Check out The Dawn of Everything, puts to rest a lot of the myths about prehistoric societies that we tell ourselves. Early societies were consciously experimenting with different social arrangements and they were far more peaceful and egalitarian than we usually give them credit for. Their ideas on property were vastly different than ours as well. There wasn’t really an “our hunting grounds” to speak of. If you’re interested I’ll leave this video by Andrewism about human history. It’s well sourced and pretty informative
I think it sort of depends on what time period we’re talking about. Jericho and other walled cities came about after a certain point. By then, there certainly were societies that lived off raiding the less nomadic agrarian societies, not very peaceful or egalitarian.
The only real solution is intentional population control. But I don’t have high hopes we ever get there though.
Everyone could have way more resources than we’d ever want to even use. But instead, we seem focused on maxing out the world population leaving the least amount possible for each person.
The problem is the improper distribution of resources, not overpopulation. If we truly tried we could sustainably support our current population and work on healing the world.
Talking about intentional population control is a fat too slippery slope.
Oh, there probably is. All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people - you could triple the amount of people on earth, and, all things being equal, we still wouldn’t be “overpopulated.”
However, things are not equal - which means we are already existing way beyond that which our ecology can support. And it’s all thanks to capitalist parasites - a very small group of people sucking everything dry at the expense of everyone and everything else.
Whether Malthus himself was a right-winger or not isn’t really important… it doesn’t change how the trope of overpopulation has been used to protect power and privilege (ie, the whole point of right-wing ideology). For instance, there is a very good reason why white supremacists support the criminalization of women’s health care in (supposedly) “white” countries while demonizing 3rd world countries for their (supposedly) “explosive population growth.”
It’s a very old trope that flattens human consumption and therefore camouflages the reality that certain classes of people consume resources at astronomical rates in comparison with the rest. It’s utility in shielding class hierarchies from scrutiny should be perfectly obvious.
The first written evidence of slavery in the ancient world comes from ancient Mesopotamia. However, slavery was in practice much longer than that. Slavery most likely began when the first cities needed labor to keep food production up to feed growing populations.
It’s not just about systems, It’s about conditions. Certain conditions make certain strategies more profitable - see game theory. I think low population density and hard life conditions cam lead to kindness being among the winning strategies.
Yeah well we dont have any of those conditions and it would make sense to make oue life conditions harder or to lower the population density so drastically so this meme doesnt make any sense
Fortunately, we’re doing our best to make our life conditions harder in the future and possibly to lower the population as well!
Of course, there can be other sets of conditions that lead to kindness win. Like probably heavy cultural persecution of selfishness. The conditions can also be pretty complex. I wonder whether those things have been studied in some meaningful way.
“These individuals and groups synthesise radical far-right politics with environmentalism,[5][6] and will typically argue that overpopulation is the primary threat to the environment and that the only solution is a complete halt to immigration or, at their most extreme, genocide against minority groups and ethnicities”
Because with capitalism, the greed is out in the open. Everyone understands it. It is clear and legal to push against the greed of those who have more.
In a system that incentivizes “virtues”, greed will hide behind those virtues. And when you then fight against that greed, you are accused of attacking those virtues instead.
Hey, that makes sense. Now, in this capitalist system that exists in real life—the one that you think is working out better than any alternatives you can think of—are everyone’s cards laid out?
Yes…? We are aware of how bad we’re being fucked. We saw the Panama papers. Rich people dodge taxes with loopholes. War is waged to line pockets. Senators practice insider trading. Huge, major problems exist with capitalism and of course, we can’t know the full extent. What do you think would be different under your preference?
Yes? It’s that obvious? What percentage of the population knows how the animals they consume are raised and slaughtered, or that it’s illegal to show them? What percentage knows that in many other nations, the burger flipping jobs the U.S. loves to debate do pay better, and yet the food is cheaper? What percentage is aware that many European nations simply do not allow large corporations like Google and Facebook to “own” your data, and that they do not have some sort of inherent right to it? All of these things are legal—passing laws to hide information you don’t like, having no obligation to pay livable wages or provide healthcare, lining your pockets with money nobody else knew you could just… take. Seems like a system in which these actions weren’t both legal and highly rewarded could, you know, put more of the cards on the table.
I’m allowed to go take out a loan and start my own business to be a piece of shit like every other business owner and noone will stop me from doing so.
Noone will stop you either, question is why you aren’t dealing your cards.
I’m a leftist but I’m not much of a fan of the Soviet Union. I’m Finnish and middle-aged so I know a bunch of people who had to escape from there and I’ve heard first-hand stories about the shit that went on, and I’ve visited Soviet Estonia who got the short end of the stick with Russian imperialism compared to us. At least we stayed independent although had to grant a lot of power over eg. our foreign policy to the Russians – ie. Soviets, but it’s not like it wasn’t essentially a Russian project since they pretty quickly forgot about korenization and went for Russification instead – to keep them from invading (again…)
One of the biggest failures of alot of leftists spaces is failing to criticize the failures of the USSR. Yes they had alot of Ws but they also took their fair shares of Ls due to external and internal forces. That being said there arent many leftists that geninuinly want to recreate the USSR. We are merely trying to pierce through the veil of Capitalist propaganda to recontectuallize what they did right and incorporate it into the modern political discourse.
That was well said. Recontextualization is exactly the thing; it’s not that I think the Soviet Union was absolute evil with zero redeeming features. They got more right during the early years although I’m not necessarily a huge fan of that period either, and to a large extent it was Stalin who fucked them up pretty severely with the frankly sociopathic system that the Union turned into.
Russian political culture has been outright brutal for a long time. Eg. these KGB-like secret police organizations have been around for a while and have invariably had brutal methods of dealing with politically displeasing individuals or just who-the-hell-ever in many cases. This, coupled with the cultural ethos that Russia and Russians – and specifically meaning ethnic Russians – are superior to anyone outside their borders and a tendency for imperialism, means that Russian rule has nearly invariably been a shitty time, with Finland being one of the few exceptions as we mostly faced little repression or cultural erasure compared to other Russian “colonies” and this was done intentionally; most of the Russian Emperors during our time as a Grand Duchy in some ways thought of Finland as way to show the European powers that they can run things in a “western” way, and to work as a kind of window to the West. For the last 20 or so years they did try to Russify us, which we – being stubborn fucks – did not take well. We also kept our previous Parliament for the most part even though even starting from Alexander I the Emperors wanted to have autocratic rule, but – again in parts thanks to us being stubborn fucks – it took something like 4 emperors for it to happen. Their other historical or the currently existing colonies (nobody seems to think of Russia as a colonialist empire because their colonies are inside contiguous borders) weren’t quite so lucky, as Russification and “Russian supremacy” has been the standard.
This political culture played a large part in the problems with the Union. It was nominally multicultural (and korenization was briefly a thing until they went back to Russification as usual) but it wasn’t exactly unclear who were ultimately in charge.
And before some smartass barges in asking me why it’s OK if the US/UK/France/whoever does this stuff: I don’t like imperialism any more regardless of who’s doing it.
Jokes aside communism is just as bad because it does nothing to prevent power from congregating at the top. The only difference is the type of corruption.
Talk to anyone who grew up in the eastern block about bread lines. Communism is a failure in comparison to capitalism.
You posted a photo of fully stocked shelves and every word you said is a straight up trope. “Corruption” does so much work with politically illiterate westerners to paper over why ‘bad thing is bad’ without a lick of knowledge about either the bad system or the good one in your mind. And I always love hearing about how bad socialism is from people who suffered from the end of socialism.
Ultimately the only actual reason the west has for why socialism is bad is “We’ll kill you”
Point taken. I am not for communism as I’ve seen first hand what it looks like. All communism does is congregate the power in the government instead of private hands. It’s still corrupt just in a different way.
Doesn’t matter the form of government. Power will narrow and corrupt IMHO. It’s human nature.
A lot of it, as a “Westerner” is also the devil you know.
You can’t use personal experiences as evidence when you’re staying anonymous and won’t say what those experiences were. If you’re 60 years old you got a solid 10 years of socialism in the last phase of being overtaken by the west to make adult brained judgements about it.
Let’s start with how old you are. Are you 60 or older? And what country are you talking about?
OK, I’ll bite: What systems reward kindness?
Swinger clubs.
How else do you play golf?
Care to explain?
I was on DMT 2 days ago I have no idea.
Plot twist outside of America it’s not much
What?
deleted by creator
Except towards other tribes. Can’t have them clear our hunting grounds, now can we?
Check out The Dawn of Everything, puts to rest a lot of the myths about prehistoric societies that we tell ourselves. Early societies were consciously experimenting with different social arrangements and they were far more peaceful and egalitarian than we usually give them credit for. Their ideas on property were vastly different than ours as well. There wasn’t really an “our hunting grounds” to speak of. If you’re interested I’ll leave this video by Andrewism about human history. It’s well sourced and pretty informative
Turns out to have warring tribes you need to be organized enough to carry out a war.
Jericho had walls when most of the rest of humanity was nomadic hunter-gatherers.
City walls generally weren’t built because people feel safe and secure already.
I think it sort of depends on what time period we’re talking about. Jericho and other walled cities came about after a certain point. By then, there certainly were societies that lived off raiding the less nomadic agrarian societies, not very peaceful or egalitarian.
deleted by creator
The only real solution is intentional population control. But I don’t have high hopes we ever get there though.
Everyone could have way more resources than we’d ever want to even use. But instead, we seem focused on maxing out the world population leaving the least amount possible for each person.
The problem is the improper distribution of resources, not overpopulation. If we truly tried we could sustainably support our current population and work on healing the world.
Talking about intentional population control is a fat too slippery slope.
“Overpopulation” is a right-wing myth.
Are you suggesting that there’s no limit to how many people the resources we have available to us can support?
Oh, there probably is. All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people - you could triple the amount of people on earth, and, all things being equal, we still wouldn’t be “overpopulated.”
However, things are not equal - which means we are already existing way beyond that which our ecology can support. And it’s all thanks to capitalist parasites - a very small group of people sucking everything dry at the expense of everyone and everything else.
What standard of living do you consider “all things being equal”?
What?
You read that correctly.
I was hoping I didn’t.
Malthus and Erlich, right wingers?
I don’t see many right wing people on this list. Thoughts?
Whether Malthus himself was a right-winger or not isn’t really important… it doesn’t change how the trope of overpopulation has been used to protect power and privilege (ie, the whole point of right-wing ideology). For instance, there is a very good reason why white supremacists support the criminalization of women’s health care in (supposedly) “white” countries while demonizing 3rd world countries for their (supposedly) “explosive population growth.”
It’s a very old trope that flattens human consumption and therefore camouflages the reality that certain classes of people consume resources at astronomical rates in comparison with the rest. It’s utility in shielding class hierarchies from scrutiny should be perfectly obvious.
deleted by creator
The Agrarian Revolution really was where humanity started going downhill.
This is true, but agriculture is a trap in the sense that once we adopted it, there was no turning back.
Remind me again of how farming ruined people
The first written evidence of slavery in the ancient world comes from ancient Mesopotamia. However, slavery was in practice much longer than that. Slavery most likely began when the first cities needed labor to keep food production up to feed growing populations.
So you propose an anarchy? I dont think that would go well.
And your point is?
Simply trotting that out as a truth tells us nothing about how you propose to build a modern system that respects how we’ve evolved as a species.
deleted by creator
It’s not just about systems, It’s about conditions. Certain conditions make certain strategies more profitable - see game theory. I think low population density and hard life conditions cam lead to kindness being among the winning strategies.
Yeah well we dont have any of those conditions and it would make sense to make oue life conditions harder or to lower the population density so drastically so this meme doesnt make any sense
Fortunately, we’re doing our best to make our life conditions harder in the future and possibly to lower the population as well!
Of course, there can be other sets of conditions that lead to kindness win. Like probably heavy cultural persecution of selfishness. The conditions can also be pretty complex. I wonder whether those things have been studied in some meaningful way.
criminal diversion programs
Me! Bow to me and you will be rewarded for kindness!
Some veil of ignorance everyone is part of the ruling class for a week type stuff? Or maybe just anarcho syndicalism.
deleted by creator
Interesting. Can you say more about what that is?
deleted by creator
“These individuals and groups synthesise radical far-right politics with environmentalism,[5][6] and will typically argue that overpopulation is the primary threat to the environment and that the only solution is a complete halt to immigration or, at their most extreme, genocide against minority groups and ethnicities”
You’re just a fascist…with a fancier label.
I like how you spelled fascism phonetically.
English is not my first language, cry
You’re welcome.
The one that is the best at mitigating greed.
Any sufficiently large system rewarding kindness will be taken advantage of by selfish people.
The system shouldn’t be sufficiently large then. Decentralized networks are cool.
The cutoff is between 200 and 1000 people.
So why not have a system specifically designed to mitigate greed in lieu of one that incentivizes it?
Because with capitalism, the greed is out in the open. Everyone understands it. It is clear and legal to push against the greed of those who have more.
In a system that incentivizes “virtues”, greed will hide behind those virtues. And when you then fight against that greed, you are accused of attacking those virtues instead.
Absolutely. Greed will always exist and evil people will always take advantage of others. May as well lay everyone’s cards on the table.
Hey, that makes sense. Now, in this capitalist system that exists in real life—the one that you think is working out better than any alternatives you can think of—are everyone’s cards laid out?
Yes…? We are aware of how bad we’re being fucked. We saw the Panama papers. Rich people dodge taxes with loopholes. War is waged to line pockets. Senators practice insider trading. Huge, major problems exist with capitalism and of course, we can’t know the full extent. What do you think would be different under your preference?
Yes? It’s that obvious? What percentage of the population knows how the animals they consume are raised and slaughtered, or that it’s illegal to show them? What percentage knows that in many other nations, the burger flipping jobs the U.S. loves to debate do pay better, and yet the food is cheaper? What percentage is aware that many European nations simply do not allow large corporations like Google and Facebook to “own” your data, and that they do not have some sort of inherent right to it? All of these things are legal—passing laws to hide information you don’t like, having no obligation to pay livable wages or provide healthcare, lining your pockets with money nobody else knew you could just… take. Seems like a system in which these actions weren’t both legal and highly rewarded could, you know, put more of the cards on the table.
I’m allowed to go take out a loan and start my own business to be a piece of shit like every other business owner and noone will stop me from doing so.
Noone will stop you either, question is why you aren’t dealing your cards.
How would you even have the time to do that? You’re preoccupied picking random fights on the internet. So why aren’t you dealing your cards?
I’m a leftist but I’m not much of a fan of the Soviet Union. I’m Finnish and middle-aged so I know a bunch of people who had to escape from there and I’ve heard first-hand stories about the shit that went on, and I’ve visited Soviet Estonia who got the short end of the stick with Russian imperialism compared to us. At least we stayed independent although had to grant a lot of power over eg. our foreign policy to the Russians – ie. Soviets, but it’s not like it wasn’t essentially a Russian project since they pretty quickly forgot about korenization and went for Russification instead – to keep them from invading (again…)
One of the biggest failures of alot of leftists spaces is failing to criticize the failures of the USSR. Yes they had alot of Ws but they also took their fair shares of Ls due to external and internal forces. That being said there arent many leftists that geninuinly want to recreate the USSR. We are merely trying to pierce through the veil of Capitalist propaganda to recontectuallize what they did right and incorporate it into the modern political discourse.
That was well said. Recontextualization is exactly the thing; it’s not that I think the Soviet Union was absolute evil with zero redeeming features. They got more right during the early years although I’m not necessarily a huge fan of that period either, and to a large extent it was Stalin who fucked them up pretty severely with the frankly sociopathic system that the Union turned into.
Russian political culture has been outright brutal for a long time. Eg. these KGB-like secret police organizations have been around for a while and have invariably had brutal methods of dealing with politically displeasing individuals or just who-the-hell-ever in many cases. This, coupled with the cultural ethos that Russia and Russians – and specifically meaning ethnic Russians – are superior to anyone outside their borders and a tendency for imperialism, means that Russian rule has nearly invariably been a shitty time, with Finland being one of the few exceptions as we mostly faced little repression or cultural erasure compared to other Russian “colonies” and this was done intentionally; most of the Russian Emperors during our time as a Grand Duchy in some ways thought of Finland as way to show the European powers that they can run things in a “western” way, and to work as a kind of window to the West. For the last 20 or so years they did try to Russify us, which we – being stubborn fucks – did not take well. We also kept our previous Parliament for the most part even though even starting from Alexander I the Emperors wanted to have autocratic rule, but – again in parts thanks to us being stubborn fucks – it took something like 4 emperors for it to happen. Their other historical or the currently existing colonies (nobody seems to think of Russia as a colonialist empire because their colonies are inside contiguous borders) weren’t quite so lucky, as Russification and “Russian supremacy” has been the standard.
This political culture played a large part in the problems with the Union. It was nominally multicultural (and korenization was briefly a thing until they went back to Russification as usual) but it wasn’t exactly unclear who were ultimately in charge.
And before some smartass barges in asking me why it’s OK if the US/UK/France/whoever does this stuff: I don’t like imperialism any more regardless of who’s doing it.
Jokes aside communism is just as bad because it does nothing to prevent power from congregating at the top. The only difference is the type of corruption.
Talk to anyone who grew up in the eastern block about bread lines. Communism is a failure in comparison to capitalism.
This is the dumbest comment on this entire page.
You posted a photo of fully stocked shelves and every word you said is a straight up trope. “Corruption” does so much work with politically illiterate westerners to paper over why ‘bad thing is bad’ without a lick of knowledge about either the bad system or the good one in your mind. And I always love hearing about how bad socialism is from people who suffered from the end of socialism.
Ultimately the only actual reason the west has for why socialism is bad is “We’ll kill you”
Socialism != Communism you moron.
I’m actually all for socialism.
Communists are also socialists just as apples are also fruit. I was using socialism in the broad sense.
Point taken. I am not for communism as I’ve seen first hand what it looks like. All communism does is congregate the power in the government instead of private hands. It’s still corrupt just in a different way.
Doesn’t matter the form of government. Power will narrow and corrupt IMHO. It’s human nature.
A lot of it, as a “Westerner” is also the devil you know.
You can’t use personal experiences as evidence when you’re staying anonymous and won’t say what those experiences were. If you’re 60 years old you got a solid 10 years of socialism in the last phase of being overtaken by the west to make adult brained judgements about it.
Let’s start with how old you are. Are you 60 or older? And what country are you talking about?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Capitalism is much filthier lol
Thanks for the meme idea though.
Removed by mod