Home | About | Donate

Let's Just Admit It: Capitalism Doesn't Work


#41

How can we call centralized systems like capitalism or socialism, “democracy”?

If its not direct, its not democracy.


#42

Explain lagom please. Thank you.


#43

Your information is horribly out of date. There is no evidence that population is out of control. It will likely stabilize around 2100 at about 10-11 billion. Those many can be easily supported if we stabilize climate change and create an economy that shares resource fairly.

There are increasing concerns of fertility-driven population crashes, not “bombs” - already a major concern in places like Russia, Japan, and some European countries and soon, China. Should a critical percentage of the population reach 45-50 years of age - beyond child-bearing age, the real threat of fertility-crash-driven economic collapse, then human extinction becomes a possibility. The mathematics of population growth and decline is fundamentally chaotic - chaos theory arose from population modeling studies. Deliberate attempts to control human fertility could go badly awry - the Chinese are starting to worry about this now with regard to their too-successful “one-child policy”.


#44

You need to be careful about your expression “cultural DNA” - it can easily lead to racist thinking. Why not just use “cultural tradition” - that newcomers of all nationalities and skin colors gladly adopt.


#45

It’s in the wiki link below my comment.


#46

I think you’re being unnecessarily PC pedantic. Does culture have DNA? No, it’s an abstraction, so how can it. DNA in this context is just a general term meaning ingrained at a fundamental level. Surely you’ve come across people using the expression in that way before? Language is a flexible tool, exact meanings morph.


#47

Could you refresh what the comment was?


#48

Yes, I interviewed 1.2 Billion of them and they’re really sweating bullets on this underbirthing problem.:wink:


#49

#50

??? Your response is incomprehensible.

Please study the mathematics of population growth and decay. Loss of fertility in an aging population will catastrophically crash that population over just a few decades. The starting size of that population has nothing to do with anything. China’s population growth rate (0.5% per year) is almost the lowest in the world and is declining even with the end of the one child policy and is now below replacement rate. Once the post-cultural revolution/famine “baby boom” demographic of the 1960s starts to age and die in a couple decades, the crash will begin. Absent a shift in Chinese attitudes in having children, it’s practically guaranteed at this point. And similar social-economic forces are playing out in all but a handful of the poorest countries.

That’s the long answer; the short answer is that Paul Erlich’s ideas have been totally discredited and its time to send those yellowing pages of “The Population Bomb” to the historical archives of wrong conjectures.


#51

Well, it just smells of the “immigrants are polluting our white culture and traditions” rhetoric of the neo-fascists.


#52

A few decades? So, we’re a suppose to get in a big lather about China losing population in a few decades? Tell that to the elephants and the marine life and all the other things being extinguished right now by China’s very conspicuous consumption. If China cools their consumption in a few decades they can hire help from India, The Philippines, Indonesia or somewhere else. The world is not lacking in Chinese.


#53

And you haven’t even mentioned how capitalism commodifies and hence devalues human capital itself …


#54

I have. You obviously have not, unless your source was “infowars” or something like it.