think phones can ever be produced sustainably/fairly? Please explain the words you’re putting in my mouth.
Didn’t i just explain to you my thought process? I’m not putting words in your mouth, it just seemed that’s what you were getting at. Otherwise the smartphone reference seems totally random
Insufficiently, I guess because I did not follow.
Smartphones are made with cheap third world labor. Everyone in the US has one, even those of us supposedly getting so exploited by capitalism. Therefore, the smartphone is like a membership card in the “capitalist exploiters” club. Which I was saying we all belong to.
I know they’re made with cheap labour, that’s exactly what I talked about. Well if you weren’t saying socialism couldn’t make them, then whatever. Sorry I misunderstood. But I do think a well planned transition to a worldwide socialist economy could maintain our way of life, and introduce everyone else to it (should they desire)
Availability of education and basic needs is inversely proportional to birthrates.
This is a lie. It’s a lie promulgated by wealthy interests to fight against economic redistribution. You can only reach the conclusion that wealth has no impact on birth rate by making inappropriate comparisons between countries. But when you look within countries, the true relationship is revealed.
There is no relationship between wealth and number of kids…until you reach an income level of $300k or so. Then, there is a very strong correlation. It makes sense. In the US, that’s about the level of income you need to really be insulated from the worst aspects of the US’s economic system. At that point, you can afford to send your kids to a decent school. You don’t have to worry about going bankrupt from health care costs. You can likely afford to have a parent stay home if necessary. At that income level, you’re able to simply purchase the level of stability that would come with a proper social safety net. And once people have some stability and security, they start having kids.
I was using the mathematician Hans Rosling as a reference. He researches how to slow population growth.
You’re forgetting another portion of the calculation: amount of resources, and resource generation rate.
Take food for example. We have, and create, far more food than is needed. If that rate continues, we can theoretically keep pumping out people until the birth rates and food generation rates converge.
The actual problem, as it stands currently, is not the amount of resources, or how quickly we can create them: the problem is how they are distributed.
Food, water, shelter, safety. Those are the basic needs. I didn’t forget. But yes, distribution is the main cause of food scarcity.
On a reread, I realise distribution is a part of “availability”, so i may have misinterpreted earlier. Sorry.
It also takes knowing stopping births is possible and having the access to it. In lthe midst of the worst atrocities in human history we have still had sex. Slaves in the American south still had children in conditions that vastly outstrip anything else in modern capitalism. Native Americans still had children as disease killed 90% of their population. As long as there is enough food to keep survivors healthy enough to concieve and carry to term we have always had children. Because we always seek comfort from one another and sometimes that’s sexual.
Now we have the opportunity to get that comfort without bringing in the child and we do.