Our society (with US at the forefront) is built on contradictions. On one hand, capitalism says you don’t deserve anything, you have to earn it. On the other hand, consumerism says you deserve every new gadget, luxury, treat.
I believe both are false: everyone deserves a reasonable standard of living (UBI?), nobody inherently deserves more than that but it should be possible to earn it. And we should acknowledge that earning something is not a matter of moral superiority, but a combination of some effort and some luck.
Based
Everyone deserves survival of the fittest
Okay congrats, you have now been wiped out by a society that prioritizes collective well-being and is therefore able to field a larger, healthier army with more advanced technology.
Reminds me of my Stellaris campaigns playing as aggressive democracies xd
I gotta get stellaris, it sounds fun
I’ve been told there are mods that add cool things like soviet republic-style government.
Capitalism is sold by liberalism as a grand system where everyone is on equal footing as buyers and sellers of goods and services, including labor. Consumerism is pushed by capitalists to increase the purchase of commodities beyond what would naturally happen (no need for a new phone every year), a sign of capitalism’s inefficiencies.
Earning more through labor isn’t wrong, but the problem is that the system is built off of the theft of value created by workers, and parasitic capitalists sitting at the top siphoning off vast amounts of material wealth. Every sale of a commodity continues this vast siphon from the working classes to the capitalist class. UBI doesn’t fix this, what would fix it is moving onto socialism, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, the working classes are in control, and production and distribution are largely aimed at satisfying needs, rather than private profits.
You don’t deserve to be alive though, and it applies to everyone, even animals, if you don’t do the bare minimum you’ll die hot, cold, thirsty or hungry.
Good thing most of us don’t live like animals or think like you: we live in a society.
Even in the US, at least some effort is made to not let the disabled who can’t care for themselves or financially support themselves die in the street. https://legalclarity.org/what-does-ward-of-the-state-mean-for-adults/
The appointment of a state or public guardian is a measure of last resort, as courts prefer to appoint a family member whenever possible. State wardship occurs when the incapacitated adult has no spouse, willing family members, or a previously designated agent to take on the responsibility.
That’s a really nice society you got there /s
Fair enough to support disabled people or those who definitely can’t work by themselves.
But if we’ve all got oars on a boat and some people just choose not to paddle then they can get off the boat. I bet there’s a lot more rich people and trust fund babies not paddling than there are lazy poor people though.
The anti-natalist folks and the pro-natalist folks are clearly in some kind of competition to produce the shittiest ideology imaginable.
Congrats for putting points on your side of the board.
If only i wasn’t alive, then you wouldn’t have to read what I type.
Yet I am to believe that Elon Musk deserves to be alive by a factor of several million times more than the people who grow my food?
No, that is not what the commenter above said, in any way.
When you realise that we already produce (and throw away) enough food to feed the whole planet, then its evident that scarcity is fabricated.
You mention animals, I would’ve thought we are better than them… Or at least we should try.
ITT: guys who probably consider themselves too smart for religion thinking in terms dictated by the church.
“Deserving” and "undeserving* are made up concepts disconnected from any concrete reality, just shards of Christianity preserved in the amber of American civic religion and exported throughout the capitalist-dominated world. If you talk about who “deserves” this or that, you might as well be talking about who’s holy and who’s a sinner. The truth is, we are just animals who banded together tens of thousands of years ago to help each other survive. Many anthropologists say that society began when we started taking care of those who could no longer contribute as much physically: the old, the sick, the injured. But hey, if you want to be less socially evolved than a bunch of cave-dwelling hunter gatherers, that’s your choice. Just don’t expect the rest of humanity to entertain your rotten ideas about useless eaters, and don’t act surprised when you find yourself put out on the ice.
Gruesome how we have social darwinists even here in comments
Well since it’s literaly us vs the planet (since we seem to be unable to regulate our society’s consumption of finite resources), the question is : does the planet exist for us to consume it ?
The answer is no, but we’ll still consume it.
Do we deserve to live ? Well outside of society, there is no reason we’re deserving it more than any living being. And sometimes I clearly wonder, when some individuals contribution is a big negative legacy for the next ones, and to the planet.
Tbh I do not mean we (humans) do not deserve to live, but I clearly wouldn’t want it taken for granted, cause it is not.
That varies quite a bit by country. Capitalist systems have no problems with destroying the world, but socialist countries are better able to plan production and distribution. You can see this in action in the PRC right now, and its major shift towards renewables and electrification at an astounding scale.
Deserving to live and surviving are not the same. In the natural condition if you don’t gather or hunt, you have no food. You die. You do not deserve anything.
Even in society you are not entitled to others working for you. However, in a civilised society we should provide for those incapable to provide for themself due to ethics.
Hey, you! The zebra on the right! Get in my belly, I deserve to live!
I think it would incredibly more desirable for society to have a firm social safety net (housing, food, healthcare). We have the technology and means to do so without breaking a sweat.
If we try it and society stagnates, we can always tweak it to incentivize certain types of work. Myself, I believe society would see vast improvements when people aren’t surviving and living in shambles. I believe many of our current issues would be quickly solved once we are broadly able to slow down and think for a moment.
Deserving or not deserving doesn’t really factor into the equation. We need to create and build a world worth living in. I want to live in a world where people are more free, healthy, and safe - where work is directly benefiting our communities instead of people being forced to slave in hostile work environments to barely make it.
In general I agree. People should be able to make informed life choices without pressure. However, I don’t think universal basic income is the solution (see below). In Germany we have no public university fees and you can get Bafög; which is a far from ideal conditional income enough to cover housing and food while you study. You have to pay a part back once you are done, but far from all (at most 50%; often less than that). I wouldn’t mind a study UBI.
I am for social security and social services that allow you to make an informed choice of what you want to do. Beyond that I am for “you have to work”. But I am looking at “work” from an European perspective with all the protection laws in place and not an American perspective.
The main problem with UBI (Universal Basic Income) is that while tests showed benefits (highly depending on countries), financing UBI is difficult. So far no larger country has completely adapted UBI at least partly due to that reason. Also, no study was long enough to see the “people are less incentivised to work” issue.
Thanks for your response and engagement. I appreciated hearing your perspective as a German/European in contrast to my American one.
We are likely in agreement that for a world to be going in a desirable direction, that we all generally need to find ways to contribute to society to make it a better place.
Totally unsurprising the amount of .mlers exposing how disconnected from reality they are.
No you do not deserve to live. If you did, you wouldn’t need to find food or clean water to survive.
Gotta love when people out themselves as social Darwinists.
Congratulations! You’re still an idiot, and what I expressed is not social Darwinism.
If you obtain food and water, you deserve to live. If you do not obtain food or water, you deserve to die. This is how life works, it is the reason human beings need to work together to survive. If I believed in social Darwinism I’d say something stupid like “those who collect the most food and water deserve to live the most”.
Who am I kidding, you’re basically chatGPT. This is a pointless exercise.
Not an idiot nor an LLM. You’re taking issue with people saying that society should take care of everyone, and saying those who can’t secure food or water deserve to die. Feel free to clarify further, but read literally you are saying disabled people deserve to die, and that those who support social welfare for them are wrong. This is a social Darwinist take.
No I take issue with cultists that speak with silver spoons hanging out of their mouths.
Are the cultists with silver spoons hanging out of their mouths in the room with us?
“Ugh, look at these delusional commies who think that the purpose of human society is to keep each other alive.”
Judge us by our enemies
While I agree with the sentiment I also think that it’s best for society if everyone contributes while realizing that some are able to contribute more than others. Essentially no freeloaders.
Evolution makes approving noises
Because society is social darwinism, got it.
It’s crazy how expensive it is to be alive.
“Those who dont work, dont deserve to eat.” - Major General Olivier Mira Armstrong
No one deserves to be alive, except perhaps by virtue of being alive in that everyone deserves the converse: not to have life taken from them.
You had millions of possible brothers and sisters who didn’t make it. You were just the lucky one.
And, of course, earn a living means make enough to support yourself, and others if you choose. Nothing to do with what is inferred and also not something everyone can do.
So if someone isnt able to work than what?
Society should care for and provide for people who really can’t work, as most civilised societies do.
Uh name one society that takes care of people unable to work where these people don’t love in poverty with the threat of homelessness over there head.
No cheating and naming a communist country.
Who “really can’t work” in your opinion?
I don’t work. Every few months I’ll really put in the effort and throw the applications in but nobody wants to hire me at this point. I’ll get demotivated and accept my couch surfing lifestyle again. The times I have had a job, they’ve not lasted long either.
You ask my friends if I’m disabled and you’ll get mixed answers. I personally don’t see myself as such, but I am very defiant and not particularly skilled.
Many people would say I’ve “chosen” to be unemployed (I don’t see it that way, but many people do)
Do I deserve to have my needs met? Healthcare, food, water, shelter?
I think a functioning state, not the US, would assign you some sort of work. I don’t know your exact situation, but it sounds like you’re capable enough. Based on what you’re saying in this one comment at least. I’m not going to pry for details, but it’s possible that something is preventing you from completing tasks. I think whatever it is can be worked around though. Should be able to find you some way of contributing at a pace you can handle.
Unfortunately I feel this is still a slippery slope and one that also even AES haven’t been very good at handling. Who decides what is “some way of contributing”? Is community work, emotional support, spreading knowledge about a hobby, some form of art a “valid” way to “earn one’s living”? And how much of those you would have to do? What happens if you are hindered? Who decides?
I think without a post-scarcity (or severely degrowth) economy, these will stay hard to find a common ground on.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
When you realise that we already produce (and throw away) enough food to feed the whole planet, then its evident that scarcity is fabricated.
You know what beings live by the rule of virtue? Animals.
I believe we should aim for more.
It means by default you have to contribute to the society that you live in. And this is required in order for there to be a functional society to live in. It’s not an arbitrary rule, just a logical requirement.
Not true in capitalism, capitalists don’t contribute but instead serve as elaborate parasites plundering the wealth created by the working classes.
Capitalism is just a way to organize work. Yeah, it’s a plenty unfair one. But we are just using money as a means to trade work for food/products/shelter/services. It ends up driving the society - getting people to make society work, and to enjoy the benefits of it.
Trade isn’t capitalism, though. Capitalism is a mode of production characterized by private ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Capitalists essentially cast money out into the system, siphon the fruits of labor, and then repeat this process endlessly. Everyone does not enjoy the benefits of it, especially not those in the global south that are crushed by imperialism and unequal exchange.
Capitalism is a form of trading. It is providing a service / lending resources, for a fee. It’s part of the notion that we use money to buy and sell anything and the economy works because everyone tries to make a buck and implicitly drive efficiency for society. It certainly has got out of whack now and needs some serious regulatory fixes. But for most people, they work to get money to buy what they need and as a result, they provide services, products, etc for others to buy what they need. It goes in a circle, and we end up helping each other. Yes, the rich siphon money off the top, but they don’t really affect the use or need of resources significantly. Their billions are just a number on a computer in a bank somewhere.
You‘re not even trying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
Says ‘you’re not even trying’ then just copies from Wikipedia.
Maybe try thinking for yourself?
No, you’re confusing trade itself for capitalism, and severely downplaying the immense siphoning of material wealth that goes on, especially at an international scale. Capitalists steal the value created by workers, workers are not on an even playing field with capitalists. They sell the only commodity they can, their labor power, while capitalists leverage their ownership of capital to fix labor prices around subsistence wages.
Regulation can’t fix capitalism or save it from the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. We need to move onto socialism, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and production is oriented towards satisfying needs rather than profits.
The siphoning of material wealth occurs everywhere, including China, former Soviet union, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. It’s not a capitalism thing, it’s a human thing.
Not necessarily. Capitalism functions by the following circuit:
M-C…P…C’-M’
Money is used to buy commodities, such as machinery, raw materials, and labor power, then production happens, then higher value commodities are the result of said production and sold for greater sums of money. M’ is fed back into this system, and M’’ is output at the end, over and over. The increase in value comes from unpaid labor, ie wages that don’t actually cover all of the value created, because capitalists cannot profit otherwise.
Socialist systems don’t have equal pay for everyone (that isn’t the goal to begin with), but also don’t have this system of capital ownership as the principle aspect of their economies and as such private ownership is phased out over time in these countries.
Unless you’re one of the hundreds of millions capitalism has decided it’s more profitable to slaughter, starve or plunge into a lifetime of poverty making t shirts. Then you don’t get to enjoy shit.
society
One small problem, we don’t actually have one of those
Well, l don’t earn a living since I don’t feel pressurised. But I ought to do something worthwhile just to feel that I am alive !!
The main thing is to remember what is worthwhile is not necessarily something that is imposed by mass culture, tv or the Internet.
And they wonder why nobody wants to bring a baby into this world
If you choose to have a child entirely on purpose in 2025, you’re just a piece of shit, or fanatically devoted to ‘The Revolution’ and think its gonna happen any day now, because you’re delusional.
Absolutely unhinged
Narcissistic delusion is not the basis for an entire human life. That person you’re bringing into the world has to exist for decades, and the next few decades¹ are not something I would condemn anyone to. Doing that is sick, its selfish, and its abusive.
Maybe once we start fixing shit, and there’s a chance of not deliberately putting a child through hell.
I guess you had a pretty unpleasant life so far? Not everybody’s has sucked. But I don’t think I need to form a coherent argument against 'all reproduction is inherently morally bankrupt ’ - it’s such deliberate bait that it rejects good faith discussion off-hand.
Is there a more coherent argument to be made against hyper-natalists? Yes, I think that could plausibly be upheld. But that would be a more nuanced stance. The world, despite its trajectory, is not a hellscape.
I’m not delusional about climate change and fascism. Your children will not have your life, asshole. You cannot promise them that. You cannot comprehend how grim this shit is going to get. I’m not really joking about my plan to die in the water wars.
Nobody who breeds right now, in 2025, should be allowed to keep them unless they’re going hard on revolution. Like, anything short of the parents from ‘one battle after another’ you shouldn’t be allowed to keep the kid, you are not responsible enough to care for a child.
This was not the case, arguably, 20 40 60 years ago. This is not anti natalist, this is considering the life that will be available to ypur hypothetical child, the life you are forcing someone to have to live.
If you think things 60 years ago were all peachy you must still be a child
Any excuse to do what you want with no consideration for the lives of others, right?
I could explain how now is different, but you don’t care.
Batshit doomerism, you sound like one of those religious nuts expecting the rapture any minute. You don’t have some privileged insight into ‘how bad things are gonna get’ or whatever hypothetical revolution you’ve conjectured, yet you presume to lecture others about it. Please, tell me again about narcissism and what it consists of.
You’re right everything’s fine, would you be willing to buy some land in the Marshall islands off me?
No? I dont have any special privilege, unless literacy and a deficit of self delusion counts.
Fucking antinatalists. If you hate living so much, go and do us all a favor.
I’m against inflicting the hell world weve made on a living thing.
By all means, fuck like mormob rabbits once we fix shit, but if you’re breeding on purpose before that, you are not fit to raise a child.
