Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

Lithose_sl said:

Spoiler

Devastation how? I measure devastation in human suffering. Which is lower. Granted, I will take into account diminishing biodiversity, climate change and other factors as net negatives to us in the future--but if you're asking if I think those things are worth giving up the modern era for? No. And that's what it comes down to. Are the negatives worth the positives, and I unequivocally think they are. I think human suffering today, on a grand scale (And relative for population growth) is far less. If in 20 years rising shore lines has made this statement false, I will retract it, but thus far? Absolutely I'd say were not even half as bad a how brutalan empire like Rome was, or even some local lord and what they did to their populations. And I pointed out emperors and what not, but in general, the elite in those societies? Just as bad. They just had a little less reach.



And yet, Capitalism is far more restrained now in it's exploitation than it was then. So, in some ways, the ability for Capitalism to disenfranchise has continually diminished. Now, you can make a case for social mobility diminishing due to various legislative changes in the U.S., and you'd be correct if your comparison window was within the last60 years, or so. But overall, it's still on an uptrend--don't forget, we're still only 100 years removed from situations where entire towns were essentially enslaved through rental/work practices. What we are seeing now is some constriction on the last round of higher attempted social mobility (Social Security ect). Will we continue dive or will we bounce back? I'm not sure. It's like I said above with possible climate change, it's really going to depend how the next few decades pan out. If people hit rock bottom and a new wave of change sweeps through the country and brings about a second new deal? This era will look like the 30's did to to us, and then we can all say Capitalism continued it's social expansion.

Of course, Marx would say Capitalism just continued it's march toward socialism. Don't forget, Marx did predict a lot of this. He knew Capitalism would lead to the adoption of higher social equality as production rose. This is all just a process. However, we, as humans, tend to view things with a very relativistic lens. But in economics, when discussing the failures or success of broad systems, we really need to take a look at the big picture--and that means we can't just draw comparisons to the superior social mobility of one generation. We need to look at all the time since Capitalism's inception--and from the lens, we really aren't doing too bad (Again, especially compared to all the systems that came before.)





I never stated Capitalism was the final step--I don't believe that, either. In fact, I went out of my way to point that out multiple times.But, I think it's the mostappropriatestep for where we are right now. I think we're going to see a lot of evolutions in Capitalism and Democracies until we see the third world join the first world. Once that happens, I think Capitalism will be outdated and possibly replaced. But that's going to take some leaps in production, which luckily we have coming that's to machines and computers. However, this is all conjecture--I mean, I can make a good case for it, but I have no proof that it will work. (Even soft science proof).

So here's the question. How do youknowwe can do better rightnow? We havenoproof that we can. Every attempting inception of a superior system has met with utter failure. And don't get me wrong, I understand saying "Russia was communism" is laughable...but one thing Russia was, was an attempt to spring vault past Capitalism. And it did show, very clearly, why even Marx said Capitalism was an essential step in the process. But as of now? The most successful systems of providing for people, lowering human suffering and increasing the quality of life?AllCapitalist. The Scandinavian countries might have more socialist leanings, but make no mistake, they are Capitalists.

Which is why I ask where the confidence comes from. Frankly, right now, there is no superior system if you take into account all the variables. You can say it seems like having more socialist elements is superior, and point to Europe, but that doesn't change what the base system is (Brown coffee is still coffee, even if it's less bitter.) Is Capitalism being abused? Yes. Does it need to be fixed? Yes, but the history of the economic system has shown that it's adaptable, and given that massive success has been had with alteration of capitalism, and massive failures have been had with it's replacement, I tend to think we're going to be seeing large alterations in Capitalist economies to more refined, controlled forms of Capitalism.

Ultimately, I do think one day, when production hits an obscene surplus, and there is another contriction on social mobility, you'll see an eventual replacement of Capitalism. I don't feel Capitalism lends itself well to a "near" post scarcity society. And we are seeing some elements of that today (With the growth of synthetic markets in lieu of continued growth in actual markets). It can become cancerous in this situation. But we are a good clip off from that situation at the moment. Claiming "Capitalism is obsolete" is just not taking into account all those variables. It's better to say certain aspects of Capitalism are obsolete and will need adoption of socialist systems in their place. But the whole system? Nope.

TLDR: You're being too ivory tower, and not paying attention to real world failures. Yes, those real world failures might not have implemented the "theory" correctly, but that's part of a theories draw back--real world variables affect it in irrational ways because humans can be self serving and irrational. No one doubts one day, we'll reach what you think we are at right now--but I disagree we are there now. I don't think we will see it in our lifetimes, but maybe our children's children will.

Click to expand...