also forgetting the vast majority of that poverty reduction was the Chinese government lifting over 1 billion out of poverty.

remove the Chinese and suddenly the world has made minimal progress, funny how the 1 nation the West couldnt bully into submission is also the one that managed to become rich off of globalization (India went the route of allowing Western corporations to control their political parties, as did most of the 3rd world)

most critiques either use strawmen (most people cant define terms like capitalism or communism) or end up asking for an entire dissertation on an alternative system.

i would argue the blind devotion to capitalism most people show is it self deranged.

and i say that as someone who doesnt like any system (nothing we have invented is fit for purpose, we need a new ideology not rehashed 200+ year old ones).

and?

you act like theres any actual alternative, 'needs of the many' is how we have done pretty much all of civilised history.

the hitler example above is perfect, the nazis believed the needs of the many would be served by genocide and we decided the needs of the many were served by destroying the nazis (luckily we won)

>Maybe we need a philosophy that could accept this unchanging fact of existence and somehow still able to justify the existence of the lucky majority at the expense of the few, statistically speaking.

we already do.

look at the dialogue surrounding the poor and unemployed, or even more relevant that attitudes of people from America in regards to climate change and China. or the West vs the 3rd world, funny how the ones most suited to change the climate routinely do the least.

majority of humanity is perfectly happy to stack piles of corpses as long as they dont have to do it or see it directly (see: every single person on reddit. if you live a middle class lifestyle you are living on the backs of 10,000s, all the things we own are only cheap because the people making it are borderline slaves).

Biggest BS of all time: Reddit blaming corporations for producing 80% of global pollution without a fucking hint of irony. its the same as addicts putting all the blame of the dealer ''oh i buy drugs all the time but its the dealers fault i keep coming back!''

>Personally, I have yet found a philosophy that could speak for both the majority and the minority with regard to suffering.

is that an issue?

i would argue its not possible to find an all encompassing ideology. there will always be exceptions, bad faith actors, corruption by the wealthy and threat/influence by outside forces.

no, both sides do not need to be willing to listen.

one side makes claims that have no evidence or proof, the other supposedly bases beliefs off of evidence. as such there is no 'both sides' as the premise of each sides beliefs are contradictory.

there are no rational, tangible reasons to be religious other than wanting to be (its a story, do you put equal weight to the greek pantheon and Zeus as you do an afterlife or major religion?)

>If you have seen such suffering up close, you'd understand why some people would rather we dont exist than to keep making these victims for the sake of the "many".

and still wouldnt agree.

those people have enough arrogance and cowardice to decide that no one should be brought in to existence due to the mere possibility of suffering, such 'philosophy' is just depression projected into a world view (and isnt worth serious consideration by anyone)

the vast majority of humanity does not wish they never existed, indeed the vast majority are happy to be alive (anti-natalists use extremely flawed and worthless reasoning by Benatar to justify their position ie Benatar baselessly assumes everyone lies about life quality)

lol to bad 'superior' men are a fantasy Nietzsche invented to cope with reality.

that quote is moronic at best, dangerous at worst. in all of human history the only people who have ever claimed superiority over the rest have been the most inferior of us all.

>This fallacious idea of capitalism not thinking in long terms has long been refuted.

nope.

industry chose renewables due to the massive short term profits associated with it, if we wanted lowest costs over a 100 year period nuclear would have been done a decade ago.

instead we are gambling on Battery RnD pulling super batteries out of a hat in order to go renewable.

seems to me like a choice motivated solely by profit seeking.

also fucking lol what threat? coal alone has released more radiation than all nuclear technologies and accidents combined, killed more people than all nuclear technologies and accidents combined.

only the irrational fear nuclear or think its worse then fossil fuels.

dont bother, most people hear nuclear and think of the simpsons or the intentionally misleading propaganda show, Chernobyl.

what i find funny is nuclear is the lowest profit option of all power generation, taking 10+ years for ROI (even if you build them in 6 years its takes a decade to make money) and somehow it is the 'evil' form of power generation.

its almost like renewables were chosen, not because they were better, because they are just as profitable as fossil fuels (if we went 100% nuclear the energy industry would lose more then half its profits)

some people have done enough chemistry and physics to know how radiation works and thus do not fear it.

Coal has killed more people via radiation than all nuclear technologies and accidents combined.

once waste hits 100+ years old its comparable to getting an x-ray ffs.

anti-nuclear activists have harmed the environment as much as fossil fuels lobbyists have, hell they teamed up in the 90s to kill nuclear.

>No one is looking at the prospect of say that Ukrainian reactor melting down from Russia sabotage the same as oil spills.

because they are not rational.

humans are fucking horrid at accurate risk assessment: more people fear planes then cars, more people fear terrorists then police, more people fear weed then alcohol, more people fear the China then the US.

in all 4 cases the one people fear is less deadly then the other but more psychologically impactful.

we have little to no ability to actually gauge risk, its why you look at statistics not peoples feelings.

>for one radiation is either dangerous or lasts for 10,000 years never both. due to how decay works the most dangerous half lives are in seconds minutes and hours, by the time you are hitting 2 hundred years its not much worse then background radiation.
>
>next pyro-processing allows for recycling a good percentage of that total waste and does so by removing the shorter more dangerous half lives to re-use as fuel.
>
>finally coal alone has released more radiation then all nuclear reactors, weapons, tests and accidents combined.
>
>anyone who is afraid of nuclear but not oil or coal isn't rational enough to be part of the discussion.
>
>i love that environmentalists are so ideological they chose to hurt the environment over using nuclear .

>
>all accidents combined have killed less people and released less radiation than coal so what are you afraid of exactly?

>Liberalism is truly a mental disease.

lol, considering its about a hairs breadth apart from conservatism.

you do realise 'liberalism' is a right wing ideology?

id be fine with it as im actually educated on how it works.

for one radiation is either dangerous or lasts for 10,000 years never both. due to how decay works the most dangerous half lives are in seconds minutes and hours, by the time you are hitting 2 hundred years its not much worse then background radiation.

next pyro-processing allows for recycling a good percentage of that total waste and does so by removing the shorter more dangerous half lives to re-use as fuel.

finally coal alone has released more radiation then all nuclear reactors, weapons, tests and accidents combined.

anyone who is afraid of nuclear but not oil or coal isn't rational enough to be part of the discussion.

i love that environmentalists are so ideological they chose to hurt the environment over using nuclear .

>You can conduct science publicly just as well as you can privately, nothing necessitates private organizations to being essential to creation of new science.

decades of brainwashing have convinced most people gov shouldnt run hospitals, prisons or schools ffs. these idiots think gov doing things is communism and automatically worse then private leechs doing the same thing +cost.

you mean gov does, these clowns pick up what we paid for then tweak and it pretend its their own 'innovation'.

nothing innovative about the millionth smartphone.

oh you mean like how gov used to until the wealthy lobbied them out of it?

again, useless middle men. Actually no they are worse then useless as they hold research back massively by only funding grants that will generate a ROI.

commodification of science is slowing it massively while we waste billions making new iphones.

>How could it possibly not be a factor, given human nature? What other explaination would you propose for the scientific vetting of oxycontin?

you already made up your mind apparently so i dont know why your here.

if you cant think of any possible reasons oxy was passed other then money then god help you (its not like oxy has any medical applications. ffs using your logic all painkillers are designed to make money. fuck me you probably think pharma likes cancer and wouldnt cure it if they could).

'drugs are bad m'kay' isnt an argument and neither is shameless appeals to conspiracy.

lol right because our world gives 2 shits about resource efficiency, ah naivety is gold.

we couldnt careless about wasting resources, indeed our entire system is setup explicitly to waste resources accumulating capital.

'efficiency' as used by economists has never meant 'efficiency of resources distribution' it means 'efficiency of capital accumulation'.

in what possible way is burning 1000s of tons of food every year to maintain a floor price a efficient use of resources? it sure is an efficient way of generating 'value' but is one the most inefficient ways possible for handling food distribution.

our society has never cared about minimizing loss or waste, frankly its entirely fine with maximizing losses and waste if it makes private profit.

so in other words you might.

the fact you had to qualify it means you were wrong.

>How can a system be 0.01% rigged?

well look at US 'democracy' i would argue its 1% rigged (arbitrary number but still).

if the people who fund both political parties want certain outcomes and pay both parties to provide it (say lower corporate taxes and larger subsidies) and the people then vote attempting to increase corporate taxes only to have either victor lower them would that not be an example of how you can rig a system with only 1% rigging?

personally i think voting is rigged in this very way, parties do what their doors want first and foremost while the people are desperate and stupid enough to believe they have any actual say. no actual 'rigging' just mutual self-interest by those with the most say over society.

>What does not fit is a hunger for meaning. It is bizarre that we would have our survival instincts that were finally tuned by evolutionary advantage sabotaged by a desire for imaginary vague notions of some non-existent thing?

sabotaged? in what possible way? between our curiosity and imagination and our need for meaning we have built the world, in terms of evolution we have won the game.

in terms of animal success we have dominated the earth more completely and successfully then any other species in lifes history and we did it in some million years, a blip in the earths lifetime.

without question its had negative effects but in terms of evolutionary success (ie domination of the environment) its hands down been an advantage.

not everyone ends up there, i was raised to understand that life is what we make it, i literally never went through a period of existential dread and i dont get why so many do.

from the start i was told life has no purpose per say, maybe this is an issue for people who were told there is some inherent purpose?

next 'sense' in what context? from where i stand the world does make sense in that there is no point, we reproduce and we die. our societies are contradictory and bizarre but also make sense in the context of what we are and history.