Well, yes. But that'd require fair, sensible distribution and use of available resources, and then how would we be able to support the ability of a handful of billionaires to subvert our democracies for their own gain? /s
The problem is a combination of intrinsic psychological biases of those with means. Once they reach a certain threshold, they become driven to keep accumulating until they own everything. Gotta catch 'em all.
This threshold is likely different for everyone, and may not be related to other thresholds of accumulation, such as:
Some capitalists are self aware enough to recognize the impulse is not sustainable, (also that profits are better had with happy workers) which often comes from having risen to wealth from more modest means. (But not always).
At any rate, rich dudes who drop billions into massive public improvement projects are rare, and when they do they tend to see it as revenue source, or at least something to exploit to improve their brand image.
So the next step for society is to discover a sociological technique that allows rich guys to think I have enough, to drop their surplus into the hands of the community (say the general fund of the local governing body)
That or accept that we are too simple a species to navigate some very imminent great filters. We may not count as a space-faring civilization that might encounter other space-faring civilizations.
This is not a new idea. Fourth International–Posadism opined that developing communism (or a refinement thereof) would be a prerequisite for space colonization. I'd argue changing from capitalism is a prerequisite for societal sustainability more than a couple of centuries from now.
We are living in a false-scarcity society when we could be living in a post-scarcity one.
How does that quote go? Something like: the future is here, it's just unevenly distributed.
We wanted Star Trek, but we got Shadowrun.
Where's me cyberdeck
I've seen this before. Last time I looked, it required that everyone live in cities with good public transportation. It also didn't factor in modern necessities like air conditioning (which will be actually necessary in many more parts of the world due to global warming).
Basically, for this to work, everyone needs to live in 2-bedroom apartments... Without air conditioning or anything like a desktop PC. You'd have a small refrigerator and heat your food with a microwave (and nothing else because stovetop and ovens use up too much energy).
It also makes huge assumptions about the availability of food, where it can be grown, and that all the necessary nutrients/fertilizer are already present in the soil and that transporting/processing things like grain is super short distance/cheap.
Also, communism. It requires functioning communism. That everyone will be ok with it and there will be no wars over resources/land.
It requires strict rationing. Everyone gets their fair share, and no one gets multiples of what other people get.
Not only that, but all 8.5 billion would also need to be willing to stop any "lifestyle inflation". It's not just about accepting it for a day, it's about adjusting to that being the norm for themselves and for their kids into the foreseeable future.
A question that I frequently ask when presented this is "what would you personally be willing to give up?" Of course it is important to realize that some of it is systemic and not within the average person's control (e.g. car-centric infrastructure)
Right. I think there are a lot of people who would be happy to give up something, but would need big societal changes first. Like, giving up driving a car, but would need cities to be designed more like Europe where it's possible to get by without a car. Or, living in a more efficient high-rise apartment building vs. a less efficient detached house, but would need building codes and standards to be better so they weren't constantly being annoyed by a noisy neighbour, or having to put up with smells from other apartments.
This is the answer. I have a nonstandard sleep cycle (I worked nights for a decade) and that alone keeps me out of apartments. I refuse to subject a downstairs neighbor to me being most awake at 1am, and I likewise can't sleep when my neighbors are awake.
Yeah, I have a different sleep schedule too. But, it doesn't mean that I can't live in apartment. It just means I can't live in a poorly built apartment with bad sound isolation between floors.
I've been in high quality apartments where you could never hear the neighbours at all. The problem is, there's no requirement to build them like that, and it's much cheaper not to, so they don't tend to do it. If I could be guaranteed not to be disturbed, I'd probably prefer a high-rise. But, I've had too many bad experiences with loud neighbours, or with air leakage so I could smell it when my neighbours were smoking.
Technically, I could live in an apartment. But I can't afford a nice one, so I can't live in an apartment, haha.
That's definitely part of it. But, also because it's not part of the building code, they can just lie. So, even if you go look at a luxury apartment building, they might tell you that it's high quality and you can't hear the neighbours at all. Maybe if you get a chance to talk to someone who lives there they can tell you the truth. But, in my experience a lot of real estate agents / rental agents / landlords and the like lie.
How is strict rationing to provide for everyone not communism?
Just boiling down and highlighting the key point in a "how will this personally affect me" sort of way.
The only problem is really consent and the propaganda against these goals. E.g. Air conditioning or cooking is rather nitpicking, those are not real issues, technological advances and passive house design would easily solve that. With Kite Power you already have unlimited energy.
And you could build a huge apartment block surrounded by nature, growing food directly around you and sharing infrastructure. Everyone could get a luxurious apartment with high ceilings and a killer view for everyone. If drastically less people need to commute to work, we wouldn't need to live in a city. You could also have communal kitchens or diners or cafeteria.
The greatest luxury of all would be to have free time. To enjoy life, to study and learn for free, to raise your children in peace. Not consumerism. Let the masses produce VR games if they have too much free time.
I also disagree that it requires full on communism, a UBI or expanded bill of rights for the human necessities to reach a decent living standard (DLS) could work too. You'd just heavily regulate, ban industrial meat production, bad advertising to avoid consumerism etc.
Air conditioning or cooking is rather nitpicking, those are not real issues, technological advances and passive house design would easily solve that.
The entire world doesn't have the climate of Japan where it's possible to live in an apartment without AC and heat. No amount of design can ameliorate 38C high humidity.
growing food directly around you
Only a subset of food can be grown locally and that local food is only available seasonally. It's the system we already have.
You could also have communal kitchens or diners or cafeteria.
That's not a technological solution to cooking. That's social which is far harder if not impossible to overcome.
The greatest luxury of all would be to have free time.
That doesn't follow. The same work needs to be done, if not more because reducing energy means reducing automation so people have to work to make up the difference.
Yes this lowest-common-denominator life we’d all be living would save billions suffering through abject poverty but none of those people are here, reading this right now. Everyone reading this would probably see a lifestyle decline. I always have to laugh when anyone in Europe or the US blab as if they are part of the 90%. We are 10%ers every one of us.
Thats the part that sucks. For super poor people this is great. For those of us already in a decent house, it would be a lot worse. I For one cant live in apartments, unless I was absolutely close to homeless.
Although, if we took the billionaires down a notch I bet a lot more people could also have houses.
A planned economy that functions at optimum efficiency is a communists wet dream of course.
or anything like a desktop PC
gulp
Kind of what I was getting at with my comments. The median standard of living doesn't have to be bad or even particularly uncomfortable, but it would require everyone who lives above that median to be knocked down to it and be okay with that. Which they won't. Meaning it will require force.
I'm skeptical. I just skimmed the paper, but most of it seems to be taking a financial/macro-economic perspective without too much analysis on individual resources availability and the damage just current levels of output are causing to our environment/resources. I've seen other research that claim we are already over the carrying capacity of Earth, some say by a large margin (e.g. carrying capacity is 2 billion people). I'm pretty sure humans are already using (and degrading) the majority of Earth's arable land, for instance.
This is a major flaw in science and basic economic comprehension. You could grow enough potatoes to feed the world enough calories with just the area of France. We could build huge apartment blocks surrounded by farmland and connected via tiny mono rails. We could build apartments and appliances and computers that last for a century. We could genetically engineer microalgae to taste like pancake butter. If we half the number of required workers, we'd save a mountain of resources on commute. We could design everything to be recyclable. Wind energy with Kites Power gives us near unlimited energy. Our footprint could be tiny but with the luxury of free time, learning, arts and living in a community and in nature.
We are nowhere near carrying capacity, we're just over because we waste so much on consumerism, planned obsolescence, unsustainable crops and artificial scarcity.
Our civilization is a fucking joke but science treats current conditions as if they were normal and immutable.
I saw this infographic posted a few days ago and it's a bit misleading. The percentages are based on biomass, not population. I also don't remember what the original source is, and it looks like it got cropped off the one you posted here. If you remember the source, could you link it?
Oh I got it from here but I tracked it down with a Google search.
I can't say if this is the original source but maybe. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
Biomass VS population makes some sense though. Having a million ants would be sure, lots, but having a million elephants would be WTF wholy shit!
Our problem is distribution. It's a hard problem to solve but it's much better than the easy solution.
We have already enough resources for everyone. It is just that the 1% is hoarding all of it.
It is definitely possible a "decent" living standard is lower in their minds then mine or yours or ours. I am very curious
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
