I hate to see you go without an adequate reply; those two posts together are quite the thesis - beautifully written, a joy to read, and ultimately reducible to this:

.

You mistake the symptom for the ailment. — thewonder

Descartes Meditations was intellectually dishonest. He must have been terrified of what the Church did to Galileo. He gave them a conclusion consistent with de-emphasis of the material to emphasize the spiritual; and to cement subjectivity as the only certainty. His method of doubt was skeptical - not rational, he needed God to save him from solipsism, and all of subsequent philosophy is built on that obvious lie.

Nietzsche freaked them out, and they didn't know enough science to prove him wrong. Man is not an amoral monster held in check by God's laws. Morality is inside us, a sense fostered in the individual by evolution in a tribal context. But Nietzsche declared God is dead, and the subjectivists responded with absurdism, existentialism, post modernism, all of them subjectivist - and you say I mistake ailment for symptom. You with the double barrelled intellect? You're looking at the last five minuets. I'm talking about hunter gatherer tribes joining together.

There is a mad proliferation of causes - but what can one expect? It's cause and effect - the details are irrelevant to the mechanism, it's inevitable - we're wrong, and reality will not be brooked. Humankind will die out if we cannot correct our mistake. People sense it - they know the end is nigh, and they're looking for someone to blame. They can be convinced that it's capitalism, and white people, and men - because they're in charge, but it's not that simple. The left are taking advantage of the discontent - the ailment philosophers describe becomes a symptom, we post rationalise and justify, fostering the ailment, and so it goes.

All this is in error. You are not who you should have been. The Church should have embraced Galileo, science and valid knowledge of reality as the word of God. We should be our truer selves, and things should be better for the advent of technology. They are better, but also, worse in ways magnified by technology. Because the fundamental mistake is still there - the mistake subjectivism sought to cover up, and it's that philosophical ground that left wing ideology is built upon. You think you haven't gone mad? No, you're right - you haven't gone mad. It's a pre-existing condition!

You have mistaken your metaphor, my friend. — thewonder

But I haven't missed you other post. I've read it. I'll think on it. I need sleep. — thewonder

Though I agree with the belief, I do not see how it is applicable to politics. Not to mention, despite the principle, scientists are often wrong. Put a scientist in charge of producing more honey and he creates the Africanized Honey-bee. Put a scientist in charge of explaining homosexuality and he reasons it’s a mental illness. Put him in charge of governing, what then? Perhaps more important principles are required. — NOS4A2

Scientists are never right. That's a virtue. It allows them to learn. Arguably however, "a political party that recognises science as truth" is not necessarily a party of scientists. It's a party of people who think science is true - and the best guide to a prosperous and sustainable future.

You wouldn't need an opposition. While there is general consensus among natural scientists concerning the facts of their field, there is no such agreement over the uses of science. One could argue that this is the domain of the social sciences , but then there as many opposing camps here as there are in the political domain. Good luck getting anthropologists, economists, political scientists and psychologists to agree on anything. — Joshs

There's no such thing as luck, and we could all use some. So, thanks - but I haven't laid out my political platform yet. I think there is a general consensus on the broad brush strokes shape of a scientific understanding of reality, on what scientific methods are, and on the utility of technology. That said, other than securing a prosperous sustainable future by harnessing limitless clean energy from the heat energy of the earth itself - by drilling close to magma pockets in the earth's crust, lining the bore holes with pipes to pump water through, to produce steam to drive turbines, to produce massive base load electricity - to produce hydrogen fuel, capture carbon, desalinate water to irrigate land, and so on - I'm wide open from a policy point of view. Hence the question: who sits opposite?

I'm not saying that anyone ought to be against freedom of thought and speech even when it comes to religion, but rather, that the people who would be opposed to a science party would be the heavily religious, and people involved in movements that aren't called religious but might as well be: basically anyone who's upset by science proving them wrong, and who insists that the world should conform to their beliefs even though they can be shown wrong. — Pfhorrest

I got your meaning. It was very aggressive. I thought it necessary to say that, while I believe science is key to a sustainable future - I've no desire to cast religious people as:

Religious fundamentalists primarily, plus all manner of kooks, cranks, and quacks who have their own little proto-religions they follow in defiance of scientific evidence. — Pfhorrest

At the very least I recognise the enormous role religion has played as the central coordinating mechanism of civilisations over thousands of years. Further, I'm agnostic. I have a lot of respect for religion, but I'm not a believer - and I think the Church made a grave mistake vis a vis Galileo and science - that had vast implications, we need to correct or we will die out.

I'm happy you're down with valuing science as an understanding of reality, and I thank you for the post. But have a little respect for the party opposite please. Otherwise, it's a zero sum game that no-one will win, because the board will get up-ended!

I would have welcomed Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and pursued science as the word of God, afforded scientific truth moral authority, and applied technology in accord with God's word, and hailed the endless technological miracles of applied science as proof of God's blessing. But that didn't happen. Science was branded a heresy - and so, sadly - I am cast as the iconoclast, or worse. In my own mind, I'm outside, looking in on your symbolic unreality - a signpost on the border, pointing the way to the bridge to the future.

What does science say about what we ought do? — creativesoul

Science says that human beings evolved in tribal groups - and then, quite recently in evolutionary terms, tribal groups joined together to form civilisations.

Science says that chimpanzees have morality of sorts - they share food, groom eachother, and defend the tribe - and they remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours accordingly. Consequently, we can safely assume that primitive human tribes were much the same. Primitive humans were moral creatures. Moral behaviour was an advantage to the individual within the tribe, and for the tribe in competition with other tribes. Morality is a sense - like the aesthetic sense, or a sense of humour.

Morality is not an explicit set of moral laws handed down by God. This explicit moral order is a political pretence necessary for human tribes to join together. It is the actual "inversion of values" Nietzsche identified, but misunderstood. It was not the amoral, self serving individual - fooled by the weak, but rather tribal morality made explicit for the purposes of the multitribal social group. This is demonstrated with reference to Hume, mentioned above. Hume says:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought or an ought not…"

The usual interpretation of this observation is that no list of facts adds up to a value, and therefore science cannot constitute a system of government. Science is facts - not values. Science is the "is" but not the "ought." But that's a mistake. To my mind, Hume describes what human beings do - and cannot help but do, because ultimately, morality is a sense ingrained in the individual by evolution in a tribal context. We cannot but prioritise a list of facts in terms of our values - anymore than we cannot but automatically determine if a joke is funny, or whether a painting pleases the eye.

So, the answer to your question - what ought we do, is at the nexus of the facts, the innate moral sense, and sustainability.

I find your posts vague and disconcerting; each a bucket of ice water - splashed on liberally, but which then runs away and evaporates, leaving nothing but a chill behind. All I can say is "Oh, thank you for your opinion" because there's no nouns, no definite objects, no examples, no logic, or anything else to refute. I suppose I can ask:

What stereotypes?
What questions of the truths of science?
In what way, is the full story of Galileo and Darwin - not straightforward?
In what way would a politics you already characterise as "fiercely divided" be made worse by tense divisions? Tense sounds like an improvement over fierce!

My understanding is that this is a simplistic description of what happened. The Pope was scientifically literate and buddies with Galileo. Galileo went out of his way to be a pain in the ass, and that's why he got in trouble. It was totally avoidable. I haven't time to dive into the full history, but simplistic myths should not be taken for history. — fishfry

There's some truth to that. In "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" Galileo put the geocentric view - the Biblical view of an earth fixed in the heavens, in the mouth of Simplicio - a pun on 'simpleton' in common Italian. But then, Galileo wasn't a pan European governmental organisation claiming divine authority. It was a mistake for Galileo to mock the Church, but that doesn't mean it was not a mistake for the Church to make a heresy of valid knowledge of Creation.

Of course, it is entirely up to you how if you wish to form your hypothetical discussion but I would think that to take it out of historical context is not going to be the most truthful way. I would have thought that the two examples you give about Newton and Darwin point to the complex politics of science. — Jack Cummins

I would have thought that those two examples demonstrate first, that I do understand the history, and second, that it is as I've described it - an oppression that divorced science as truth from science as a tool, allowing science to be used for ideological power and profit, without any responsibility to science as an understanding of reality. As I said, we have used the tools but not read the instructions. I could have said science was denied any status with accusations of heresy, and reduced to whoring itself out to government and industry. Is that truthful enough?

Religious fundamentalists primarily, plus all manner of kooks, cranks, and quacks who have their own little proto-religions they follow in defiance of scientific evidence. — Pfhorrest

I do feel it would be absolutely necessary for sci-pol to respect freedom of conscience, religion, thought, speech and expression. Human rights shouldn't be an obstacle to any well intentioned political party, and while - I'm not a believer, I'm agnostic, I recognise that religion is important to people. It's also important historically. Were it not for religion, hunter gatherer tribes could not have joined together to form civilisations, and we'd still be running around naked in the forest jabbing each other with sharp sticks. So, we owe a lot to religion - but this; science is true.

Who sits in the Science Party I would ask.

The way I see it there would be leftists, centrists, conservatives, greens in that party. Likely that party would break up into factions that oppose each other. — ssu

That would be a realistic concern were it not for the philosophically solid constitutional basis of the party... and the blood oath!

Politics is about dealing with humans, societies and its issues. We, humans, are mostly irrational, we think with our stomach, our emotions bias us continuously.

Why do you think sociology has never been able to become a science?

Scientific disciplines help us to dialogue with nature, our nature and it tell us we are complex and, again, not rational. This is (among many other reasons like the survival principle, etc) why science party has and will never work to govern humans. It could maybe one day govern cyborgs. — Raul

Okay, but thinking with your stomach - tell me this: would you rather get on a rollercoaster designed by an engineer in accord with the established principles of physics, geometry, materials science and so forth, or one designed a priest?

Because currently, the world is a roller coaster designed by a priest, and it is going to crash! But hey, maybe that's part of the grand design? Maybe God will leap out at the last minuet and save the faithful. Hallelujah! It's a miracle! I wouldn't bet on it myself.

I think we need to recognise that science is a substantially true understanding of reality, and we need to be responsible to scientific truth, or we are doomed. I don't believe that means - dictatorial government based on science as truth with a capital T - because of Hume's is/ought dilemma. He says:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought or an ought not…"

The usual interpretation of this observation is that no list of facts adds up to a value, and therefore science cannot constitute a system of government. Science is facts - not values. But to my mind, Hume describes what human beings do - and cannot help but do; which is, to prioritise a list of facts in terms of their values. Which is why I ask the question - who sits opposite? Democratic government is a compromise - so who would sci-pol be compromising with? Capitalists? Communists? Seventh day Adventists? Who?

An opposition might consist of anyone who opposes technocracy, which I wager would include some scientists. — NOS4A2

technocracy
NOUN
the government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts.

Right, because "we've had enough of experts." But Sci-Pol isn't a technocracy per se. Rather, it's a political party built upon the philosophical belief that science now constitutes a highly coherent understanding of reality - we need to recognise as substantially true, and be responsible to in our decision making - to survive and prosper long term.

You conflate what it means to be the opposition in politics with opposition to truth. — baker

I think politics does that all on its own - no help from me. It's like that old joke. You can tell when a politician is lying. His lips move!

I do believe that there already has been so much politics underlying science historically and that this has been extremely complex. A large part of it has involved religious belief, especially Christianity. I don't see that you can possibly explore this question without an exploration of this. — Jack Cummins

For the purposes of this thought experiment, I don't see the need.

For the purposes of forming a conclusion that religion has supressed science as truth for 400 years, I would certainly need to understand the long history of the relationship!

Did you know that Sir Issac Newton had to hide his anti-trinitarian beliefs in order to be appointed to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge? Do you not think there's something rather psychotic about the man who wrote Principa Mathematica - having to pretend to religious opinions he did not have to advance in his career?

Did you know that Darwin worried himself sick, and delayed 20 years before finally publishing Origin of Species in 1859 - and that his ideas were met with religious objections that continue to this day?

But all that isn't relevant to the question - who sits opposite Sci-Pol in Parliament?

I've watched the whole thing. — Isaac

Maybe you should watch it again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w — counterpunch

Is it too much for your little brain to work out that carbon capture, desalination, recycling etc, require a lot of energy that wind and solar cannot provide?

YouTube is not a source, but it's a start. Find a paper by this Hans Rosling and quote from it the parts that support your assertion... — Isaac

Youtube is merely a platform. It's a tedtalk by a master statistician, and it does prove my point. You lefties are addicted to your pain. Given statistical proof it doesn't exist - you don't change your views. You attack the source.

"Hey, BLM - there's no genocide being committed by the police."
"Racist!"

If you care about a sustainable future - why are you not delighted to learn that there's no need to stop this, carbon tax that, eat grass and cycle to work? Why don't you want a prosperous sustainable future? Is it that you eco commie ideologues want to stuff your mistaken "limits to growth" hypothesis - down the throat of capitalism and hope it chokes?

In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. — counterpunch

we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation — counterpunch

What about these comments requires a source? They are a logical argument. The premise; that resources are a function of the energy available to create them, is proven by the fact that given sufficient clean energy - we could capture carbon, produce fresh water, irrigate land etc. No source is necessary or possible. I cannot cite an understanding of basic physics. Or logical implication.

An example of something that could use a source is this:

people only starve these days as a consequence of political turmoil, war, natural disaster, disease — counterpunch

So, as you ask so nicely - watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

Lawns are a bourgeoisie decadence, fill your boots. — Kenosha Kid

Indeed. Well your commie club meeting in the pissy corner of an underground carpark, still a no, thanks!

So that's a no to my invite to the Annual Kenosha Death of Communism Lament then? There's free vodka and schnapps? Top prize in the raffle this year is a plough?

Ah well. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, that would be a no! The same no - you gave my open invitation to engage with philosophy on a philosophy forum. On second thoughts, perhaps I will attend; only, I'll arrive on an ATV, do donuts on the lawn, blare loud music so no one else can here themselves talk, and piss in the punchbowl!

What here requires a source?

It requires formatting - because I'm commenting on my own post. If you're going to copy and paste it - either post the original, or format the copy as intended. I don't see anything that requires a source. If you do, you could always ask: "Do you have any further information on that?"

I set out meaning and purpose, insofar as it's possible to discern:

I disagree with the assertion that the earth is over-populated.

An answer that does not construe the very existence of human beings as problematic.

Rather, technology is misapplied. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Harness limitless clean energy from the core of the earth - we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation.

An approach that identifies the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis, and in those same terms - describes the possibility of a prosperous, sustainable future.

The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies, because we use science as a tool of ideology, but ignore science as an understanding of reality in its own right.

That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows?

An approach with ontological implications - a way of being, that implies the existence of an ultimate meaning or purpose to be discovered.

It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it.

And it falls upon stoney ground. I cannot explain it. Is it ego? Is it impossible for them to admit they are wrong? Or jealousy - the impossibility of admitting I am right? Is it cowardice - that they hide from reality? Or self hatred - do they think themselves unworthy of existence? How is it that, given a simple answer - they cannot, or will not see it?
— counterpunch — Isaac

Or good arguments, apparently. — Kenosha Kid

You've demonstrated repeatedly that you cannot recognise a good argument. You're a left wing, political correctness ideologue. It's a dogma you cling to despite the fact communism has failed, and repeatedly run to genocide - despite me showing you that the anti-capitalist, eco commie approach to sustainability can't work, and despite me showing you the many obvious hypocrisies of political correctness.

My social skills are bad - I know this.

Your arguments are bad - I've shown you, and you still don't know.

Your philosophical approach is to make up empirical facts without having either the qualifications or the sources — Isaac

Such as? Provide sources!

Like I said - you're not capable of following an argument. You want to sit there, wide eyed, and be spoon fed. Had it occurred to you that I'm defining a philosophical approach, and have made other comments - applying the same approach to a range of issues? Every issue either feeds back to some fundamentals - or is projected onto a sustainable future to discern its truth value, moral value, and or utility. There are no sources per se - because it's my philosophical approach. But then, I only told you I AM A PHILOSOPHER about a dozen times.

None of these fact support your conclusion. What have either got to do with the conclusion that capitalism is inseparably linked to agricultural technology, or that geothermal energy is a viable source? — Isaac

Ah, I have my answer. You think I'm wrong because you're simply incapable of following the argument. Phew. It's not me! That's such a relief, thanks!

I do not understand your reply. I've done nothing but explain why I'm right.

Do you need a citation to prove that in 1634, Galileo was arrested and tried for heresy upon proving earth orbits the sun? Do you need a citation to explain that religion supressed science as truth?

Do you need a citation to explain that the industrial revolution began around 1730 - using science for industrial power and profit, even while science as truth was supressed by a church that burnt people alive for heresy right through to 1792?

Do you not know that Darwin wandered around his garden for 20 years, worrying himself sick about the religious, political and social implications of evolution, before finally putting pen to paper in 1859? Did you not know that even then, over 200 years since Galileo - his theory was met with howls of protest from the Church that continue even unto this day?

Did you not know that Creationists are trying to infiltrate education, and that Answers In Genesis (AiG) has built a life-size Noah’s ark, costing $100 million - in Kentucky, USA? What - in any of this, needs independent verification you can't get from Bing? Who else here supports every idea with academic sources? And what makes you think I'm unqualified?

If it were that they think the answer is wrong, surely, they would explain in what way it's wrong - something they haven't done, and you haven't done, because, it's not wrong. It's grade A obvious that science has been used but not observed; it's undeniable that technology has been applied to achieve the ends of ideology - like, 70,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War - obviously wrong. And it's equally obvious that applying the right technology - in accord a scientific understanding of reality, is how to secure a sustainable future. So, what did I get wrong? Did I look past the overlapping religious, political and economic ideological matrix of the false reality you inhabit; and it's something you are unable to do?

It doesn't work that way. People support law and order, not because they need telling what to do - but because it constrains their fellow man. If "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" - it's not what I would do, but what I fear you may do - and what I must do to resist the imposition of your will upon me, that destroys societal values.

No he doesn't have a point. Crowely was a Satanist, and member of the Hellfire Club; a high society amoral debaucher. "Do what thou wilt" was intended to be destructive of all social and moral values. It is an incantation of evil - reminiscent of the Nietzschean 'will to power' underlying Nazism.

Ex nihilo nihil fit - is logical, but logic is a consequence of the reality that springs into being from the big bang, establishing the existence of time, space, energy, matter, and the logic of that reality, we are fundamentally unable to see beyond.

For example - the double slit experiment shows that photons pass through two slits at the same time. EPR shows quantum particles communicating information, faster than light, over vast distances - without any apparent transfer between them. Quantum tunnelling shows particles passing through solid matter.

Clearly, our logic is local to the slice of reality we inhabit; and consequently, ex nihilo nihil fit - explains precisely nothing about the origin of the universe.

It is the wrong question anyway; a conceit - to project oneself to the ends of the universe, and look back at us, and tell us what is and isn't true. Truth begins at the fingertips - and is built bottom up, by testing hypotheses in relation to the evidence of the senses.

I set out meaning and purpose, insofar as it's possible to discern:

I disagree with the assertion that the earth is over-populated.

An answer that does not construe the very existence of human beings as problematic.

Rather, technology is misapplied. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Harness limitless clean energy from the core of the earth - we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation.

An approach that identifies the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis, and in those same terms - describes the possibility of a prosperous, sustainable future.

The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies, because we use science as a tool of ideology, but ignore science as an understanding of reality in its own right.

That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows?

An approach with ontological implications - a way of being, that implies the existence of an ultimate meaning or purpose to be discovered.

It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it.

And it falls upon stoney ground. I cannot explain it. Is it ego? Is it impossible for them to admit they are wrong? Or jealousy - the impossibility of admitting I am right? Is it cowardice - that they hide from reality? Or self hatred - do they think themselves unworthy of existence? How is it that, given a simple answer - they cannot, or will not see it?

Well, I'm not blinded by ideology. Advocating recognition of a scientific understanding of reality is a significant imposition on capitalism, because capitalism puts profit first - not scientific truth. It's capitalism that has used science as a tool, and ignored science as an understanding of reality, and so misapplied technology.

I would place responsibility for sustainability with producers - not as you would, with consumers. First I'd support capitalism with limitless clean energy from magma, but then I'd require increasing responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality across sectors of the economy, by creating a science based, level regulatory playing field - to end the race to the bottom.

Don't imagine for a moment, that just because I'm explaining to Pantygruel that communism is a nightmare, I think capitalism is perfect - because it isn't. It works. It allows for some measure of freedom and dignity. But failure to recognise science as truth is still a catastrophic failure, bound to result in the extinction of humankind.

Again, you show that you view the world through ideological glasses. — Banno

Oh dear me banno - this began with Pantagruel saying something like:

"The challenge is for people to use their gifts for the collective good."

The collective good isn't good, it doesn't work, and it won't secure a sustainable future. It is political economy - but don't imagine I'm blinded by devotion to an ideology. You're kidding yourself. I AM a philosopher. Everything is, and has been open to question - in the formation of these opinions.

Yes, Malthus was wrong. Hurrah! I'm glad you admit that.

Malthus is the spiritual father of the left wing, limits to growth, anti-capitalist, pay more-have less, carbon tax this, stop that, eco commie approach to sustainability. And he's wrong!

At last we are in agreement - but only because you thought you were being disagreeable.

See, that's were you lose folk. You made the claim that growth was linear, I showed evidence that it wasn't. You claimed the evidence was irrelevant. — Banno

No. I demonstrated the difference between a:

Geometric progression 2, 4, 8, 16 etc, and an

Arithmetic progression: 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.

Malthus' argument was that population grows geometrically, while productive land grows arithmetically, so we'd starve. Instead, we invented tractors! Now, 8 billion people are fed.

If you stopped trying to be a dick, and tried instead to follow the argument, you might relate this to what I'm saying about science, technology and sustainability.

Generally speaking, people only starve these days as a consequence of political turmoil, war, natural disaster, disease - things of that kind. It's not capitalism - failing to produce or distribute food. It's disruption of the market - not the existence of it.

The graph you posted has no relevance to the argument I'm making, or really - much of an implication to the argument Malthus made. He wasn't predicting the linear growth of population. If you can't keep up - drop back, eh?

Over 9 million people starve to death every year, in a world that is pretty much entirely capitalist nowadays. Why is that not a failure of capitalism? — Pfhorrest

In Essay on Population 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted that, because population grows geometrically - 2,4,8,16, etc - while productive land can only be added arithmetically 1,2,3,4 etc, acres at a time, human beings would soon outstrip their food supply and starve.

Today, there are around 8 billion people on earth. Which is to say, by your numbers, that capitalism feeds 7.91bn people adequately, and you call that a failure? I call it a miracle.

The invisible hand is a mechanism - in capitalism, that allows for the production and distribution of goods and services without dictatorial political control deciding what is produced, by whom, and how it is distributed. Instead, the rationally self interested actions of individuals in a free market decides what is produced, and who gets what. That is the invisible hand.

I have no illusions. You do. You refuse to see that capitalism has proven itself, far superior to centralising economic decision making in some few people with ultimate power. It's more successful, more free, more just and humane. Communism is a failure - and a genocidal abomination. Advocating communism should be more taboo than promoting fascism.