• ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Those that invest in war should instead invest in life and then we can boost the companies that keep life longer and consumers consuming longer. Strange how death and destruction can be more profitable than consumers consuming longer.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Not strange.

      It very simply logically follows that if your system is designed to maximize short term profit, ie, wealth extraction, over everything else, it will just keep doing this untill it eats itself and everything else, or is absolished from some external force.

      The long term doesn’t matter to this system, other wise the entire system would have started transitioning away from oil dependency in the 80s, when the oil companies had more accurate projections of global warming had than the scientific public didn’t have untill about 30 years later.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Well, the thing is, death and destruction isn’t more profitable. But that’s not the point. The point is to keep global hegemony by keeping the military-industrial-complex rich as fuck while at the same time getting bribes as “incentive”

      For humanity as a whole, it’s all a net loss. Not only does the rocket cost resources, but so does the building that it blows up