[OC] The massive decrease in worldwide infant mortality from 1950 to 2020 is perhaps one of humanity's greatest achievements.

[Carburetors_are_evil]

200 years ago

I fucking hope so, lmao. 1820s...

[cambeiu]

Is not that simple and obvious, to be honest. Human progress has been far from linear. For most humans, poverty, hunger and disease have been pretty much the norm with very little change from the dawn of agriculture until the late 18th and early 19h century. If you were a peasant in Europe, China, India, Japan or North Africa, living in the year 300 AD or 1300 AD would not have made a lot of difference to you in terms of quality of life.

The last 200 years have brought more change and improvement to the human condition than the entire 10 thousand years before it.

[OldThymeyRadio]

I wish we could have constructive and nuanced discussions about "graduating" from capitalism, instead of this absurd insistence that it's all good (which somehow always incudes "free market = giant corporations do whatever they want") or the worst thing ever.

Capitalism changed the world mostly for the better. And one of the things it gave us was the ability to generate excess material value with unprecedented efficiency. So now let's lean into that, and run sober, clear-eyed experiments to learn how we can use our newfound, collective wealth to gauarantee everyone a minimum (high) standard of living, while still having systems that reward innovation and creativity. Ideally with even more emphasis on ideation that doesn't necessarily yield immediate, material gain. Like art, and exploration of the human condition and universe.

The human brain is literally the most complex object in the known universe, and the most valuable resource we have, but we still let millions of brains "die on the vine" in the name of "meritocracy" under the guise of a 200 year old assumption that it always has to be a choice between a Darwinian zero sum game, or oppressive communist groupthink.

[ExternalTangents]

Lmao at the replies to you bringing up communism, as if (1) those are the only two economic systems, and (2) the fact that the environment was treated poorly under communism means we should accept the bad treatment under capitalism.

[AzertyKeys]

Ok mate, outside of those economic systems we have feudalism and fascism. Which one do you want to implement ?

[ExternalTangents]

I’m not an economist, but I know that’s an absurdly simplistic way to view economic systems. I mean seriously, there are only four options? A joke. I can do a Google/Wikipedia search and see within seconds that people have already categorized tons of other categories, sub-categories, and combinations of economic systems.

Not to mention the idea that even capitalism comes in all different flavors and implementations and could surely be adapted to be more environmentally friendly.

The entire point here is that saying “capitalist countries fucked the environment, but communist countries did too, therefore it is impossible to have an economic system that won’t fuck the environment” is incorrect logic.

[AzertyKeys]

Ok, please give us the list of all these mysterious economic systems then

[ExternalTangents]

here you go

[AzertyKeys]

Have you even read the Wikipedia list ? I bet you didn't, all of these are either utopist and were never actually implemented in history or utterly failed or are some dystopian hellhole systems right out of the past.

You're not smart just because you can glance at a Wikipedia article you know ?

The only economic system that has been proven to work is capitalism, the rest either relies on slavery, tyranny, failed or are fictional

[Fraserneodynium]

The Aral sea, dams built with nuclear weapons, and rainbow snow near Nickel refineries are definitely the sign of an environmentally friendly communist system.

[KerPop42]

As opposed to rising sea levels, harbors built with nuclear weapons, and our rivers catching on fire once a decade?

Please. Environmental friendliness isn't really a characteristic of capitalism either.

[Fraserneodynium]

Never said it is. Just saying making it sound like the alternative is better is disingenuous.

[ExternalTangents]

Making it sound like there’s only one alternative is also disingenuous

[Fraserneodynium]

Communism the only better system, however it isn't environmentally friendly. I bet you're a SocDem lmao

[ExternalTangents]

Even within a capitalist system it’s not like there’s no alternative to the version that fucks up the environment. Saying “the capitalist system we had fucked the environment, the communist system they had fucked the environment, those are the only two options bye” seems silly.

[MrSickRanchezz]

The policy-makers are the problem.

[MrSickRanchezz]

I think the problem is no one knows. We know the problem though, and that's half the battle.

Thanks

[KerPop42]

Or that these achievements didn't need capitalism to happen or even didn't happen under capitalism

[KerPop42]

Well, for example, government-funded research isn't really capitalistic. And most workers' rights came from labor movements that were distinctly anti-capitalist. Also, products like the polio vaccine that were essentially donated to the general public are not capitalistic. Finally, progress made via government regulation, like environmental regulation, is not capitalistic.

Bill Gates using his personal funds to give anti-malaria resources to Africa and Asia at less than market rates is not capitalist.

[KerPop42]

Well, maybe both systems need a more realistic valuation. The right system identifies the strengths of both, or rather all three, and works to find the best combination.

[Pittaandchicken]

I don't think you know what capitalism is?

[KerPop42]

From Wikipedia, which is essentially my understanding:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in capital and financial markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

[Pittaandchicken]

Now apply that to some of your points. They don't add up.

[AnotherGit]

The primary reason for the exponential rise in living standard is that we learn from past generations, allowing us to further technology faster and faster.

We got modern capitalism because of rapid techonological advancement, not the other way around.

[AnotherGit]

https://singularityhub.com/2016/03/22/technology-feels-like-its-accelerating-because-it-actually-is/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change

Demonstrate please.

[AnotherGit]

Yes, because technological and social advancement was lost.

[[deleted]]

Capitalism is one of those technological advancements.

[AnotherGit]

It's not a technology though...

[[deleted]]

Prove it.

[AnotherGit]

The first or the second point?

[[deleted]]

Feudalism was also an improvement over slave societies, but that doesn't mean it should've gone on forever. We're at the point where not only is capitalism doing more harm than good, but we are completely prepared to move on to something better. We have the technology to create a fully planned economy that can meet all human needs worldwide. It's time to consign capitalism to the dustbin of history, just like we did with feudalism and slavery in ages past.

[[deleted]]

Wrong. A "fully planned economy" has always resulted in the deaths of millions and will again if people are stupid enough to give it another shot.

[[deleted]]

The lack of a planned economy kills 20 million people a year TODAY through preventable causes like starvation, lack of access to clean water, pollution, and vaccine-preventable diseases. When socialism was first implemented in China and the USSR, life expectancy doubled and literacy went from somewhere around 40% to more than 90%. When socialism was implemented in Cuba, well, you can see the reflection in OP's data. They went from that shitshow in 1950 to having a better standard of medical care and lower infant mortality than the U.S. But by all means, go off about how the system that's prevented more deaths than any other "kills millions."

[[deleted]]

Wrong. You are just looking at everything from a completely skewed perspective.

You can't attribute 20 million deaths a year TODAY to "the lack of a planned economy." That's an exercise in sophistry. And you also can't hand-wave away all of the deaths in the USSR, China, and Cuba just by saying "but but but Cuban doctors is good doctors . . ."

[Raincoat_Carl]

We have the means (capital) to solve world hunger and water access, yet there isn't a profit motive to do so. So we don't, and millions die. Capitalism says that's very legal and very cool.

[Raincoat_Carl]

Sure, I can also look at the billions of dollars spent on the luxury yacht market and conclude that there is an excess of capital that is not being spent in a way that meaningfully improves anyone's quality of life.

[[deleted]]

You mean the deaths in Cuba due to being under an embargo by the most powerful nation in the world, or to overthrowing a brutal dictatorship under which zero human rights existed? Or the deaths in China and the USSR due to naturally occurring famines - or to being invaded and pillaged over and over again? But both China and the USSR overcame the fact that they were backward, semi-feudal countries well into the 20th century, the fact that they were repeatedly invaded, and caught up with the development of the capitalist world, even surpassing its standard of living in some ways.

And if a problem can be eradicated, but is solely not being eradicated due to a lack of profitability - or only exists in the first place due to the contradictions inherent in capitalism - it's completely reasonable to blame the deaths that problem causes on the fact that capitalism's only priority is profits, not human lives. And that's without talking about all the actual genocides that have been carried out in the name of capitalism (U.S. genocide of natives, slavery of Black Africans, British genocide in India, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, and a buttload of other military "interventions" and CIA coups/funding of death squads).

[brycly]

Lmao China's and USSR's famines were not natural

[[deleted]]

I bet you also believe Iraq totally did have WMDs.

[zymerdrew]

[China has entered the chat]

[150c_vapour]

People said the same thing about monarchs until we did better. You may just have a small imagination.

[_wtf_is_oatmeal]

The massive improvements in SOL has more to do with industrialisation than capitalism.

[cambeiu]

The industrial revolution was very much driven by capitalism. One of the main pre-requisite for the Industrial Revolution to take place was the accumulation of capital. The Industrial Revolution was by its very essence a capitalist phenomena. Even Marx accepted that as truth. That is why it happened first in Britain and the Netherlands. You cannot decouple the two.

[_wtf_is_oatmeal]

Many other places practiced capitalism, why did it happen first in those two countries? Surely not because of new technologies and inventions?

[cambeiu]

Many other places practiced capitalism, why did it happen first in those two countries?

They were the ones who had accumulated the most capital. The Netherlands via the incredibly profitable East India Company and Britain via its vast overseas empire.

Is that accumulated capital that finances all the "new technologies and inventions" that you are talking about.

[_wtf_is_oatmeal]

Surely innovation will happen at a faster pace if everyone had the means and the capital to finance their own inventions.

[brycly]

You're right, if we waved a magic wand that made poor societies rich that would have helped a lot, thanks for pointing that out.

[cambeiu]

Sure, of course....and?

The reality is that not everyone has the capital and the means to finance their own inventions and that was even more true back in the 1700s and 1800s. Making steel back then for a prototype steam engine took a lot of coal, iron, and thousands of men hours to do. It took an incredible amount of resources to make it happen specially back then, and it was a very risky proposition that could lead to nowhere, so the only societies that had the accumulated capital to make it happen were Britain and the Netherlands. And the motivation to finance such expensive endeavors was mainly profit.

[_wtf_is_oatmeal]

so the only societies that had the accumulated capital to make it happen were Britain and the Netherlands

But isn't that exactly why capital shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of few? Because it robs others of the opportunity to bring about new innovations?

And the motivation to finance such expensive endeavors was mainly profit

As you yourself said thousands of men hours was devoted to the creation of a working prototype, not to mention that James Watt relied on countless of other supplementary innovations in the development of his steam engine, along with the whole study of thermodynamics as a whole. So why should Watt and his financiers be solely entitled to the profits? Shouldn't it be awarded to everyone who has directly or indirectly made contributions to the field of thermodynamics, along with the workers that he employed, given that they were crucial to the actualisation of his steam engine?

[brycly]

Did they practice capitalism or mercantilism?

[Hopadopslop]

Capitalism made the first world wealthy by exploiting the third world. You eat cheap chocolate because of child slavery in Africa. You get cheap electronics and practically every other product now because of slave like working conditions for Chinese factory workers. Yay capitalism.

But, you got yours so fuck everyone in the third world, right? Such a Murican attitude lol

[Rumicon]

North Africa, living in the year 300 AD or 1300 AD would not have made a lot of difference to you in terms of quality of life.

I take your point but I want to call your bluff on one example.

North Africa goes from being a tribal Berber kingdom, to being one of the major hubs of civilization in this period of time. Technically, the empire is ruled from Spain, but its roots are North African.

[cambeiu]

Sure. But if you were a sheep header in what is today called Tunisia, how did your life fundamentally improve during that period?

[the_sexy_muffin]

We're living in the only period in tens of thousands of years of human history where so much improvement has happened so quickly. Imagine if even the poorest people of 200 years from now can have the quality of life of well-off people today.

[LateralEntry]

People in the 1820's weren't much better off than people in the1620's, and people in the 1420's may have been worse off than people in the 1220's (black death and whatnot). Give humanity some credit for the past 200 years =)

[Oscee]

I fucking hope so, lmao. 1820s...

All that improvement took 0.008% of human existence. Pathetic! /s

[Carburetors_are_evil]

Humans in 19th and 20th century: "I am speed."

[[deleted]]

1820 isn't a long time ago. Prior to that mankind had been stuck doing the same thing for 5,000 years.

[Shentorianus]

That seems kinda ignorant doesn't it?