The Impending Death of Modern Capitalism
Let's make sure we're all on the same page on the definition of capitalism.
It's basically a system in which private owne
Neanderthals With Disabilities Survived Through Social Support
A re-analysis of a 50,000 year old Neanderthal skull shows that, in addition to enduring multiple injuries and debilitations, this male individual was also profoundly deaf. Yet he lived well into his 40s, which is quite old by Paleolithic standards. ItÂ’s an achievement that could have only been possible with the help of others, according to new research.
Yet despite his deafness and his other physical setbacks, Shanidar 1 died between 40 and 50 years of age (based on dental analysis). By Paleolithic standards, he was an old man. The only way he could have lived to such a ripe old age is by receiving considerable help from others. “More than his loss of a forearm, bad limp and other injuries, his deafness would have made him easy prey for the ubiquitous carnivores in his environment and dependent on other members of his social group for survival
I'm thinking empathy and caring for the vulnerable and noncontributors may have given early human 'groups' a survival advantage. So rather than maladaptive, it helped create stronger, more resilient groups which were better at surviving in harsh environments eg the Ice Age.
Chimps don't behave like that despite having similar wirings for social behavior. But neither do they prey on the weak and vulnerable like other animals. More like tolerance I guess. Were they differ significantly is brain capacity and cognitive abilities. As we see with most every indigenous group who revere and keep their elders alive for their knowledge on surviving. Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean the individual if the individual is reliant on the group.
I'm thinking empathy and caring for the vulnerable and noncontributors may have given early human 'groups' a survival advantage.
If empathy and caring for the vulnerable did not confer a survival advantage, they wouldn't exist. The mere existence of these qualities is de facto evidence that they provide a survival advantage.
To live in a world which doesn't concern itself with the consequences accreting to young people and future generations as a result of environmental overshoot ...... that's an appreciation that empathy and caring have left the premises. That's why we're going to hell .... a dearth of empathy and caring.
I don't think that the capitalist religious scripture has any chapters on empathy and caring.
If I missed those chapters .... please feel free to point them out.
If empathy and caring for the vulnerable did not confer a survival advantage, they wouldn't exist. The mere existence of these qualities is de facto evidence that they provide a survival advantage. To live in a world which doesn't concern itself with the consequences accreting to young people and future generations as a result of environmental overshoot ...... that's an appreci
Nah, the mechanism is fine. It’s not a lack of empathy; it’s a lack of belief in the threat. If we spotted a large asteroid headed for Earth in 50 years, we’d act because the danger would be clear and existential. But most aren't seeing the "environmental overshoot" as an extinction level event. So it's different it that sense because people can downplay it, or mostly assume they or their children will be insulated from the worst. So it's not that we don’t care as much as we don’t feel the threat to ourselves or future generations.
Nah, the mechanism is fine. It’s not a lack of empathy; it’s a lack of belief in the threat. If we spotted a large asteroid headed for Earth in 50 years, we’d act because the danger would be clear and existential. But most aren't seeing the "environmental overshoot" as an extinction level event. So it's different it that sense because people can downplay it, or mostly assume th
You have a very different opinion about the definition of empathy and caring than I do.
The information which spells out our predicament is not held in a secret safe somewhere. The world has no shortage of credible and despondent scientists. People who know how to connect the dots between environmental destruction and the ramifications on the future food supply. The only way to avoid knowledge of their existence is to avoid them.
You are describing people who are effectively negligent in doing any due diligence on behalf of their own children as not lacking in empathy and caring. You are excusing ignorance born of laziness. That you don't feel the threat is a testament to your insensitivity.
As I said being able to keep chronically disabled people alive for long is a recent development so we haven't been selected for that.
If all empathy can do is to use resources for people temporarily in need and they either quickly go back to be useful, contributing members of the tribe or die, then of course the pro-group fitness tendency of that attitude can exist.
The group is basically going to invest a small amount of resources temporarily on a bet to either get back a full member or lose the resources.
Oh also, when hoarding/capital accumulation isn't available as an option allocating resources temporarily is less expensive for the tribe.
If the alternative for that little excess food is for healthy tribe members to overeat or for the time spent trying to heal the wounds of the ill to be spent dancing it's a different payoff equation vs "the tribe could otherwise improve the canal system to increase agricultural yields in the years to come" instead of wasting time and resources on the infirm and the old.
So basically come agriculture and sedentism, and with it the option to hoard grain for months and/or to develop the land, build infrastructure, build palaces, build durable items to use in houses and on the field, the equation changes dramatically.
And with higher population density you also don't risk anymore for the tribe to got extinct just by random fluctuations in population size and in a very real sense, a single human life is much less important when you are 10k people than when you are 100.
I don't think that the capitalist religious scripture has any chapters on empathy and caring.
If I missed those chapters .... please feel free to point them out.
The literal godfather of the discipline who wrote about how productivity is higher in capitalism (Adam Smith) wrote another whole book on empathy and caring.
Literally called "theory of moral sentiments"
Nah, the mechanism is fine. It’s not a lack of empathy; it’s a lack of belief in the threat. If we spotted a large asteroid headed for Earth in 50 years, we’d act because the danger would be clear and existential. But most aren't seeing the "environmental overshoot" as an extinction level event. So it's different it that sense because people can downplay it, or mostly assume th
Yep we actually know it's a very vanilla, open attempt of socialists to use scary tactics to try to get more power to install their socialist agenda
Who said anything about a plan ?Whether nature was designed via a plan or not is a mystery. Regardless of how it came into being, it's marvelous and awesome. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to contemplate and learn about it. I do, from time to time, try to imagine the force(s) which resu
Plan was probably not ideal word, had I known you would associate it with religious/meta concepts.
It was more the plan as the process of life evolving towards its survival/continuation.
And it was kinda tongue in cheek as in human species is maybe one of the dead ends of life, and even if life will continue, it won't necessarily be with a human form.
You have a very different opinion about the definition of empathy and caring than I do. The information which spells out our predicament is not held in a secret safe somewhere. The world has no shortage of credible and despondent scientists. People who know how to connect the dots between environmental destruction and the ramifications on the future food supply. The only way to
If an asteroid were set to hit Australia in two weeks, there’d be no one left there in ten days because the whole world would mobilize. That kind of threat feels real to us because it's undeniable and urgent. The problem with environmental overshoot isn’t that we don’t care; it's that the danger doesn’t feel immediate or personal, even though the long-term consequences may be just as serious. So the bar is higher.
But even if humans always wiggled-out of acting on these long-range, "ain't gonna be me" scenarios, that still doesn't prove that our species can't. Our operating system is like an algorithm--change the environment it operates in and we get a different outcome. That's a principle and principles aren't bound by precedent because we can never say that we've exposed that algorithm to every possible condition. For instance, one environment humans haven't existed in to any great extent is like craig1120 mentioned: abundance. If we genuinely had that, we'd clean the planet up based on the evidence - even if people questioned it - because it wouldn't cost us anything.
In a sense nature has a gun to our head with our lifespans. But if we figure out how to make humans live for thousands of years or forever, that 100 years might seem like two weeks to them and they'd feel a sense of urgency. Again, change the change and we get a different outcome.
I mean people worked to build cathedrals which they knew for a fact wouldn't be finished by the time of their death.
Not only we don't lack longtermism, we have it while all other living species don't.
For "the climate" we just profoundly and utterly disagree about the scope of the problem AND about how to fix the (infinitely less disastrous than the left claims) problem.
Ofc the left needs to claim "they have science" backing the extent of their claims (hint: they absolutely don't at all) , but after what they did with COVID no one will ever again believe them about any topic where science is used to inform policy
Your disagreement rests upon a foundation of complete ignorance.
You demonstrate zero knowledge of anything scientific. You never use data or evidence in any of your arguments. You reach conclusions, but can't describe the process by which you arrived at that conclusion. Why ? Because there is no process.
It's interesting to encounter people who combine stupidity and pride. It's like an unstoppable force ... especially here on the internet where people's stupidity is isolated behind an anonymous username.
Just for kicks Lucifer .... describe for the rest of the forum members the process by which you reached a conclusion that the scope of the climate problem is not significant. I would love to learn about your journey into the weeds of climate science.
I mean people worked to build cathedrals which they knew for a fact wouldn't be finished by the time of their death.Not only we don't lack longtermism, we have it while all other living species don't.For "the climate" we just profoundly and utterly disagree about the scope of the problem AND about how to fix the (infinitely less disastrous than the left claims) problem.Ofc the
Uneducated Nazi claims to know better. More news at 11.
Your disagreement rests upon a foundation of complete ignorance. You demonstrate zero knowledge of anything scientific. You never use data or evidence in any of your arguments. You reach conclusions, but can't describe the process by which you arrived at that conclusion. Why ? Because there is no process. It's interesting to encounter people who combine stupidity and pride. It
I already told you , you can just check Lomborg for a peer reviewed scientist with global reach who published a lot about how absurdly overexagerated (and against science) positions like yours are.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bjo...
Hey Douchebag ..... Bjorn Lomborg is a political scientist.
You are an exemplary and proud ambassador of the world of stupid people.
We should call you "Old Faithful" for the regularity with which you spew out complete and unfounded garbage.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bjo...
Hey Douchebag ..... Bjorn Lomborg is a political scientist.
You are an exemplary and proud ambassador of the world of stupid people.
We should call you "Old Faithful" for the regularity with which you spew out complete and unfounded garbage.
hey very not smart person, he is a statistician. And yes a political scientist as well.
And guess what, climatologists and the like have 0 expertise in ever determining anything about policy in any topic, including climate change. They cease to be useful at all in the conversation the moment they produce their paper and they can never inform in any meaningful way all the debates about WHAT TO DO GIVEN their findings. At all.
They are actually among the last people in the world to ask about WHAT TO DO because of very clear conflicts of interests (the more relevant climatic topics become for society the more high status they become in society).
So they research what they think will happen if we emit X CO2, and after that they never again have any part in any conversation about WHAT IS BETTER FOR HUMAN BEINGS given their findings. They aren't equipped at all in analyzing anything about tradeoffs, or how to achieve political goals in general.
You know who is best equipped to analyze *any topic at all quantitatively*? statisticians! who then focus their work on specific topics and become even better at analyzing data related to those topics.
And given data (after assessing their quality, the range of uncertainty in models and so on), who is best equipped in determining how to try to strive society toward certain goals? political scientists! (if they are good at their job ofc).
And who's best to determine scarce resource allocations among conflicting goals in society? Economists!
See the climate scientists usefulness is ABSOLUTELY 0 in all those conversations. They are as skilled about discussing tradeoffs among options in human societies as the lady cleaning your bathroom is. Except they think they can contribute because they made the model that started the conversation. Except they can't.
And who's best at deciding how much we care about polar bears vs residents in pakistan vs everything else? VOTERS IN A DEMOCRACY. It can ONLY be voters that decide the weights of the tradeoffs and no one else ever. There is no "right" answer about how much we "should" care about polar bear. Only arbitrary preferences , with none of them better than any other. There is no "science" that informs us how much we should care about polar bears (or literally everything else).
If you want to know what real economists think about climate change, read this report from the actuaries association.
https://www.actuary.org/wp-content/uploa...
The ocean chemistry is changing and undermining the food web. Crop failures are becoming more widespread as a result of increasing drought and flooding.
What is an economist know about the consequences of stopping the overturning ocean circulation ?
It hasn't happened in ~ 13k years which means it hasn't happened in the history of the economics profession.
No economic has any experience living on a planet that is as saturated with greenhouse gases as the present one. These levels have not existed for 10 million years.
Money has only existed for 1 millionth of the history of life on Earth. An economist is trained to understand only a tiny fraction and narrow aspect of global history and truth.
The US dollar will be dust before long. A failed society which has done only thing reliably for the last half century ..... wealth concentration in the hands of a privileged few.
Those privileged few see that the great filter is coming and they are hoarding everything they can in the hopes that they will escape. They are simultaneously ruthless and fearful animals trying to control their destiny. Nature has a way of humbling us all. Life is what happens when we're busy planning something else. I suspect that there will be some surprises in those controlling plans.
If you want to know what real economists think about climate change, read this report from the actuaries association.
The ocean chemistry is changing and undermining the food web. Crop failures are becoming more widespread as a result of increasing drought and flooding.
Yet despite all that, no reputable group is saying this will have any effect at all in terms of earth's population growth rate 25-75 years down the road: do nothing and there's 10.2 billion people on earth in 2100; do a lot there's 10.2 billion people on earth in 2100.
I agree the effect of doing nothing will have a "significant" economic impact on future generations. But that's do to the significant disruption of our support systems getting destroyed and the cost of replacing them elsewhere. Of course, doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. I think we should pay the bill since we incurred the benefits of irresponsibly using the earth as a landfill and we shouldn't pass that bill along with all the hardships on to our kids or countries/regions that didn't contribute to the problem along with putting us on a more sustainable path.
no reputable group is saying this will have any effect at all in terms of earth's population growth rate 25-75 years down the road:
.
Are you kidding me ? Do you really believe that there are no reputable groups saying that the carrying capacity of human civilization will decline ?
How do you define "reputable group" ?
