This is why capitalism sucks

[tomsnowman123]

And how many people could these small ecovillages support. It sounds like the human's population would drastically decline, as the means to support such a large populous is eliminated.

About 50-150 individuals a village, with a few larger ones of about 2,000, these large ones would be used as subcommunities that fit the ecovillage model and can help support social networks.

 

[spankey]

Localized production for small ecovillages, not for worldwide demand. Each village could produce what they need, which wouldn't be a lot.

Doesn't this sound like a Cambodia-type scenario in the 1970's? Are there prosperous and self-sufficent communes? There is no utopia

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

About 50-150 individuals a village, with a few larger ones of about 2,000, these large ones would be used as subcommunities that fit the ecovillage model and can help support social networks.

How large will these villages be?

What about regions with hostile environments?

How can these villages effectively communicate with each other, without using telephone, computer, internet, motor transportation, ect?

 

[mdwh]

I believe a laissez-faire system directly contradicts itself because of the elitist society it creates and the power it gives to the rich.

Contradicts in what way? If you mean that a society without state interference in the market would still have rich people who could control the market, then yes, perhaps. However, the same criticism can be made of anarchy - a society without government would still have people with power.

How about localized prodcution, not global corporations.

Localised production is still capitalism - as I say, it sounds like it's (big) corporations you are against.

 

[tomsnowman123]

How large will these villages be?

What about regions with hostile environments?

How can these villages effectively communicate with each other, without using telephone, computer, internet, motor transportation, ect?

The villages would be big enough to hold the population comfortably without damaging the natural surrounding.

Hostile enviroments doesn't really change a whole lot of things, just live in better houses, etc.

Computers and internet are perfectly viable techs.

 

[Sidhe]

Yes, this corporation is looking for a more profitable means of distributing this drug. If patients are outraged, they can refuse to buy the drug from this company and give it to their rival. If this company loses enough buisness then they will work to market the cheaper version of the drug.

I explained before that the NHS cannot afford to do anything but buy the more expensive drug, it's customer is being ripped off and there's nothing they can do about it. Do you consider this immoral at all, or are you only thinking of the implication to the budgets on both sides? Does the patience well being impact on the notion this is good capatalism in progress?

Avastin is under license they cannot give it to anyone. This is plainly an abuse of their position for sheer profit and nothing else, the sick ****** who thought this up should be held to acount for the damage it will do not just in the UK but in developing countries that could of afforded avastin, but now will see neither this nor the new wonder drug, which is in fact the same thing repackaged.

 

[mdwh]

Localized production for small ecovillages, not for worldwide demand. Each village could produce what they need, which wouldn't be a lot.

About 50-150 individuals a village, with a few larger ones of about 2,000, these large ones would be used as subcommunities that fit the ecovillage model and can help support social networks.

So we have villages of up to 150 people, producing what they need. I take it you are willing to live without computers, cars, electricity, and are happy to go back to a pre-industrial society?

I can see that there are problems with extremely large corporations, but this is one extreme to the other - there are advantages to having a society where things are mass produced for large numbers of people (e.g., economies of scale, and people can specialise in particular areas more).

Also I suspect it would be impossible to maintain today's population with us living in such a society, so how do we reduce the population?

 

[tomsnowman123]

So we have villages of up to 150 people, producing what they need. I take it you are willing to live without computers, cars, electricity, and are happy to go back to a pre-industrial society?

I can see that there are problems with extremely large corporations, but this is one extreme to the other - there are advantages to having a society where things are mass produced for large numbers of people (e.g., economies of scale, and people can specialise in particular areas more).

Also I suspect it would be impossible to maintain today's population with us living in such a society, so how do we reduce the population?

A village of 2,000 could easily produce enough computers to provide for a few other villages of 50-150, and so on. You don't need monstrous cities to survive as a species, and this wouldn't be a return to the stoneage.

The population thing is a difficult question, but there is a lot of space on this planet, and we would be living with the enviroment, not against it, so spreading out wouldn't be a bad thing. However, I would never wish the death of people to see my goals through.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

The villages would be big enough to hold the population comfortably without damaging the natural surrounding.

Hostile enviroments doesn't really change a whole lot of things, just live in better houses, etc.

Computers and internet are perfectly viable techs.

What about resource distribution?

What about the big drop off in productivity since there are no longer specialized industries?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I explained before that the NHS cannot afford to do anything but buy the more expensive drug, it's customer is being ripped off and there's nothing they can do about it. Do you consider this immoral at all, or are you only thinking of the implication to the budgets on both sides? Does the patience well being impact on the notion this is good capatalism in progress?

Avastin is under license they cannot give it to anyone. This is plainly an abuse of their position for sheer profit and nothing else, the sick ****** who thought this up should be held to acount for the damage it will do not just in the UK but in developing countries that could of afforded avastin, but now will see neither this nor the new wonder drug, which is in fact the same thing repackaged.

People have gone on before without this drug and will still be able to go on with other treatments if they can't afford it. In a couple of years the license the company has on it will expire and the drug can be made by competitors and generically for a lower price.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Contradicts in what way? If you mean that a society without state interference in the market would still have rich people who could control the market, then yes, perhaps. However, the same criticism can be made of anarchy - a society without government would still have people with power.

Localised production is still capitalism - as I say, it sounds like it's (big) corporations you are against.

Here's my answer to your first question: Capitalism: Contadicting

Capitalsim an economic or socioeconomic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, not production to meet the needs of society.

Anarchy would allow people to have freedom from any authority or orginization of power.

What about resource distribution?

What about the big drop off in productivity since there are no longer specialized industries?

We are talking about small villages producing simply what they need, they don't need to distribute around the world or anything. Secondly, we really don't need all of the technology we have these days, we should focus more on "appropriate technology."

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

We are talking about small villages producing simply what they need, they don't need to distribute around the world or anything. Secondly, we really don't need all of the technology we have these days, we should focus more on "appropriate technology."

Essentially you are wanting to set human progress back a couple thousand years. At one time we had self-sustaning villages, then those villages realized they could make something more efficiently than another and statrted to barter for goods, our current society here today is not simply a random occurance it is based on what has been shown to work.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Essentially you are wanting to set human progress back a couple thousand years. At one time we had self-sustaning villages, then those villages realized they could make something more efficiently than another and statrted to barter for goods, our current society here today is not simply a random occurance it is based on what has been shown to work.

It's not like we are going to destroy all technology and knowledge here, just a reorginization and deep questioning of society.

 

[bathsheba666]

At a pinch it's permissible to allow companies to amorally pursue profit.

But only if the society they pretend to be a part of has the right to correct their behaviour when it offends common decency.
This is the role of the government.
This is only ok as long as the government hasn't been bought.
The UK and US do not have a good story here.

Why do I find believers in the power of the Holy Market to be even spookier than fundy religious l**nies? /rhetorical question.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

It's not like we are going to destroy all technology and knowledge here, just a reorginization and deep questioning of society.

Okay your not going to destroy technology, but simply let much of it idle and be put to no use.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Okay your not going to destroy technology, but simply let much of it idle and be put to no use.

Only that of which whose whose risk/cost/value tradeoff is compelling enough to justify continued use, such as technology that degrades the enviroment.

 

[Tulkas12]

Only that of which whose whose risk/cost/value tradeoff is compelling enough to justify continued use, such as technology that degrades the enviroment.

Define degradation of the enviroment please. CO2 output? Limited Resource usage? What are we talking about here?

You know that I veiw capitalism as the best way to cope with human nature anyways. It promotes the best out of each of us, and therefore makes man excel at an individual level and as a group as a whole. Capitalism is our only hope
(so far devised) to get of this rock we call earth and gaurnetee life's survival as we know it.

It is evil in many ways and I freely acknowledge this, but it is less evil than anything else as of yet devised or put into action.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Only that of which whose whose risk/cost/value tradeoff is compelling enough to justify continued use, such as technology that degrades the enviroment.

Who makes that determination? How much resources will be funneled into researching the potential harm of continuing to use a technology? How much resources will be used setting up these new ecovillages? How will the populous be divided?

 

[tomsnowman123]

Define degradation of the enviroment please. CO2 output? Limited Resource usage? What are we talking about here?

You know that I veiw capitalism as the best way to cope with human nature anyways. It promotes the best out of each of us, and therefore makes man excel at an individual level and as a group as a whole. Capitalism is our only hope
(so far devised) to get of this rock we call earth and gaurnetee life's survival as we know it.

It is evil in many ways and I freely acknowledge this, but it is less evil than anything else as of yet devised or put into action.

Appropriate technology is technology that is most appropriate to the environment and culture it is intended to support. Get rid of technology that fosters a consumerist society (TV), get rid of technology who's strict purpose is military use. Use technology who's potential good for nature and/or humanity outweighs it's limited eclogical damage (low cost, low maintanece, little effect on nature), use technologies that do no damage to nature, or help to keep it alive, like technologies that help to reduce our carbon footprint. Suport technology that tends to promote values such as health.

Try to use sustainable and local resources when technology is not needed.

Capitalism is still not good, imo.

 

[Tulkas12]

Appropriate technology is technology that is most appropriate to the environment and culture it is intended to support. Get rid of technology that fosters a consumerist society (TV), get rid of technology who's strict purpose is military use. Use technology who's potential good for nature and/or humanity outweighs it's limited eclogical damage (low cost, low maintanece, little effect on nature), use technologies that do no damage to nature, or help to keep it alive, like technologies that help to reduce our carbon footprint. Suport technology that tends to promote values such as health.

Try to use sustainable and local resources when technology is not needed.

Capitalism is still not good, imo.

I disagree, but fair enough. You know I appreciate your veiws. I agree with alot of your feelings, I just wish more people (especially in certain areas of the world) felt like you.

Btw, I think TV has its uses. I understand your anti-consumerism stand though.