Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism's Imminent Demise (vice.com) 622

Capitalism as we know it is over, an anonymous reader writes. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General. From a report: The main reason? We're transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet's environmental resources. Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems, the new report says that these are not really separate crises at all. Rather, these crises are part of the same fundamental transition to a new era characterized by inefficient fossil fuel production and the escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer explain, predict, or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age, the paper says [PDF].
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism's Imminent Demise

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:26PM (#57204062)

    Shit's falling down, brah

    Get out of the way. You can thank me later.

    - CL

    • by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:08PM (#57204486) Journal
      Actually, your headline is about as accurate as the summary's in that calling them chickens is about as accurate as calling them scientists. The lead author, Paavo Järvensivu, is a independent researcher of economic culture [centerfort...nities.org] which is not science, the next author is a PhD student in the Department of Political and Economic Studies at Helsinki (again not science), and the next two authors appear to be philosophers only the last author claims to be a scientist.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Ahhhh the no true scientist fallacy /s

        • Ahhhh the no true scientist fallacy

          I think you need to look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy again. I'm not trying to redefine scientist to exclude people who write such reports I'm pointing out a factual error that, these people themselves, claim to have professions which are not scientist. This is not a logical fallacy but a factual error.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Well, if they, 'Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), then they are scientists. This would be tied to biology, cerebral function ie psychopathic capitalism is destroying the planet because it places capital worth over life worth, is must psychopathically destroy it's ability to parasitically survive off it's host, the r

        • ... then they are scientists.

          No they aren't.

          This is what scientists do:
          1. Form hypothesis
          2. Test it with an experiment
          3. Publish the result

          This what these NON-scientists did:
          1. Form hypothesis.
          2. Publish it.

          The missing step is an important one.

    • This "Global Warming Will Be The Downfall Of Capitalism" nonsense has been around for a long time. Decades.

      There is a very strong correlation between how strongly one believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming and political ideology.

      I used to get a lot of chuckles when I'd see the warming alarmists saying "there's a correlation between deniers and right-wing politics!"

      When they so obviously did not understand that necessarily means there is also a correlation between believers and left-wing politics.
  • "Scientists" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:27PM (#57204074) Homepage Journal
    I love how people use the word "scientists". It is a completely meaningless term which is supposed to engender feelings of respect. Are these people applying the scientific method to any of their research, or are they just a bunch of lifelong academics looking to avoid real work.
    • Re:"Scientists" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:44PM (#57204232)

      Well, let's take a look...

      Paavo Järvensivu - Economic cultural researcher
      Tero Toivanen - Political Scientist
      Tere Vadén - Philosopher
      Ville Lähde - Philosopher and Journalist
      Antti Majava - Artist
      Jussi T. Eronen - Scientist

      So... I guess to answer your specific question, yes, at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research. But I would definitely call this a multi-disciplinary group rather than a group of scientists.


      • "yes, at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research"

        But that is the crux of the issue: why do you believe that? There is nothing in there that says these people are doing that at all. Is the the term "scientist" or "researcher" that makes you think this? It is just amusing to me how people just assume because someone calls themselves a "researcher" or "scientist" they are actually applying any logic. I am not sure why I am being marked as a "troll" either. It is a valid
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Oh, please - cultural researcher, political scientist, philosopher, philosopher and journalist, artist. How in hell do you believe those are scientific endeavors? Possibly Eronen (geosciences and geography) in his own field which has what all to do with economics?
      • by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:29PM (#57204680)

        at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research.

        Which "method" would that be?

        Is it the one where they conduct repeatable experiments?

        How about the method where they take quantitative readings of known, agreed, observations and then extrapolate the results?

        Maybe it is the method where a group of people have a few beers and bemoan the propspects for the world. Then (after a few more beers) arrive at the conclusion that we're all doomed.

      • Re:"Scientists" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xylantiel ( 177496 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @02:25PM (#57205178)
        The connection to the UN seems pretty tenuous, and putting it in the title is disingenuous. From the article they were : "asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development Report". The attribution given in the summary appears earlier in the article and appears intended to make it seem as if these people and their report have some direct relation to the UN when they really don't seem to. So this is a step up from "some guy yelling on the sidewalk outside the UN building says capitalism is doomed." But closer to "I wrote a letter to the UN to complain about capitalism." None of this may make it into the report. This is like the IPCC, where the report came in two parts: the part with the science and conclusions and the part with a broad survey of peripherally relevant material whether it was junk or not. Then the report is attacked for citing junk in the second part, junk that was not used to support its conclusions in the first part.
      • To be fair, if each of the authors had "economist" after their name my confidence in their conclusion would be no different.
      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @07:36PM (#57207424)
        2 to write and 1 to make the docs pretty. What's the problem? You do understand that pol science is hard, right? It's essentially statistics. Same with being an Economic cultural researcher. Again, math.

        And it's not even hard to imagine why they're saying all this. Capitalism as we practice it today makes people's lives better by growing faster than the ruling class can monopolize the wealth. Remember the .com boom? The housing bubble? Regular people made money because there was just plain so much of it. But a lot of that money was real and was due to massive increases in productivity. Manufacturing's doubled in 50 years. Farm yields are through the roof. Did you know those farm yields require oil, and not just to run tractors? We use oil by products to replenish soil so we can grow without waiting for the land to recover.

        Their point is we can't keep that up. Climate Change won't let us. We can't "grow ourselves out of a recession" anymore. At some point we're going to need social solutions. That means reigning in what we let the ruling class have/do. It means that the scraps the working class has traditionally been left with, which have been mighty tasty scraps of late, are about to go back to what they used to be; scraps. We either fix that with socialism or we go back to feudalism with kings, queens and knights being the crap out of us peasants.
    • I guess "scientists" is the new "hackers". Two words that used to mean specialists but are now used to describe any jerk with even a tiny amount of knowledge in the field.

    • Re:"Scientists" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by morethanapapercert ( 749527 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @03:30PM (#57205704) Homepage
      It's my understanding that political and economic scientists are in much the same boat as astronomers. They can look at known facts, examine and critique those facts to make sure we understand them. Then they can come up with theories that explain those facts, use those theories to make predictions about other facts not yet known and then look to see if there are real world examples of those predictions being accurate. Where facts contradict the theories, the theories get revised or junked altogether.

      What they *lack* is the same thing astronomers lack: the ability to create and run carefully controlled experiments, especially those that are designed to limit the number of variables as much as possible. True, you can run short term experiments but the real world contains so many damn variables (economic, political, religious, human nature etc) that the sort of small scale experiments that can be run do not model the real world very well.

    • by Z80a ( 971949 )

      Something i feel the complete lack of are scientists trying to create a better system.
      People either just stick with capitalism and all it's defects, or try to force a system that was more than proven to not work, the communism.
      No one sits down and comes up with a new design and test it with simulations and proofs etc etc etc..
      Marx didn't even had computers back then, or as good human behavior knowledge, but now we have those things, yet we don't use em.

  • by mkoenecke ( 249261 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:32PM (#57204116) Homepage
    This time socialism will totally work for the whole world, because the *right* people will be in charge and won't be greedy, or self-interested, or power hungry like those awful capitalists. Because they're *scientists.*
    • by anegg ( 1390659 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:41PM (#57204198)
      I recognize your sarcasm, and appreciate it. I am inclined to also point out that these results predicting the demise of capitalism come from folks who I suspect were never all that fond of capitalism in the first place. So there may be a little confirmation bias in their work, regardless of their standing as scientists. I *think* capitalism works in a variety of environmental contexts, but it sometimes takes a while for long-term consequences (downstream costs) to get factored into current decisions. I'm not sure that "other than capitalist" economic theory will do any better at incorporating downstream costs; they may do it differently, but not necessarily better.
      • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:08PM (#57204488) Journal

        As usual, the Star Trek replicator "post-scarcity" world believers ignore how to get there the most quickly, which is the freedom to innovate with free market economics, aided by university research.

        If capitalism dies, it will be because of its own success in a world of freedom and free people have moved on, and not because some power hungry snot in government decides for it on its own behalf.

        Properly speaking, capitalism is a corollary of freedom, in the economic world.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:33PM (#57204718)

          As usual, the Star Trek replicator "post-scarcity" world believers ignore how to get there the most quickly, which is the freedom to innovate with free market economics, aided by university research.

          Marx himself believed that capitalism was necessary before socialism, and that successful socialism could not happen without completing a capitalist phase.

        • by PuckSR ( 1073464 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @02:32PM (#57205254)

          As usual, the Star Trek replicator "post-scarcity" world believers ignore how to get there the most quickly, which is the freedom to innovate with free market economics, aided by university research.

          If capitalism dies, it will be because of its own success in a world of freedom and free people have moved on, and not because some power hungry snot in government decides for it on its own behalf.

          Properly speaking, capitalism is a corollary of freedom, in the economic world.

          I dont think anyone disagrees. Free-market capitalism is great. It is a bit like natural selection. You get very robust and successful specimens out of the process.
          The problem is that just like natural selection, shit can get a bit out of control. The old animals don't simply move over and let the new animals in. The world has to burn a bit. You get malthusian collapses and periods of starvation. Everything eventually settles down and equilibrium is reached(after a few hundred generations), but it isn't a smooth transition.

          Also, just like natural selection, stuff gets completely out of control if you pump unlimited resources into an environment. Imagine you had an aquarium, and you started pumping it full of fish food. The fish aren't simply going to eat until they are full and then allow the other animals to thrive. The larger fish will gourge themselves. Some of them will gourge themselves to death if you aren't careful. They will grow huge. They will still attack all of the smaller fish that they can now fit in their mouth. It won't be because of any need for food, rather it will be a basic predatory instinct. They will use their new size to dominate the fish tank. Even with the unlimited food supply, they will still be attacking all of the other organisms in the aquarium. They will pick the aquarium clean, until you have nothing in the tank but a few massive fish. The massive fish wont even be able to swim.

          No one is saying that natural selection/free-market is bad. In fact, it is very good. Evolutionary algorithms are some of the best in the world to solve difficult computer problems. The issue is that they are messy. They are incredibly messy. They will require many generations of destruction to reach equilibrium. That is fine if we are talking about bits of data. It can be a bit more dubious if we are talking about human lives. They also frequently come up with solutions which are very counter-intuitive and downright cruel. Once again, not so bad in some realms. Awful when discussing human beings. The solution to the problem is to keep some hand on the system and make sure that the experiment of the free-market doesn't get too crazy. We don't want 5-year-olds working in mines or people being sold as slaves, both of which are free-market solutions.
          You can debate how much 'regulation' you want on that experiment, but don't pretend for a second you want a completely unregulated free market. I can promise you that a world without regulation would be very messy and very ugly. After a few thousand years, it might settle down, but in the meantime many millions of people would suffer. So the real debate is only how tightly you want to rein in the experiment.

          Now, as far as a post-scarcity world:
          You want to get there more quickly? Why?
          We have no idea how to handle that transition and the transition will be ugly as fuck. Lets be honest, we are pretty much already to a post-scarcity world.
          Right now, the total energy cost to build a solar power plant is less than the output of the solar power plant. What does that mean?
          Hypothetically I could build a 1 MW solar plant, and then exclusively energy from that solar plant over the next 30 years to build a 1.2 MW plant. That would include the mining, refining, fabrication, feeding the workers, harvesting their food, etc.
          Unfortunately, the gains are pretty minimal and without an energy market it doesn't quite work out right now. However, we are on the precipice of a world where energy is basically just limited to how muc

          • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @03:08PM (#57205514)

            With natural selection you never really get to settle down and have equilibrium. It only looks that way when you look at relatively short periods of time.

            You can't even point to periods of time of more than a century where the free market was relatively stable. We are most definitely still in the early experimentation phase of capitalism.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I'd just like to point out that what we have in the US isn't capitalism. It's much closer to corporatism [slashdot.org]. In true capitalism, the government is present only to enforce contract law. In our current system, government is deeply entangled in virtually every aspect of business. Sorry, not capitalism.

      • by epine ( 68316 )

        So there may be a little confirmation bias in their work, regardless of their standing as scientists.

        Did you spot the incumbency bias in your own words?

        Because what they are arguing against (the glorious status quo) surely also has a dollop of confirmation bias baked in.

        No person has ever been so impartial as to have been calibrated to neutral in all dimensions of human conflict simultaneously. Being calibrated to neutral in any small domain (or close to it) is a remarkable human achievement. Many scienti

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      This has never been a good answer because under capitalism the capitalists have been in fact, Greedy, Self-Interested, and Power-Hungry.

      • You mean they behave just like people under communism and socialism? Wow, who'da thought.
      • I wonder whether anybody commenting here about how bad "socialism" is have any understanding of history?
        I am thinking of the revolutions of 1848, in which almost every country in Europe had some sort of violent uprising. The reasons for this were mostly because of many of the same issues we in the west are dealing with now.
        When the wealthiest parts of society control the levers of power, and give themselves exemptions from the costs of running society, there will be trouble.
        I could see a time where th
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Nordic capitalism works pretty well [amazon.com]. It's called Social Democracy; people today want to run to Democratic Socialism.

      I've extended some of the basics to achieve stronger economic stability and growth with lower taxes. The Nordics use huge social welfare systems as an economic support and a household support; I split those two duties between two specifically-designed systems, with the main economic support being a foundation and the rest built on top. We should be able to provide stronger welfare and soc

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MikeTheBike ( 802199 )

        Sorry but this is not true by any means. I'm living under the so-called social democracy of Sweden. Which is a joke as our social welfare is based on a lie... a big lie!

        It is nothing but a Ponzi-scheme on a country scale and as soon as something goes horribly wrong, as it often does, we only raise taxes to cover the huge holes in the budget. The economy is only working if all current costs including pensions etc are paid through the taxes of the workers and they are getting fewer by the minute. That gives u

        • From 0 to 18000 kronor you have 0 tax. Sure 18000 kronor is not much (2000 dollar yearly!) but then up to 460K kronor, that is 50K dollar yearly the tax rate is only about 30%. So far off your 76%. In fact only the top marginal tax have 76% and ONLY if you count the VAT (the top tax is 57% not 76% and if you count 25% from VAT then only then you come near 70% at most and that is assuming you think all tax goes to the same entity the state, which is untrue as about 20% of that is municipality). So I would qu
  • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:33PM (#57204132) Journal

    Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Socialism or perhaps a Fascist dictatorship, or Communist rule? These issues somehow ONLY cause problems for people living in Capitalist systems?

    I've got some news for the Capitalist haters out there .... The majority of innovations in technology that will help the whole planet transition to cleaner forms of energy, and possibly even mitigate some of the climate change issues are being developed in Capitalist America.

    If the American Capitalist system fails, it won't be for any of these reasons. It'll simply be due to our leaders constantly increasing the levels of our national debt, in efforts to extend and expand the role of central government into all sorts of areas it was never originally intended to get that involved with. The nation only generates so much wealth each year, and it's a recipe for disaster to keep spending more than what's sustainable.

    • This view that we can just tech ourselves out of everything when our governmental and economic systems are based around infinite growth on a planet with pretty distinctly finite resources is always a wonder to see.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Capitalism? No?

      The majority of innovations in technology that will help the whole planet transition to cleaner forms of energy, and possibly even mitigate some of the climate change issues are being developed all over the world, in partnership with public (ie, mostly government) and private funding.

      If the American Capitalist system fails, it won't be for any of these re

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      I'll believe capitalism is over as soon as NetCraft confirms it.

      The few places in the world that sort of do socialism and aren't cesspits of starvation and misery couldn't exist without the economic dynamo of capitalist systems like the United States. This article sounds more like wishful thinking by people who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to economics.

      The real gist of the article is that energy is becoming more expensive as fossil fuels start to run out, which is not news. How th

    • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:11PM (#57204512)

      Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Socialism or perhaps a Fascist dictatorship, or Communist rule? These issues somehow ONLY cause problems for people living in Capitalist systems?

      I think what they are suggesting is that unregulated/ill regulated capitalism is a serious problem because it doesn't act in the best interest of the people. However, socialism is intended to be directed to benefit society.

      Do note, fascist dictatorships are not mutually exclusive to capitalistic economies and democracies are not mutually exclusive to social economies.

      The majority of innovations in technology that will help the whole planet transition to cleaner forms of energy, and possibly even mitigate some of the climate change issues are being developed in Capitalist America.

      I agree. However, the reason for this isn't because "capitalism will solve all the problems!" Instead, it's because a tax will eventually get applied to pollution output and thus there will be an economic incentive to pollute less. Until we use regulation to incentivize reducing and removing pollution from the environment, capitalism will continue to plunder the environment.

      Regulation and taxation is the solution, not the problem.

      If the American Capitalist system fails, it won't be for any of these reasons. It'll simply be due to our leaders constantly increasing the levels of our national debt, in efforts to extend and expand the role of central government into all sorts of areas it was never originally intended to get that involved with.

      It would be more accurate to say it will be due to massively regressive taxation and the ever growing military industrial complex.

      The nation only generates so much wealth each year, and it's a recipe for disaster to keep spending more than what's sustainable.

      Agreed. If you are going to spend more money than you have then you need to raise taxes. The magical thinking that you can cut taxes and spend more is just absurdism.

    • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:24PM (#57204638) Journal
      From TFA:

      In short, according to Grantham, “we face a form of capitalism that has hardened its focus to short-term profit maximization with little or no apparent interest in social good.”

      ..which is 100% correct. "Profits above all else". The Rich get richer, The Poor get poorer, the Middle Class disappears, replaced with an ever-widening gulf between The Rich and The Poor (which then includes what used to be the Middle Class), and essentially no way to bridge the gap. We're already seeing this happen. There's other dangerous signs: barriers to ownership of things like homes or vehicles, with ownership replaced by perpetual renting. Home Owners Associations with the power to literally steal someone's self-owned home out from under them. Even things as seemingly innocuous as 'streaming' media services, 'cloud' services, and even e-books, which discourage owning of what used to be common things, and encouraging a perpetual cycle of monthly payments. Payday lending practices that amount to loan sharking. Predatory lending practices by major banks. Even something like the privatization of the prison system, which seems like it's entirely out of left field, plays a part in this. Left on the course it's set for itself, we may end up in a feudalism-like civilization. Maybe you personally don't think you're feeling any of this yet, but you will.

    • by nwf ( 25607 )

      I think, more to the point, is that Socialism, Communism and dictatorships have been all shown to be WORSE for the environment. Either you fall into the Tragedy of the Commons or the leaders just don't care about the environment because it really won't affect THEM (just the masses, and who cares about them.)

      Capitalism cares about earning money. If the fines and consequences of environmental pollution and resource depletion are sufficient, then Capitalism will work within those constraints and be more effect

    • by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:47PM (#57204832)

      Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Socialism or perhaps a Fascist dictatorship, or Communist rule?

      No one is telling you that (save for the click-baity slashdot headline). The article itself boils down to this:

      1. Economies are changing to less energy-efficient energy sources for the first time in history (I assume that means wind+solar+hydro), which will disrupt things. The economic models used by governments and industry have traditionally assumed energy abundance, which is becoming a poor assumption.
      2. Sink costs are rising - economic growth used to be straightforward with profligate use of energy, use of materials, creation of waste, will become less possible.
      3. The models are fine at handling slow incremental changes, but we'll likely see more dramatic changes than they'll be good at handling.
      4. Carbon pricing hasn't worked very well and doesn't seem likely to work in future.
      5. Post-Keynesian models about the relationship between the state and the free market will give different predictions and metrics-for-success compared to neoclassical economic models. All of them still boil down to free markets with government tweaks+nudges of course.
      6. The article sort of tails off into more or less wishing the whole world were like Finland - not surprising given the authors and the paper are from Finland.

  • The U.N.? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:33PM (#57204134)

    Nothing the U.N. produces is worth anything outside of political agendas.

    • Re:The U.N.? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @03:19PM (#57205608)
      UNESCO, UNICEF, the blue helmets, etc. I get that these things probably do not touch your life. But your life does not define human existence in this world, nor the functions of these things are limited to "political agendas" (whatever the hell that means.)
  • With sufficient climate change, the demand for resources will fall enough that there should be plenty left for the survivors. /s

  • "Science" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 )

    These developing countries do not need to begin by dismantling the fossil-fuelled infrastructure that has provided a range of low-cost production and consumption opportunities in rich countries for decades.

    This would require economic thinking that enables large public investment programs on the one hand and strong regulation and environmental caps on the other.

    Same old leftist/establishment group think, now new and improved with added Scientists!

    Stay tuned; next week we'll have headlines about how "science" isn't universally trusted as impartial and what a terrible shame that is.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    [SARCASM] How do we give up our rights as sovereign nations in order to have 1 ruler care for us and the environment?! [/SARCASM]

  • I would posit that forms of government are much more likely to change more quickly than economic systems. As resources (water and food especially) become more scarce and people become increasingly desperate, I envision that harsher forms of government rule will take hold in places like Central America to try and quash any uprising. Venezuela is a bit of a canary in that regard, showing just what can occur when resources are limited (artificially in their case, since the scarcity is driven by an oppressive
  • by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:40PM (#57204194)

    ...except for all the rest. Or, at least, that's how the saying goes.

    Given that capitalism is fundamentally based on an assumption of greed, which seems to be a fairly consistent trait among humans, it has functioned remarkably well up to this point. But given enough time and not enough regulation, it's inevitable that the greed of some will outpace that of others, resulting in the system approaching a state where wealth has accumulated in the hands of a few, as well as that those who (or that which) are less capable of defending themselves will inevitably be exploited by those who are more capable. For us, that means the exploitation of the middle-class, the lower-class, and the things we share with the wealthy, such as our shared natural resources. Unsurprisingly, this sort of exploitation is exactly what we're seeing happen on a more and more frequent basis.

    I think parts of the US are slowly waking up to that fact, but a cultural awakening of this sort usually takes decades or generations to complete. We're just starting to recognize the problem. It'll be decades more before we're willing to fix it. And, at least in the case of the US, the necessary changes will almost certainly require changes to the Constitution, but we won't be able to make those changes until the people are demanding those changes en masse, and we're nowhere close to that point yet.

    • I'm really curious what changes to the Constitution you think are needed?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Given that capitalism is fundamentally based on an assumption of greed

      Maybe it's a given to *you* but it's not for everyone else. I see it as fundamentally based on people reaching a mutually agreed upon exchange. You **don't have to work for or sell anything to anyone**. Except, of course, in Marxist or Socialist systems.

      For us, that means the exploitation of the middle-class, the lower-class, and the things we share with the wealthy, such as our shared natural resources.

      Check out Venezuela. Apparent

  • the new report says that these are not really separate crises at all.

  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:44PM (#57204224)

    The problem is the energy and agriculture sector is so far apart from the free market.
    There is so much government subsidies to energy that it makes it more affordable vs the true cost.

    True Capitalism would let countries die from starvation and freezing to death, because the supply and cost of materials to survive would exceed the wages of the business, due to excessive human supply.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OwP_Fabricated ( 717195 ) <fabricated&gmail,com> on Monday August 27, 2018 @12:57PM (#57204396)

    Now we just need to start educating people on what a social democracy actually is, since we've let thinktank dipshits say everything but rampant laissez faire capitalism means the government just take's everyone's stuff.

    You're already living in a relatively fascist society thanks to the right and centrist liberals. You're spied on, can be disappeared with no trial for any reason someone can just make up, the cops can just shoot you dead for any reason they feel like any get away with it about 90% of the time, capital is working on basically owning the IDEA of ideas, and if you're not the top 0.0001% every system is made to deny you any sort of help and funnel your money to said 0.0001%.

    I think maybe kicking these people out for people who maybe, possibly think you deserve an ounce of dignity if you're not ultra-rich isn't really that crazy. Yeah- they're all wholly corruptible as any of us but that's not really an excuse for inaction.

  • by llamalad ( 12917 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:01PM (#57204426)

    We have perverse incentives, where even the real estate agent and health insurance company that should be working for you have a vested interest in maximizing what you pay someone else because it raises the dollar amount of their fixed percentage profit. And never mind that it might be tens of thousands of dollars out of your pocket to get them a couple extra hundred. We can also count un-serviceable consumer electronics and really any product where "planned obsolescence" is a factor.

    Moral hazards, where folks who know that someone else will bear the cost of a loss do nothing to mitigate the loss (know anyone who's diabetic that doesn't eat right because they've got insurance that'll cover treating the resulting problems?)â" or even act to cause a covered loss because they've got an angle where they can profit from it. See also any company that knows it's "too big to fail" and any company that's managed to protect it's financials, HR records, and trade secrets while having their customers' data liberated.

    And finally, the tragedy of the commons, where common resources are monopolized, damaged, or destroyed for the profit of a select few. Here we have oil spills fracking, water pollution, industrial air pollution, etc.

    The problem isn't capitalism. It's that we live in such a hyper-competitive world that old niches are disappearing and it's a struggle to find new ones where we can add value to earn an honest buck and get a decent standard of living. For some it's easier to find and exploit flaws in the system to make a great profit while fob off the actual costs on "the other guy."

  • what about the report on student loans? or is usa only not fitting into the USA plans.

  • Busted.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tulsa_Time ( 2430696 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:08PM (#57204482)

    So... Capitalism is the problem...

    All of those extremists that said Global Warming was a proxy for Socialist Communist totalitarianism... were right ?

    • The problem with socialists is that the solution to every problem is more socialism, including the problem of too much socialism. My litmus test for taking global warming seriously was the day someone suggests a solution that isn't just "muh socialism".

  • that a Marxist front organization doesn't think Capitalism will last?

  • A climate change-fueled switch away from fossil fuels means the worldwide economy will fundamentally need to change. Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General.

    Thanks for being honest: the UN is just using climate change as a tool to push socialist/fascist economic ideas.

    Thanks, but no thanks. Civilization can easily deal with 2-5C global warming; civilization cannot survive the kind of totalitarian system these peop

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:31PM (#57204704) Journal
    None of them are economists. They are biological/environmental scientists.

    THis is about as stupid as reading the far right scream that AGW is not real, and few of those claiming it, have even a degree in Climate, and most are not even scientists.

    Now, with that said, much of what they claim is factual. The environment is being heavily polluted all around. Worst yet, we have boneheads all over claiming that we must allow large portions of the population to pollute, while claiming that a small portion drop to zero (so foolish).
    Then they go on to point out how little energy comes on the AE side. Basically, we CAN/SHOULD get energy from wind/solar/hydro/etc BUT, it can/should not be the main sources. Oddly, the one source that can be cheap, is nuclear power and yet, they ignore it.
    Without nuclear power, the globe IS in for SERIOUS trouble. We need to STOP ALL building out of new fossil fuel, esp. coal, plants. At its best, coal remains a disaster.
    • None of them are economists. They are biological/environmental scientists. THis is about as stupid as reading the far right scream that AGW is not real, and few of those claiming it, have even a degree in Climate, and most are not even scientists. Now, with that said, much of what they claim is factual. The environment is being heavily polluted all around. Worst yet, we have boneheads all over claiming that , while claiming (so foolish).

      Which boneheads are claiming that "we must allow large portions of the population to pollute" Windy?
      Who is also claiming "that a small portion drop to zero"?
      Are you hinting at all the people pointing out that it's hypocritical to complain about people who are emitting only a fraction of what you do. Asking you to cut back a bit?
      Seems a bit disingenuous doesn't it.

      Then they go on to point out how little energy comes on the AE side. Basically, we CAN/SHOULD get energy from wind/solar/hydro/etc BUT, it can/should not be the main sources.

      Why? Why shouldn't wind/solar/hydro etc be the main sources? Wouldn't that basically solve CO2?

      Oddly, the one source that can be cheap, is nuclear power and yet, they ignore it.

      Too cheap to meter! Wait right here, let me get

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Working...