Is world without poverty possible without substantially lowering its population? Do we have enough resources to theoretically sustain a relatively comfortable living standard for 7 billion people on Earth at the same time?
My friend argues that socialism is pointless because no political and/or economic system can abolish oppression and exploitation, because if people in some places are to live on a relatively comfortable level (i. e. Europe or the States), there has to be someone oppressed and exploited in another place, because otherwise such standard of life wouldn't be sustainable.
We're talking about resources which are finite, and I'm not convinced myself that sharing the booty equally solves the problem.
Easton Torres
Considering the shitload of stuff owned by the uberrich it is definetly more than possible
James Davis
Please, spare me the generic and unspecific replies.
David Cruz
do you know how much usable stuff just gets thrown away
Ryder Taylor
This is absolute 3rd-worldist tosh. Since laseiz-faire open borders policies on tariffs an migration were imposed in the 1970s, while it's true the prices of commodities have gone down, prices for 1st-world labor have gone down even faster, meaning neoliberalism has actually had a net negative effect on the living standards of common 1st-worlders: epi.org/publication/bp196/
Further, the common tenet of faith that neoliberalism has fueled development in the 3rd-world, even if possibly at the expense of 1st-worlders, is itself highly debatable. It is entirely possible (given the flawed measurements used for such development) that 3rd-world development, to the extent it actually happened, has occurred as an inevitable result of scientific progress regardless of neoliberalism, or even directly in spite of it: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html
Luke Brown
There's plenty of food, a lot is thrown away. There's plenty of water, it just needs to be distributed better. There's plenty of labor power to make stupid luxury goods, it's just spent on even stupider, more luxurious goods.
Jaxon Bennett
The world is something more than food, water and labor power.
why do people keep forgetting the concept of communally used resources and products
Adrian Reyes
Pray tell what do you think that the world is running short of?
Adam Cook
Then you have to be more specific as to which resources you are talking about. It's not up to us to guess what you are trying to say.
Angel Perry
Absolutely. If we produced things as sustainably and as efficiently (read: wasting as few resources and making things as high quality/long-lasting) as we could then our present technology would take us to post-scarcity for most things. An incredible amount of resources are wasted on trying to generate more profit (any enterprise is worth doing from porky's perspective if you can sell the product and take surplus value from the labor). If the population grew unbounded (not likely) the first thing we'd run out of is probably physical space. The current population boom is temporary though, and once standards of living hit a certain threshold you tend to see a plateau or even a decline in numbers.
Under capitalism yes, and in the early parts of the transition to socialism there would be a temporary dip in standards of living for the first world as the global economy restructured itself. Once imperialism is gone and people produce more equitably, the following economic development under socialism will rebound and then exceed with regard to living standards.
The population is also finite, rendering this a moot point strictly speaking.
Try explaining full communism to people as everything working like the library and any stuff you make that you don't keep goes there so it's available for other people to use.
Eli Sanchez
...
Dylan Torres
Costs to build the equipment and transportation are a tinny fraction of the resources we get back. And equipment can be re-used.
Lucas Morgan
But how are we going to build the equipment when we won't have the raw materials necessary to build it anymore, nor the fuel to send whatever there and back again? And who are going to invest in the technology necessary to do such thing? Shit will cost trillions and take several decades maybe even centuries to get done, even if you get quadrillions back to cover the trillions you've invested it is still too risky and expensive. People should just realize that the current civilization is unsustainable in the long run and just go anprim tbqh.
We have the materials to build and fuel them. And once we go one time we’ll have infinite resources. Humans have only mined the toppist part of the Earth’s crust. We haven’t touched the lower levels of the crust or the mantel and core.
We’re on the way to getting this technology.
Money dosen't exist in a socialist society, and by the time we have this technology capitalism would’ve collapsed from the automation crisis.
No. Anprims can’t build the society of the future, only the society of the past. And history is linear, not circular, because societies that don’t embrace progress get wiped out by those who do..
Gavin Bailey
Yes Yes. Note: Living like an american is not "comfortable", it is wastefull and decadent. Many first world countries have HDI and living conditions but use far less resources.
Maybe you have to lower your expectations of what "comfortable living is". You will not be able to all have your own personal monstertruck, nor is everyone going to be able to eat gold covered caviar.
Jaxon Adams
We Probably could be we should implement population control anyway because it would be better for the earth longterm
Evan Turner
MostAmerican’s don’t live that way.
Benjamin Thomas
A rocket is made of metal, which is not rare, and rocket fuel is litterally just liquid hydrogen and oxygen.
Eh, no, we can already get an astroid in earth orbit right now if we want to. You only need to send up a probe with some cheap fuel up there (the expensive part), fly it to the astroid (cheap) and then fly the astroid back here by changing its course (cheap). A space shuttle launch costs 450 million. Sending up a probe like that is far cheaper because it isnt a living space and the probe does not have any sensitive equipment, its just a computer attached to an engine. Launching a rocket litterally costs fuck all for society. The US budget is 3.7 trillion. Launching a space shuttle costs 0.012% of the US yearly budget. Or 1.3 dollars per US citizen.
Keep in mind that you do not need a massive booster rocket once you are in earth orbit. You can use a far more efficient ion drive, which only requires some cheap gas and electricity. This is not science fiction, they are already employed to keep satalites in orbit and by deep space probes (the kind you need to catch an astroid). They are roughly 90% energy efficient, and can generate their electricity with solar panels. It takes longer to get up to speed, but that is of no concern since there is no manned mission on board, it doesnt matter if it takes a few months more in a year or years long journey.
If you want to believe Elon Musk take him with a grain of salt then they can launch you into earth orbit for 150 million, one third the price of a space shuttle launch. So that works out to 50 cents per us citizen, or 2 cents per world citizen.
It was just an example. Most people who make this argument are rich bourgs who own multiple supercars and houses and think that is the norm.
