General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCapitalism Is Just an Economic System
Is it destroying our planet? No. It is simply providing the products demanded by the mass of humans on our overpopulated planet. It is human needs and demands that are destroying the environment, not capitalism itself.
It's popular with some to blame capitalism for the industries that contribute to global climate change, but that's missing a hugely important factor.
Everyone who complains on some Internet forum that it is capitalism that is the primary evil is using some sort of technology to post on that forum. Where did that technology come from, and why are those people using it and contributing the the very thing that they claim is the destructive force?
Whether you access the Internet with a cell phone or a desktop computer, you are supporting an entire chain of industries, all of which are capitalistic in nature.
The food you eat, the place you live, and everything around you that you use demands energy. It is the creation of that energy that is harming the environment and we all contribute to the systems that provide the things we need and demand. If you have a job, you are an active participant in a capitalistic system.
The reality is that overpopulation is the cause of global climate change. Every living human is a consumer of some kind, and is dependent on the productive work of other human beings, often people who live thousands of miles away. From mining raw materials to manufacturing the technology we all use, human demands are what drive economies. Capitalism is simply the most often used economic system that organizes and enables all of that global industry.
Blaming the system instead of our own desires and needs and our ever-increasing numbers is over-simplistic thinking.
Simplistic thinking solves nothing. Expanding your recognition of causes and effects might help, but only if you are willing to give up the very things you use on a daily basis. Capitalism keeps you alive, to be quite frank. Without it, you would starve and live in a hut.
Please think longer and in a more complex way. Blaming the predominant economic system on this planet will accomplish nothing.
/rant
ProfessorGAC
(64,427 posts)There is nothing inherently evil in any economic system.
The evil creeps in during flawed execution by flawed people.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)48656c6c6f20
(7,638 posts)dalton99a
(81,081 posts)Your hatred of our benevolent oligarchs is noted
hunter
(38,264 posts)Dollars, Euros, or gold. Doesn't matter.
Reducing human interactions to a single linear measure of value is absurd on the face of it.
That's why capitalism requires such careful regulation. Otherwise it is cruel system and not fully functional or fair as a means of allocating resources.
On the earth of Star Trek the Next Generation people have largely forgotten about money. It's not an aspect of their daily lives. Sometimes I amuse myself thinking about how that might come to be.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127108076
Ron Green
(9,821 posts)that there are not enough capitalists.
Boomerproud
(7,889 posts)The core of what America has become.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It doesn't equal Freedom. Freedom enables it.
Most of the world is capitalistic. Why? Because it is the economic system that works best for large populations.
iemanja
(53,003 posts)Just to name a few. Our country was born out of liberalism--classical liberalism was an ideology that held capitalism and the individual as above other forms of economy and government. I disagree that it has no bearing on climate change. In fact it is a central element of it. Cars are generated for profit and many massive polluters do so for profit. Of course we all bear responsibility on the consumer side of that equation, but capitalism is far more than an economic system. I think this is an area where Marxists, particular Marx himself, have insights that extend beyond the limited system you present.
Also note that consumption is absolutely related to capitalism.
We would not live in a society where people want more and more if not for capitalism. Countries, advertisers, and the media have convinced us that we need things. That does not absolve our own responsibility, but it provides context for it.
brush
(53,475 posts)wanting to make a profit from their innovation and work. When unfettered greed comes into it is where the problems start.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)I do think the Earth is overpopulated in a few senses. For example, there's only one Kauai, end everyone can't live there (or it won't be Kauai any more).
The base problem with climate change and the environment in general is per capita footprint. Get our per capita carbon footprint down, and we can try to stop the pending climate change disaster. Get our waste footprint down and we can stop filling up landfills and polluting the oceans with plastic.
Doing that sort of thing takes work. Work = Jobs. Customer = Government. Capitalism = Producer.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)the more humans consume. The more we consume, the more that has to be produced. It is the production of goods that causes pollution, not the mere existence of human beings. If you track pollution against population over the past five centuries, you will see that at work.
If there were no increase in population, then advances in efficient technology would produce less pollution of all kinds. Instead, the pollution continues to rise as the population increases, along with the demand for goods.
Add to that the increasingly global nature of production at all levels, and we have what we have. We cannot reduce pollution or carbon production anywhere near enough to reverse that process. What is done anywhere affects every part of the planet, in the end.
It is overpopulation. We are approaching 8 billion people alive on the Earth. Just 100 years ago, in 1920, global population was 1.912 Billion. In 100 years we have increased global population by a factor of four. The increase continues.
There is no escaping that reality. There is no useful fix available. There simply is not.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Anti-intellectual religions will be the death of this civilization, the first world civilization in history. I include the anti-intellectual religion of money.
How do we deal with people who won't wear masks or get vaccines in an actual pandemic?
How do we deal with religions that throw away most of their potential intellectual capacity by teaching their children nonsense, by denying their girls an education, or by subjugating women? (That's not just a Taliban problem...)
We've had the technology to eliminate fossil fuels for at least seventy years now. But somehow many people have disproportionate fear of radioactive toxins, much more so than equally dangerous non-radioactive toxins, some of which have a half life of fucking FOREVER. Ignore the carcinogens in the gas tank of the car parked in your garage but be afraid of tritium releases from the Fukushima accident. It makes no sense.
The first "fix" for these problems is the economic empowerment of women. The second is realistic sex education starting at an early age and universal access to birth control. The third is the banning of fossil fuels.
None of these things are impossible but for the influence of innumerate, illiterate, anti-intellectual, FUBAR religious beliefs.
marie999
(3,334 posts)We just have to do things like stop eating meat, living in smaller housing, do away with vehicles other than those that transport goods or services like paramedics, only allow farming of produce that needs the least amount of water, not allow people to live in places like Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Since none of that will be done, we just have to wait until climate change reduces our population to the point where humans use less of what the planet can regenerate.
Silent3
(15,020 posts)While grain-fed cattle is a very inefficient way to produce protein, grass-fed cattle, grazing on land that is not arable, is a more efficient way to produce protein for human consumption than growing, for example, soy beans.
There isn't enough grazing land of that sort to produce all the meat we eat, so meat eating would have to decrease, but elimination isn't actually the best choice.
If we could convince more people to eat insects (I'm not thrilled about that, but I'm willing to give something like crickets a try whenever I get a chance), that's another great way to feed people efficiently.
At any rate, I think 10 billion people is way too many no matter how you deal with it. It's just too much human demand for planetary resources that would better be distributed to a more diverse ecosystem with fewer people in it.
Silent3
(15,020 posts)The former Soviet Union demonstrated that you don't need capitalism to create environmental catastrophes.
Overpopulation is also responsible for another major environmental problem that doesn't get as much coverage as climate change, and that's land use. We used up all the best arable already, and are increasingly doing things like burning down rain forest to clear for farming and grazing -- destroying habitats, biodiversity, and adding to carbon emissions at the same time.