Okay, sure, but how does any of this get billionaires to their next yacht?
It doesn’t?
So yeah, that’s not going to happen.
Now if 70% of the population could read this.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
But the world exists to satisfy the every growing ambitions of the people who can gain control of those resources. They don’t exist for humanity, life or the planet, but for the egos of the powerful. /s, but not really
Idk if the paper addresses this, but supposedly the problem isn’t the amount of stuff, but rather its distribution on the planet and the logistics of moving it.
and also the necessity of surplus and accidental (necessary) waste:
you need spare parts, and some machines are critical… think of data centres: they often have many spare hard drives on hand to deal with failure, which means that there are more than 100% of the required drives in use… some of the workloads running in that data centre service very important workloads - for example because it’s fresh in everyone’s mind - handing SNAP payments… so what, you redistribute those drives so that we are using all that we have? no we certainly don’t… we eat the inefficiency in the case of redundancy (same argument could apply many more times over when you also think about things like mirrored drives, backups, etc: all of that is under-utilised capacity and “waste”)
the same is true for supermarkets: food that is perishable can’t just be allocated where it’s needed. it exists in a place for a period of time, and you either run out a lot or you have some amount of spoilage… there’s a very hard to hit middle ground with overlapping sell by dates, and overall these days were incredibly good at hitting that already!
… and that’s not to mention the stock on the shelves which is the same thing as spare disk drives!
i guess that’s all distribution on the planet
we could certainly do better, but it’s so much more complex than the fact that these things exist so it must be possible to utilise them 100% efficiently
in Korea it was difficult to get aid to the villages on the front for obvious reasons. so some smartass thought, “if we can’t bring the aid to the people, let’s bring the people to the aid”.
we shouldn’t allow a simple problem like logistics get in the way of saving lives.
“A simple problem like logistics,” is a phrase only uttered by those who have never worked in large scale operations.
you have a great future in the field of logistics!
I guess you didn’t understand the hidden meaning behind my words that human life is a far larger goal than meeting logistical requirements.
that’s like saying that human life is a far larger goal than physics
you can’t just hand wave it away because you deem human life to be “worth it”. it exists and it’s a real problem, and it’s a complex problem even with unlimited money
That logic is flawed too. The only thing preventing people in most areas to have access to such goods is the lack of industrialization, which is enforced by capitalist western nations through corruption, coups, or other less obvious methods like IMF loans and neocolonialism.
Countries that escaped this subjugation and industrialized, such as China or the USSR, essentially eliminated extreme poverty and multiplied life expectancy 2- and 3-fold in a matter of decades. If India, for example, had followed the Soviet example of rapid industrialization or the Chinese one, hundreds of millions of lives would have been saved from poverty.
We don’t need to produce things in the developed countries and distribute them, we need to allow them to industrialize themselves and to produce their own shit without being exploited
How would you propose India would have achieved this as a multi party democracy that requires consensus building that would not be necessary in either the USSR or China? Particularly as a nation with 123 languages, 30 of which have over a million speakers. Would you say democracy was a poor choice for India?
How would you propose India would have achieved this as a multi party democracy
By not being a bourgeois democracy. It’s exactly what I’m saying. Having a bourgeois democracy in which all partied represent capitalists (with the exception of Kerala, the province in India with a communist party in power and first to eliminate extreme poverty) is a hurdle to development. If India had had a communist revolution the way China or the USSR did, hundreds of millions of lives would have been spared from poverty.
Perhaps. Theres no way to know for certain but one wonders whether India would have remained India if that were how things played out. My suspicion is there would have been civil war and India would have broken up into 3 or 4 nations.
Kerala achieved remarkable progress in human development with land reform, workers protections, environmental protections and investments in public health and education. But the Kerala of today struggles with lagging industrial output and unemployment. A large amount of economic investment comes from remittances. The people are educated, and healthy, but can’t find work in their home state so they leave to another state, the middle east or the West and send money home to their family from there. Reform is desperately needed for the state to become more business friendly.
Link to the paper, the snippet is in the abstract:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452292924000493
living creatures that cooperate deeply will always outperform those that don’t, rugged individualism may look attractive but you’ll never reach the stars alone
But how could people like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk maintain their living standards?
Did anybody think about the billionaires?
Yes. You can provide no value at all and the answer is still yes.
The answer continues to be yes if the value you provide is in the negatives.
Shareholders deserve nothing.
Lol
Bravo
I’ve got a little motivational poster in my cubicle that simply asks ‘did I do my part to make the line go up today?’
I look at it when I’m sad and it cheers me up.
“No, I definitely didn’t.” ::smile::
Oh cool. Glad they provided a linked source that we can’t read.
Images of text posts still suck.
On one hand, thanks for finding it?
On the other, OC here ain’t wrong
Neither statement is incorrect. Not sure why anyone is bothered enough about this to down vote it.
I’ve read this before and the proposed ‘decent living standards’ will likely leave a lot to be desired.
… And?
We can always give a little more. Plus what do you think the other 70% is doing?
Seeing the chart that was posted from it, only if you’re approaching it from a really wealthy perspective. Keep in mind this is for literally every human on the planet-many of whom are sharing and still starving.
You don’t need a stove and oven and microwave and toaster and air fryer and induction cooktop and two and a half cars per person and the bicycle you don’t use or the exercise equipment and the slap chop and the ninja or the fucking second fridge in the garage where you keep all the sports equipment that’s degrading every day into uselessness that never gets you know, used. God forbid you share with your neighbors. They might have cooties. Have to buy your own shit, brand new, full retail, with the bullshit insurance package
I’ve been living on my bicycle for a few months now, and honestly. What a single person actually needs is so vanishingly small it’s disgusting we let anyone go hungry or cold.
It’s odd that schools and hospitals are listed by area and not capabilities though. I don’t give a shit if it’s a golf course sized hospital, I want them to have supplies, equipment, and people trained to properly use them.
Too hard to put an easy number on? What stats are disparate in a plastic surgery suite vs an inner city gunshot wound floor? Tbh, I’d rather be treated at the latter, they’ve had more practice
only if you’re approaching it from a really wealthy perspective
I disagree, I’m viewing it as someone whose family was living paycheck to paycheck in a developed nation. I’ve been poor, and my family has been poor. Some of my extended family are still poor… entirely due to their own failings. While I am much wealthier now I’m also generally frugal outside of a couple of hobbies.
Worldwide poverty is not the result of individuals ‘failing’ to share with their neighbours. Its not even a consumerist problem.
Ask yourself why some countries have been able to go from poor and undeveloped to wealthy developed nations, and others have failed.
It is an institutional problem stemming from those countries Governments, either due to conflict, corruption, lower economic freedom (ability to own, move and sell property, goods and labour), low trust in institutions and poor policies.
In only a few cases do we see outside drivers of conflict and natural disaster setting back these countries… they are the exception and not the rule.
Yeah I’ve read it before and 60m2 living space for 4 people is tiny, the clothing allocation is on the low end depending on work and climate and you didn’t include the number of times per week they say a person would shower… which was 2 times.
The water allocated really doesn’t go as far as you’d think. Most efficient showers are 9L/minute. Then you have your drinking water, clothes washing, food prep, cleaning, dishwashing… plants, pets. 50L doesn’t go far.
100kg of clothes washing a year is disgustingly low btw
That’s only 30% of our production and also assumes 8 and a half billion people. As we’ve seen in developed countries the population will decline and stabilize around 4-5 billion. So accounting for future development and technological advancement we could all live wonderful lives
they could have shared nothing at all, other people are often nice enough to search and post a link in the comments
Blocked :3
This is TERRORISM According to NPSM-7!
It’s false that it requires planning. It only requires UBI.
While I support a UBI, it would also require planning. A UBI without pegging it to the cost of living, without price controls, and without significant changes to our policy around labor would be mind-boggingly bad.
“If you give people a 1000 dollars landlords will just charge 1000 more” is bullshit for a few reasons, but with that large a change to the entire economy it would dramatically change the way our society functions. We need to ensure that we do not accidently step into a position in which we replace poverty wages and automation of work with poverty UBI and automation of work. If the work is being automated, we, the workers, those upon whose back this entire civilization has been built, deserve to see the fruits of that labor. We need drastic change to the way this works, and a UBI is a not-insignificant part of that, but it is only part of it.
A UBI without pegging it to the cost of living, without price controls, and without significant changes to our policy around labor would be mind-boggingly bad.
Andrew Yang’s branding of UBI as freedom dividend was useful in addressing those issues, because it’s no longer about basic, and more about a shared dividend in prosperity, with tax revenue going up with inflation and so dividends going up along side it. UBI is a change in labour policy without planing: The freedom to say no to work, means better quality job offers. The less anyone else wants to work, the easier it is for anyone who wants to to be rich.
We need drastic change to the way this works, and a UBI is a not-insignificant part of that, but it is only part of it.
It’s actually all of it. If your labour is not needed, and profits happen anyway, then we all get a share of that. There is always entrepreneurship, education, retraining to pursue useful contributions to society.
Perfect timing, I got this notification just as I saw this post:
If you know, you know. If not, highly recommend checking it out!
Yeah, we’ll get right on that as soon as we figure out how to provide fucking water to that many people.
EDIT: Realizing I’m arguing with people who don’t understand the depth of the issue. I’m out.
Life expectancy in pre-communist China and pre-communist USSR was less than 30 years of age, and a big factor of that was lack of access to clean drinking water. Soviets doubled life expectancy between 1929 and 1959 while surviving a Nazi invasion in the middle, China achieved similar results later.
This can absolutely be done, we just need to let countries industrialize instead of exploit them through neocolonialism.
And what does that have to do with our cities draining aquifers that take 1,000 years to refill? What does that have to do with huge chunks of our civilizations living in deserts?
Please go explain to the 15,000,000 people in Tehran, or the 25,000,000 dependent on the Red River, that socialism will, somehow, provide water.
By any metric, which “huge chunks” of civilizations live in deserts? Deserts are inhospitable and the vast majority of people don’t live in them. The major problem in access to clean, drinking water worldwide isn’t availability of water itself, but lack of development.
Tehran is a very special case because the city is 1200m above sea level, how many multi-million cities are located in arid plateaus?
We already have the means. Hell, we can even desalinate ocean water into potable drinking water if needed.
Capitalism just means we’ve decided societally that it’s too cost prohibitive so fuck those people, we’ve got artificial scarcity to maintain for profits.
And how will you contain the mountains of salt?
Correction, Capitalism just means capital has decided that its effective to invest YOUR capital to wage war and impoverish entire nations so OUR use of capital can gain modest returns for the shareholders of the fewest percentage of capital holders.
There is enough fresh water for all those people, it just is not conveniently distributed around the globe. Thats said with that extra 70% left over, there are plenty of resources to build and power desalination plants where necessary.
We could also rethink the ways we use water like using grey water or rain water for things like toilet flushing etc.
it just is not conveniently distributed around the globe.
Don’t you dare think of taking away the boomers recreational fishing cabins.
/s
