Capitalism: why eternal growth is self-destructive

[Revoltingest]

Unbridled anything in the hands of wicked people will result in wicked results.

Ever notice that they criticize "unbridled" capitalism?
But they never discuss "unbridled" socialism.
Or socialism that has actually been put into practice
in the real world with disastrous results.
Socialism is naught but a nightmare masquerading
as a dream.

 

[Estro Felino]

A lot of fit people already walk or ride bikes. What are you saying; that they should not be allowed to drive cars?

Exactly. The road belongs to everyone. So if you can walk...do not take your car.

 

[Estro Felino]

Are you really under the impression that Capitalists are the only ones responsible for banks going bankrupt last recession?

Absolutely.
They are so greedy that they invest savers' money into something shady and illegal.

There were a bunch of poor and middle income people responsible as well; should we arrest them too? Or only the people who broke the law.

Savers are victims.

 

[Kfox]

Exactly. The road belongs to everyone. So if you can walk...do not take your car.

Ae you saying those who can walk should not own a car? Or are you saying those who can walk should not be allowed to own or drive a car?

Absolutely.
They are so greedy that they invest savers' money into something shady and illegal.

Can you give an example of something like this ever happening and causing a bank to go bankrupt?

Savers are victims.

Not all. Many banks went bankrupt during that time because amongst other reasons, greedy bankers were qualifying home mortgages to people who were too poor to afford them, then sold those loans to someone else; and because the poor person with the mortgage could not afford to keep up with payments, they defaulted on their loans and when lots of people defaulted like this, it contributed to many banks going under

 

[osgart]

Every economic system turns into a hierarchy of have's and have nots oppressed because of human nature to control and secure power.

Fair for me, fend for yourself. Ideologies and systems always bend to the powers able to control the masses. There are really good forms of economy except for human nature.

It takes checking and balancing human nature to arrive at any kind of freedom, and quality of life.

Because of human nature, life is a race for power always. If I don't, the other guy will.

Power must be constructed to mitigate human nature.

 

[PureX]

Unbridled anything in the hands of wicked people will garner wicked results. Do you really think unbridled socialism, communism, in the hands of wicked people will cause them to all of a sudden become moral and altruistic? No. That’s why we have laws; to prevent evil people from harming others.

The problem with your theory is that you continue to ignore the fact that the goal of socialism and communism is the well being of the society/community as a whole. So that when this goal is negated by individual greed and the lust for power it is no longer socialism or communism. It's insurrection. Whereas greed and selfishness are the goal of capitalism. The capital investor makes all the decisions on his own behalf, and at the expense of everyone else involved. It is in effect socially corrupt/insurrection from the start.

 

[Kfox]

The problem with your theory is that you continue to ignore the fact that the goal of socialism and communism is the well being of the society/community as a whole. So that when this goal is negated by individual greed and the lust for power it is no longer socialism or communism. It's insurrection.

The problem with your theory is that you continue to ignore the fact that the road to Hell is usually paved with good intentions. What good are good intentions if they all lead to destruction?

Whereas greed and selfishness are the goal of capitalism. The capital investor makes all the decisions on his own behalf, and at the expense of everyone else involved. It is in effect socially corrupt/insurrection from the start.

Socialism and communism is designed for perfectly moral people, capitalism is designed for morally corrupt people. In the real world, nobody is morally perfect, and the majority of people are morally corrupt. That’s why the end result of socialism and communism is usually failure, and insurrection and the end results of capitalism is usually success and growth. Capitalism is designed for the real world, Communism and Socialism is designed for the Pipe Dream.

 

[PureX]

The problem with your theory is that you continue to ignore the fact that the road to Hell is usually paved with good intentions. What good are good intentions if they all lead to destruction?

Not all good intentions lead to bad results. And what us your suggested alternative? That we go ahead and act on our bad intentions assuming the results will be bad, anyway?

Socialism and communism is designed for perfectly moral people, capitalism is designed for morally corrupt people. In the real world, nobody is morally perfect, and the majority of people are morally corrupt.

Ah, the old "if it can't be perfect, why bother even trying" trope.

That’s why the end result of socialism and communism is usually failure, and insurrection and the end results of capitalism is usually success and growth.

The end result is not failure. The end result is that greed and corruption destroy everything it touches, and if we are not exceptionally vigilant, it touches everything and everyone eventually. When the US implemented socialist principals after the Great Depression everyone was far better off for it. But we were not wise, and we're not vigilant, and soon our greed and selfishness had us voting for politicians that would undermine and dismantle those socialist policies. And now look where we are. Because greed and selfishness poisons and ruins everyone and everything it touches. And capitalism is systematized greed. We did not fully understand this, and so we let it poison us yet again.

Capitalism is designed for the real world, Communism and Socialism is designed for the Pipe Dream.

Your mind has been poisoned, and now you're trying to spread that poison to everyone else.

 

[Estro Felino]

Every economic system turns into a hierarchy of have's and have nots oppressed because of human nature to control and secure power.

Animal nature. I am going to explain it below.

Fair for me, fend for yourself. Ideologies and systems always bend to the powers able to control the masses. There are really good forms of economy except for human nature.

Animal nature.

It takes checking and balancing human nature to arrive at any kind of freedom, and quality of life.

Because of human nature, life is a race for power always. If I don't, the other guy will.

I would speak of animal nature, not human nature. Humans are better than animals. So if I don't the other guy will is what these greedy monkeys are doing here, by stealing extra bananas from others who have none.

It turns out humans have evolved from animal stage. Or at least, I have, I don't know about other people.
I can control my whims and desires, and I have understood Schopenhauer.

Power must be constructed to mitigate human nature.

Power is supposed to push for the evolution of humans, so they abandon the materialistic and selfish dimension which is typical of the previous animal stage, and to lead them towards the path of spirituality.

 

[Stevicus]

Every economic system turns into a hierarchy of have's and have nots oppressed because of human nature to control and secure power.

Fair for me, fend for yourself. Ideologies and systems always bend to the powers able to control the masses. There are really good forms of economy except for human nature.

It takes checking and balancing human nature to arrive at any kind of freedom, and quality of life.

Because of human nature, life is a race for power always. If I don't, the other guy will.

Power must be constructed to mitigate human nature.

I've heard some argue that capitalism is more conducive and congruent to human nature, whereas socialism carries the expectation of human gregariousness and social responsibility - which is apparently more than what most humans are able to handle. Or so the argument often goes.

Using "nature," or natural law, can always be kind of tricky when arguing for or against an abstract political position. Our culture and political perceptions seem to vacillate between the idea of freedom, equality, democracy, and human rights for all - versus the idea that humans are, at their core, some base, depraved animal that has to be tamed and controlled.

It's an interesting position to take, especially from the point of view of how many Americans are taught from birth how our country is the shining city on the hill, the world's paragon of virtue and honor, the leader of the free world, and the defender of democracy and human rights. There's a strong, moralistic sanctimony and self-righteousness which comes out of that position. It's only when it's challenged that the same perception and point of view can suddenly turn into the "You can't handle the truth" dialog as exemplified in Jack Nicholson's tirade in the movie A Few Good Men.

That may give a hint as to why there can be such vehement opposition to capitalism. It's not opposition to "human nature," but opposition to disingenuous and hypocritical attempts to place a facade of sanctimony and enlightenment to shield us from some supposed "awful truth" that most of us "can't handle." It's so common that it's become a cultural trope, as one might hear a youth being scolded by his elders, "Just wait 'til you get to the real world, young man!" Whenever I hear something like this, I might wonder what they're actually teaching the kid. Do we teach our kids about the "real world" or some idealized fantasy world where "all men are created equal" and there's "liberty and justice for all"?

A lot of conservatives seem to labor under the misperception that all these young kids become socialists because of what they teach in the schools and universities. We might hear some right-wing pundits say, "All these socialist professors are indoctrinating our children!" I don't think that's the case at all.

They're teaching and propagating what is common throughout society and what most of us were taught from birth. We are taught that America is a free and democratic country which champions human rights, fairness, justice, and liberty for all. These are patriotic pro-American ideals, not "socialist" at all (except where socialism overlaps with freedom, democracy, human rights, fairness, justice, and liberty). The same teachings include ideals of American exceptionalism, the "shining city on the hill," along with how virtuous, enlightened, and honorable we are, as a country. This leads to an expectation that our political system will reflect the stated ideals and principles which have been heavily propagated and woven into the national fabric.

But it's also juxtaposed with the idea of all these people falling all over themselves, desperate to conceal and hide this supposed "real world" and the awful "truth" that none of us can handle. That's the contradiction that can trigger a sharp reaction. It's the lie that makes all the difference. The hypocrisy, the phony sanctimony - that's what gets people riled up more than anything else.

 

[Kfox]

Not all good intentions lead to bad results. And what us your suggested alternative? That we go ahead and act on our bad intentions assuming the results will be bad, anyway?

My point is, Socialism and Communism may have been good intentions, but they seem to always have a way of leading to bad results

Ah, the old "if it can't be perfect, why bother even trying" trope.

Actually it's been tried countless times; with unfavorable results.

The end result is not failure. The end result is that greed and corruption destroy everything it touches,

Does that include the Billion people who have been taken out of poverty in the past 20 years due to capitalism?

Take a Bow, Capitalism -- Nearly 1 Billion People Have Been Taken out of Extreme Poverty in 20 Years, Thanks to Markets

From an editorial in the current edition of The Economist, “Towards the End of Poverty“: The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) —such as cutting maternal mortality by...

www.aei.org

When the US implemented socialist principals after the Great Depression everyone was far better off for it. But we were not wise, and we're not vigilant, and soon our greed and selfishness had us voting for politicians that would undermine and dismantle those socialist policies

The US has always had socialist principles. The US economic system is what is called a "Mixed Economy" Meaning though it is mostly capitalist, there are aspects of socialism mixed into the economy. Socialism in the USA is not something that was started and ended during the great depression area

. And now look where we are. Because greed and selfishness poisons and ruins everyone and everything it touches. And capitalism is systematized greed. We did not fully understand this, and so we let it poison us yet again.

When comparing today with yesterday, food is safer and more plentiful, work is safer, products are better, where is this capitalist poison that you speak of?

 

[PureX]

My point is, Socialism and Communism may have been good intentions, but they seem to always have a way of leading to bad results

Actually it's been tried countless times; with unfavorable results.

Social security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, workman's comp, welfare, food stamps, public housing: these are all socialist programs that have saved and improved the lives of many millions of people. And all made necessary because capitalism does not care about the lives or well being of anyone but the capital investor class. They only produce unfavorable results when they become ineffectual in the face of capitalist greed and market control. Or when the society under the yoke of capitalism becomes so selfish and greedy that it's willing to allow it's own members to suffer and die before it's willing to share any of it's collective wealth.

I'm puzzled by the fact that you can't see any of this.

Does that include the Billion people who have been taken out of poverty in the past 20 years due to capitalism?

How was this due to capitalism? Seems to me it was due to an increase in practical knowledge due to science, and mass production techniques, not to greedy capitalists being in charge of it. In fact, it's the greedy capitalists that are causing this great increase in production to to become do exploitive that billions of workers the worked over tension stuck in relative poverty.

Take a Bow, Capitalism -- Nearly 1 Billion People Have Been Taken out of Extreme Poverty in 20 Years, Thanks to Markets

From an editorial in the current edition of The Economist, “Towards the End of Poverty“: The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) —such as cutting maternal mortality by...

www.aei.org

The US has always had socialist principles. The US economic system is what is called a "Mixed Economy" Meaning though it is mostly capitalist, there are aspects of socialism mixed into the economy. Socialism in the USA is not something that was started and ended during the great depression area

Meaning that capitalism is so socially toxic that socialist principals have to be enforced by rule of law just to keep society functioning.

When comparing today with yesterday, food is safer and more plentiful, work is safer, products are better, where is this capitalist poison that you speak of?

None of that is due to capitalism. In fact, the capitalists have been fighting it all the way. And they continue to fight the imposition of this kind of "socialist oversight". Because it cuts into their profits. And under capitalism, the profits returned on the capital invested are all that matters.

 

[osgart]

I've heard some argue that capitalism is more conducive and congruent to human nature, whereas socialism carries the expectation of human gregariousness and social responsibility - which is apparently more than what most humans are able to handle. Or so the argument often goes.

Too much capitalism is neverending growth and monopolization for the fewer. Capitalism in the context of social regulation ensures that monopolies are broken up and a fair sense of competition is enforced. Capitalism unregulated builds empires. Empires influence the rule of law through power, with control from wealth. Capitalism without social regulation is wasteful to the environment. Human nature is too dominate and control more often than to judiciously care for all citizens. Capitalists don't like competition. So it's self defeating.

Using "nature," or natural law, can always be kind of tricky when arguing for or against an abstract political position. Our culture and political perceptions seem to vacillate between the idea of freedom, equality, democracy, and human rights for all - versus the idea that humans are, at their core, some base, depraved animal that has to be tamed and controlled.

Without working toward freedom, equality and democracy there will be oppressive powers. Since there is a level of democratic freedom and equality people will enjoy a quality of life. Depraved animals come along more often than not. So the balance meter will fluctuate between these competing interests. If the meter breaks too hard with outright socialist control then wealth, and individual rights will take a big hit in society, and social instability will result. If the meter breaks the other way with totally unregulated capitalist monopoly then outright oppression and fascism will rise. Either extreme ends in dictatorial rule.

It's an interesting position to take, especially from the point of view of how many Americans are taught from birth how our country is the shining city on the hill, the world's paragon of virtue and honor, the leader of the free world, and the defender of democracy and human rights. There's a strong, moralistic sanctimony and self-righteousness which comes out of that position. It's only when it's challenged that the same perception and point of view can suddenly turn into the "You can't handle the truth" dialog as exemplified in Jack Nicholson's tirade in the movie A Few Good Men.

Without military defense I don't think there'd be any economic fairness, and no rule of law that adds up to a desirable quality of life. So when people like to champion freedom, human rights, virtue and honor at least they know that that's where freedom and wealth is created. Propaganda and lip service to freedom and wealth, without protecting, and upholding civil liberties is one area where leaders can be dangerous.

That may give a hint as to why there can be such vehement opposition to capitalism. It's not opposition to "human nature," but opposition to disingenuous and hypocritical attempts to place a facade of sanctimony and enlightenment to shield us from some supposed "awful truth" that most of us "can't handle." It's so common that it's become a cultural trope, as one might hear a youth being scolded by his elders, "Just wait 'til you get to the real world, young man!" Whenever I hear something like this, I might wonder what they're actually teaching the kid. Do we teach our kids about the "real world" or some idealized fantasy world where "all men are created equal" and there's "liberty and justice for all"?

I've been taught the idealized fantasy world in grammar school. I think without striving toward equality, and liberty/justice for all we will find ourselves in a totally undesirable world. But to not be taught about the real world, and the dangers that come from many human natures that are corrupt, and oppressive is a great disservice as well. I don't see that all of human nature is the same, but bad human nature crops up all too frequently.

A lot of conservatives seem to labor under the misperception that all these young kids become socialists because of what they teach in the schools and universities. We might hear some right-wing pundits say, "All these socialist professors are indoctrinating our children!" I don't think that's the case at all.

That's why we see Hillsdale college, and Prager U.

They're teaching and propagating what is common throughout society and what most of us were taught from birth. We are taught that America is a free and democratic country which champions human rights, fairness, justice, and liberty for all. These are patriotic pro-American ideals, not "socialist" at all (except where socialism overlaps with freedom, democracy, human rights, fairness, justice, and liberty). The same teachings include ideals of American exceptionalism, the "shining city on the hill," along with how virtuous, enlightened, and honorable we are, as a country. This leads to an expectation that our political system will reflect the stated ideals and principles which have been heavily propagated and woven into the national fabric.

That overlap with socialism is something I find to be necessary. I don't like extremes of either side of socialism and capitalism monopoly.

But it's also juxtaposed with the idea of all these people falling all over themselves, desperate to conceal and hide this supposed "real world" and the awful "truth" that none of us can handle. That's the contradiction that can trigger a sharp reaction. It's the lie that makes all the difference. The hypocrisy, the phony sanctimony - that's what gets people riled up more than anything else.

I don't think it takes much imagination to realize the harsh realities, and injustices that the world creates.

 

[PureX]

I don't believe that commerce and socialism inherently conflict, as many of you here seem to foolishly presume (because the capitalists have been preaching it since long before any of us were born). Nor do I believe that freedom equals selfishness, as being the "right to do whatever we please", also as the capitalists have been preaching to us ad-naseum.

And here is why.

What is good for the many is also going to be good for any one individual among those many. So socialism (serving the good of the many) does not conflict with the good of the individual within that society (as the capitalists are constantly pushing us to believe). UNLESS that individual within that society IS SEEKING TO SERVE HIMSELF AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS SOCIETY. In which case that individual has then become a toxic parasite within his own community. And that community has every right to neutralize that toxicity. In fact, it is obliged by it's intent to serve the social well-being to do so.

And the same logic applies to the idea of freedom. Extending freedom to everyone equally does not infringe on anyone's freedom individually. In fact, there is no such thing as "unequal freedom". Because the proper term for that is the oppression of the weaker by the stronger. And oppression is not any kind of freedom. Not even for the oppressors. So there is no such thing as freedom without it being equitably afforded. There is only selfishness and exploitation masquerading as individual freedom.

So the capitalists are lying when they constantly claim that socialism must inevitably stifle individual freedom and well being.

 

[Kfox]

Social security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, workman's comp, welfare, food stamps, public housing: these are all socialist programs that have saved and improved the lives of many millions of people. And all made necessary because capitalism does not care about the lives or well being of anyone but the capital investor class. They only produce unfavorable results when they become ineffectual in the face of capitalist greed and market control. Or when the society under the yoke of capitalism becomes so selfish and greedy that it's willing to allow it's own members to suffer and die before it's willing to share any of it's collective wealth.

I'm puzzled by the fact that you can't see any of this.

As I said before, because people are crooked, there has to be laws in place to prevent them from taking advantage of the weak. With Socialism, the crooked people are the Government and they enact laws allowing them to take advantage of the weak

How was this due to capitalism?

Read the article; I think they did a pretty good job of explain how it was due to capitalism

Seems to me it was due to an increase in practical knowledge due to science, and mass production techniques, not to greedy capitalists being in charge of it. In fact, it's the greedy capitalists that are causing this great increase in production to to become do exploitive that billions of workers the worked over tension stuck in relative poverty.

If Capitalism is sooo bad, and Socialism and Communism is Sooo good, how come when Germany was split up, East Germany (capitalist) was so successful compared to west Germany (communist) that they had to build a wall to prevent the people from leaving for the capitalist country? The same thing with North and south Vietnam, North and South Korea, it seems in every scenario where capitalism and communism competes against each other, capitalism always seem end up with a better life style for it’s people? Don’t get me wrong, socialist programs can be good, but you shouldn’t have the entire economic system based on Socialism; the best programs is to have a combination of socialism AND capitalism, with most of the majority of the system being capitalist

 

[Stevicus]

Too much capitalism is neverending growth and monopolization for the fewer. Capitalism in the context of social regulation ensures that monopolies are broken up and a fair sense of competition is enforced. Capitalism unregulated builds empires. Empires influence the rule of law through power, with control from wealth. Capitalism without social regulation is wasteful to the environment. Human nature is too dominate and control more often than to judiciously care for all citizens. Capitalists don't like competition. So it's self defeating.

Without working toward freedom, equality and democracy there will be oppressive powers. Since there is a level of democratic freedom and equality people will enjoy a quality of life. Depraved animals come along more often than not. So the balance meter will fluctuate between these competing interests. If the meter breaks too hard with outright socialist control then wealth, and individual rights will take a big hit in society, and social instability will result. If the meter breaks the other way with totally unregulated capitalist monopoly then outright oppression and fascism will rise. Either extreme ends in dictatorial rule.

As long as enough people have a stake in the system, however small, they probably won't be inclined to want to rock the boat too much. But if they're worried about losing what they have, they may gravitate towards more "strongman" types. Capitalists are also strongly motivated to protect their assets and wealth, and they certainly don't want upheavals or striking workers to threaten their holdings. It's the old "security vs. liberty" idea, but those who have more to lose and more to protect will lean more and more towards "security" if pushed in that direction. That's the road to dictatorship.

The irony is that, even the unregulated capitalist monopolists will end up far more regulated than they otherwise would have been. Once they're under the thumb of a dictatorship, what other choice would they have?

Without military defense I don't think there'd be any economic fairness, and no rule of law that adds up to a desirable quality of life. So when people like to champion freedom, human rights, virtue and honor at least they know that that's where freedom and wealth is created. Propaganda and lip service to freedom and wealth, without protecting, and upholding civil liberties is one area where leaders can be dangerous.

Military defense is certainly a necessity in any country, although I don't think it has anything to do with economic fairness. Most of the unfairness in this world has come about through the strong dominating the weak - which can be seen as a "natural" process at work. Others might see that view as too cynical or nihilistic, believing that humans should strive for greater enlightenment, beyond our base, animal selves. We've made some progress, but we still have some work to do.

I've been taught the idealized fantasy world in grammar school. I think without striving toward equality, and liberty/justice for all we will find ourselves in a totally undesirable world. But to not be taught about the real world, and the dangers that come from many human natures that are corrupt, and oppressive is a great disservice as well. I don't see that all of human nature is the same, but bad human nature crops up all too frequently.

I think the state of the world at present is that, some areas are desirable, and some areas are not so desirable. There are wide disparities, along with geopolitical tensions, and other disruptions which put people in a "national security" state of mind. We justify this as part of our general crusade for freedom and democracy, and that we can't have peace because our rivals in this world are pure evil and are hellbent on world domination. They would see any peace overtures as a sign of weakness, so therefore we must be militaristic and strong. Or at least, that's how our leaders seem to see things.

That's part of the problem of being taught the idealized fantasy world, since it makes the "other" world look like a land of pure evil - something to be derided, ridiculed, and feared.

This is the kind of situation described in the novel 1984, which illustrates the perfect way to keep the cattle focused and in line - for no other reason than to keep them managed. No war is ever to be won or lost; its continuation is the only goal. But if they truly believe that Big Brother is protecting them from evil, then that would be their idealized fantasy world. Of course, as readers, we're supposed to look at it as obvious BS and so forth, but for those who truly, genuinely believed deep in their hearts, it was as real as anything.

 

[Stevicus]

I came across an interesting video exploring why Democrats are supporting far-right politicians:

"Fascism is capitalism in decay."

It's indicated that the reason is not necessarily just because they want to run against the weirdest or most extreme candidate (which would presumably lead to a Democratic victory), but also out of a desire to neutralize the socialist left who might feel pressured to vote for the lesser of two evils. As a result, it has the effect of moving the overall political center further to the right.

 

[Kfox]

I don't believe that commerce and socialism inherently conflict, as many of you here seem to foolishly presume (because the capitalists have been preaching it since long before any of us were born). Nor do I believe that freedom equals selfishness, as being the "right to do whatever we please", also as the capitalists have been preaching to us ad-naseum.

And here is why.

What is good for the many is also going to be good for any one individual among those many. So socialism (serving the good of the many) does not conflict with the good of the individual within that society (as the capitalists are constantly pushing us to believe). UNLESS that individual within that society IS SEEKING TO SERVE HIMSELF AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS SOCIETY. In which case that individual has then become a toxic parasite within his own community. And that community has every right to neutralize that toxicity. In fact, it is obliged by it's intent to serve the social well-being to do so.

And the same logic applies to the idea of freedom. Extending freedom to everyone equally does not infringe on anyone's freedom individually. In fact, there is no such thing as "unequal freedom". Because the proper term for that is the oppression of the weaker by the stronger. And oppression is not any kind of freedom. Not even for the oppressors. So there is no such thing as freedom without it being equitably afforded. There is only selfishness and exploitation masquerading as individual freedom.

So the capitalists are lying when they constantly claim that socialism must inevitably stifle individual freedom and well being.

Remember; the Pilgrims initially tried Socialism, and it failed miserably. I think the account given at that time by Governor William Bradford ((the head of the colony) explaining why it didn’t work for them, is an excellent account of why it doesn’t work for anyone who tries it.

The Pilgrims Tried Socialism and It Failed – AIER

www.aier.org

 

[Oh the Humanity]

Eternal growth is impossible: yet it's what unbridled Capitalism and the profit maximization advocate for.
They want a country to grow every year, and what does that imply?

That more cars are produced, more cars are sold: but spaces are limited and at some point, we will need to stop producing thousands and thousands of car because there will be not even one inch free.
All garages, all parking lots will be taken.
Eternal growth is suicidal and self-destructive: capitalists want more and more people on Earth, because they want more and more customers.

It's a management problem. Lots of space on earth yet.

Pro tip: if you don't like inner city crowding, get the hell out of the city.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a management problem. Lots of space on earth yet.

Pro tip: if you don't like inner city crowding, get the hell out of the city.

For the record: big cities are former country villages.
It's a matter of time.