Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by marccarre on Sunday May 05, 2019 @11:50PM
(#19836717)
I don't understand this article as being about changing to a socialist system. AFAIU, it is about better taking Life & Nature into account in our current economic system & models. We do to some extent, but they are massively undervalued, and economy & ecology aren't current aligned (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion in first place), hence our current economy is unsustainable.
I think of it as finding the "fair price" for having X many trees, X many wild animals, pure air, pure water, etc. on our planet and consuming some to produce goods, food, etc. ; i.e. a fairer price between the immediate gain, and the longer term consequences. A metaphor: what's the "fair price" for the "goose that laid the golden eggs" and the profit/loss for killing it?
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by mimixco on Monday May 06, 2019 @02:45PM
(#19842486)
If the price is determined by anything other than the market, that's socialism/collectivism/statism.
The idea that someone could do a better job of pricing than the market (with whatever definition of "better" appeals to you) has been disproved again and again. A person doesn't become an expert in what's "better" just because they work for the government. Thinking that it would amounts to worship of the state as an entity.
The planet's woes are caused by bad human behavior. There's no rule that says one must be inherently bad in order to have a capitalist business, just like there's no rule that would make a socialist economy naturally non-polluting. Governments and militaries are terrible polluters and they don't have a profit motive.
People are people and collectivism won't change that. Hitler, too, wanted the "New Man." It's dangerous to suggest that letting others decide for us (statism) would be capable of bringing that about.