1573
Every day. (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] chester22@api.clubsall.com 18 points 5 months ago
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago
[-] Daxtron2@startrek.website 7 points 5 months ago

We just need to have some bell riots and WW3 and then bam star trek

[-] kshade@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Don't forget to add a little bit of post-atomic horror!

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 20 points 5 months ago

Are you telling me you can't even imagine a better world?

[-] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 5 months ago

I think that they mean you still have to eat and sleep and try to have joy in your life.

[-] Squirrel@thelemmy.club 7 points 5 months ago
[-] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too

[-] null@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 months ago

Can you simply imagine things into existence?

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 8 points 5 months ago

You can act them into existence, but you'll never even start if you can't imagine anything better, even if that's just "we should improve society somewhat."

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 points 5 months ago
[-] lath@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Your nightmare is someone else's dream.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 5 months ago

My nightmare is a libertarian's wet dream?

[-] lath@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

No idea. Never met a libertarian.

No realistic society can satisfy everyone, because when it comes to individual desires, "we the people" falls apart.

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

How about a society that isn't predicated on the exploitation of others?

Some societies are objectively more pleasant to humans than others, otherwise we wouldn't strive at all

[-] lath@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Any society needs resources. In order for a society to grow or maintain itself, their consumption of resources must not exceed the production of it. Should we pursue a society that doesn't depend on the heavy exploitation of resources, it would mean to severely limit the reproduction of its population within the society's means of sustaining them. Our planet does not have the capability to sustain our current 8 billion population.

Many of us will die and after that many would be restricted in their rights for procreation.

As such, while those societies might be pleasant for some humans, the ones it needs to get rid of to achieve its desired status won't be too happy with it needing them gone.

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

I think it's doable. Sure we won't have so much cheap crap in the north, but no one needs to starve.

[-] lath@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

It might be. Depends on the people really. Hopefully there will be a good example to follow.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

Moving on from class society

[-] Censored@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

People all over the world have agency.

this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
1573 points (96.4% liked)

memes

10412 readers
1106 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS