To save the Earth, capitalists must live with less. Broadly, this also means the rest of the West also has to live with less.
less, but only in trivial ways like "you can't drive 5 miles to get a quadruple cheeseburger anymore".
material consumption is not the sole predictor of happiness though. Among other things, variety of experience is a good predictor of happiness. When you take a depressed mouse and put it in a new environment, it becomes less depressed
A planned economy while making people materially poorer based on ownership, would allow a greater variety of experience, and greater life freedom for the vast majority of people, including 1st worlders. The happiness from not being tied to a job is far greater than any freedom 1st world people have today. It all depends on how it's planned and the competence and enthusiasm of the planners
There are also enough resources on earth to feed double the world population on a 1st world material lifestyle. Between all the rain, desert, human waste, etc., it's just a matter of moving resources to where they need to be, even if it's not profitable in cash terms.
oh I'm not debating that, 99% of people would be against it
I'm just saying that it's physically, materially possible. Also everyone could still have a computer more or less, think about how many electronics are dumped in the trash which could otherwise have been reused for poor people
planned economy would mean no pointless windows updates every 5 years, food gets shipped to where it's needed, desert regreening, people likely would be able to switch jobs every 5 years or something like that (within reason), everyone would be assigned to shovel at least a bit of shit at some point in their lives, etc
of course the age old question is how to preserve the mentality of the leadership that oversees all of it, without later corruption
world GDP = 100 Trillion
world population = 8 Billion
comes out to $12,500 per person
of course this is irrelevant in a planned world, because what people really need is healthy food, security, and a variety of activities/environments. You could rotate most occupations in such a way that people are maximizing novelty and only working in the same field for 5 years or so (unless they choose to stay longer)
Not to mention the fact that if all the money in the world was shared in equal parts between all of us, we'd all be millionaires
if the world's GDP ($100 trillion) was shared in equal parts now, we'd all only get $12,500 each
if we're going by your "global asset worth" of $1.5 trillion, then it would be $187 each. I doubt that figure for asset worth is legitimate though, it would mean that all the earth's assets are worth less than the economy of France? That can't be right lmao
less, but only in trivial ways like "you can't drive 5 miles to get a quadruple cheeseburger anymore".
material consumption is not the sole predictor of happiness though. Among other things, variety of experience is a good predictor of happiness. When you take a depressed mouse and put it in a new environment, it becomes less depressed
A planned economy while making people materially poorer based on ownership, would allow a greater variety of experience, and greater life freedom for the vast majority of people, including 1st worlders. The happiness from not being tied to a job is far greater than any freedom 1st world people have today. It all depends on how it's planned and the competence and enthusiasm of the planners
There are also enough resources on earth to feed double the world population on a 1st world material lifestyle. Between all the rain, desert, human waste, etc., it's just a matter of moving resources to where they need to be, even if it's not profitable in cash terms.
deleted by creator
oh I'm not debating that, 99% of people would be against it
I'm just saying that it's physically, materially possible. Also everyone could still have a computer more or less, think about how many electronics are dumped in the trash which could otherwise have been reused for poor people
planned economy would mean no pointless windows updates every 5 years, food gets shipped to where it's needed, desert regreening, people likely would be able to switch jobs every 5 years or something like that (within reason), everyone would be assigned to shovel at least a bit of shit at some point in their lives, etc
of course the age old question is how to preserve the mentality of the leadership that oversees all of it, without later corruption
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
uhh how do you figure that
world GDP = 100 Trillion
world population = 8 Billion
comes out to $12,500 per person
of course this is irrelevant in a planned world, because what people really need is healthy food, security, and a variety of activities/environments. You could rotate most occupations in such a way that people are maximizing novelty and only working in the same field for 5 years or so (unless they choose to stay longer)
deleted by creator
that would make the figure even lower.
deleted by creator
if the world's GDP ($100 trillion) was shared in equal parts now, we'd all only get $12,500 each
if we're going by your "global asset worth" of $1.5 trillion, then it would be $187 each. I doubt that figure for asset worth is legitimate though, it would mean that all the earth's assets are worth less than the economy of France? That can't be right lmao
deleted by creator