I think the counter to this is small businesses. — schopenhauer1
Small businesses are in most cases even more exploitative of labour than big business. They are more likely to engage in off-the-books employment, while ignoring safety or health considerations. They are in general less subject to scrutiny and accountability, and are all the worse for it. — StreetlightX
I actually would have to agree with you based on what I've seen. But what is your solution to the seeming need to gamble your resources and time and work to create a new venture that makes money? That seems to drive a lot of innovation and such.
Let's put it this way.. There are probably way more Fords and Edisons who don't just invest and tinker for the hell of it, but to make a lot of money, than there are Teslas who are doing it out of pure interest for public good or curiosity. — schopenhauer1
Address something I've written, — Isaac
Fertility rates in developing countries are controlled mainly by age of marriage, length of breastfeeding and mortality (or morbidity) prior to 50. — Isaac
Well, put there the term "capitalism" or anything, but NOTICE this is just what I said to be narrative going off to something else that basically is a distraction. So as I said this is the wrong way to go, this isn't an objection to my response as my basic line is that more prosperous society makes people to have less children and hence we should try to make all people in a society, not just a tiny section, be more prosperous.What has materialism got to do with it? — Isaac
This is one of those memes that gets rolled out every now and then in defense of capitalism, but it could not be more wrong. In fact that this is so completely wrong is probably, for me, the major reason we need to get rid of capitalism. Can you even imagine the number of people around the world who have had to give up on their dreams, or who have abandoned projects because they were not considered profitable? The fact that capitalism selects for profit means that massive swathes of planetary potential is simply wasted, swept into the garbage bin of society, because it doesn't meet the artificial and extrinsic standard of profitability - no matter how useful, interesting, or even life improving those things might be. — StreetlightX
We are as isolated as can be from our own subsistence.. — schopenhauer1
But this is simply not true. Literally anyone who works for a wage employs those means every time they go to work. The 'seperation' is a legal and conventional one. It has nothing to do with "remarkableness". — StreetlightX
Therefore? — StreetlightX
"It" is so big, we just go back to staying in our lanes as described above — schopenhauer1
Eh, this doesn't address anything I said at all. And in any case sounds like what one says when one is comfortable, which billions of people are not. — StreetlightX
these other issues you mention are simply minor compared to the society becoming more prosperous — ssu
Age at first union is relatively young in most high fertility societies (less than age 20 on
average). Several years delay would contribute to fertility decline, and it would have other health and socio-economic benefits.
many of the high fertility countries have moderate to high levels of unmet need for family planning—the prevalence typically ranges from one-fifth to one-third of married women.
Income is a relatively weak predictor of fertility decline, net of mortality and education.
Poor economic performance is not in itself an obstacle to fertility decline
Well, put there the term "capitalism" or anything — ssu
Eh, this doesn't address anything I said at all. And in any case sounds like what one says when one is comfortable, which billions of people are not. — StreetlightX
It's rude. — StreetlightX
Also, it is in general, a really silly point. Do you think the revoltionaries who did away with feudalism sat on their hands because they were stupefied by the scale of the issue? No. The objection is ahistorical and frankly isn't one. — StreetlightX
So your point is that we can't change the system because we can't change the system. This is glib but are you really saying anything more than that? — StreetlightX
Also, for what it's worth, I don't hate your posts. I just think they focus on all the wrong things; or at least, things I find philosophically uninteresting. There are posts I hate. Yours are generally not among them. — StreetlightX
How would a "new" system even fathom to unravel these heavily threaded factors of research, services, transportation, and production to a non-business system? — schopenhauer1
Why would anyone want to 'unravel' these things? What is being called for is a change in the regime of property. It's an issue of control, not technical ... whatever it is you are imagining.
As for this 'no-win' business - I have no tuck with it. I have nothing to say about that because it's useless and dumb and not philosophy. — StreetlightX
As for this 'no-win' business - I have no tuck with it. I have nothing to say about that because it's useless and dumb and not philosophy. — StreetlightX
"A change of regime of property" would unravel these things. — schopenhauer1
Why do you think so? The removal of a capitalist class who owns the means of production does not entail any technical change in how those means function - apart of course, from what we now decide to do with them. — StreetlightX
Amazing. You extrapolated a whole line of reasoning from literally nothing I said and then, having made up a fantasy, said that this fantasy - that you made up from scratch - is not fit for reality and so I must be a standard liberal. Very cool. Why bother chatting with me when you can just chat with yourself and then argue against yourself? — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.