I never understand this whole line of thinking that if only (fill in large percentage of the population here) were gone, things would be "in balance". Think back to the time in history when there were 75% fewer humans than there are now. Were things "in balance"? No, they weren't. It's not the number of people that matter, it's the way we are hard-wired that makes "balance" impossible.
Zeitgeist? You mean like Venus project kind of stuff? I don't know where I stand with that, sounds very Utopian, Marxism with Robots maybe. But yeah, I don't really have a boner for Capitalism or private property but I have concerns with collectivisation in who it is who gets to collectivise and who gets to decide how to distribute...know what I mean, 1984 type shit = ). Do I sound like a right wing nut job if I say something like "markets are the only way I know of to ensure individual liberty." I guess I have a bit of a Libertarian streak in me. âIt is probably true that business corrupts everything it touches. It corrupts politics, sports, literature, art, labour unions and so on. But business also corrupts and undermines monolithic totalitarianism. Capitalism is at its liberating best in a non-capitalist environment.â - Eric Hoffe I read a book by Schumpeter called Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy where he comes to the same conclusion as us and this was back in the 40's, except oddly he doesn't even mention technology, he focus's on tenancy towards monopoly, the rise of the intellectual class and the depersonalisation of Capitalism, i.e. big faceless corporations. That;s interesting re the family farms stuff.
Things are different now. The surviving population has advanced technology to make life easy. Massive amounts of laborers to support the rich are not required. If you think there will be any issue suppressing the poor just look at a country like Brazil, Indonesia, or especially India with it's caste system...
The outlier I see is that maybe technology might mean we don't even need the government to provide for us, maybe technology will become so cheap and advanced that every family will have a microwave sized nano-factory in their garage and a 3d printer which can make them whatever they need to survive. Who needs socialism? Land will always be scarce of course, but that's my best outcome scenario, as unlikely as it may seem
The amount of human population on this planet is an exponential curve. It is a pyramid scheme. It is a bubble. It will burst.
Yeah I know, the growth is already slowing. On the issue of land being scarce, maybe some kind of land tax a la Georgism would be the answer (in the interim prior to the bubble burst.)
Great comment. It think it's mostly the unbalanced that suggest these kinds of solutions. It truly amazes me that some actually think that they are glad if the money system fails or there is a massive destruction, or some other suggested fix. A subsection of the NIMBY philosophy I guess. The solution comes when people change, not when circumstances change. We are all in this together whether we like it or not and whether we realize it or not. Compassion is a vital survival skill.
The government does. (All of us need some kind of identity or purpose). Common people can't eat, breathe or wear socialism.