I was trying to make a larger point about human civilization being a net negative and producing unethical consumption in one way or another regardless of the economic system, but I've been awake too long and kind of half-assed it. My bad.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
“There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism.”
- Thread starter Bronx-Man
- Start date
I was trying to make a larger point about human civilization being a net negative and producing unethical consumption in one way or another regardless of the economic system, but I've been awake too long and kind of half-assed it. My bad.
Someone once asked the Sonic twitter account if there was no such thing as ethical consumption in capitalism. The person running the Sonic account said.
it's a way to excuse one's own reprehensible while sounding faux-woke.
while there may be no ethical consumption under capitalism, that doesn't mean you can't distinguish not ethical and even less ethical
anyone who's into WWE will get massive side eye from me. in addition to their reprehensible politics, the entire concept of violence porn as family entertainment is a disgusting way through which violence culture is propagated. in an ideal world, everything related to combat sports should be banned, but in the meantime, i'll boycott it all
while there may be no ethical consumption under capitalism, that doesn't mean you can't distinguish not ethical and even less ethical
anyone who's into WWE will get massive side eye from me. in addition to their reprehensible politics, the entire concept of violence porn as family entertainment is a disgusting way through which violence culture is propagated. in an ideal world, everything related to combat sports should be banned, but in the meantime, i'll boycott it all
I mean humans are this planet's apex predator. No escaping the implications of that hierarchy unless we go back to the cave.
Are traditional martial arts tournaments and exhibitions counted in combat sports?
Hunter-gatherers have greater social cohesion, more equitable gender relations, have way more sex, make way more art, and have way more free time.
Other than the lack of modern medicine (I'll admit that's a big one) it's a pretty sweet deal.
I read this like the way the poor whites and poor blacks should band together, but the whites want/think they are buddies with the rich white guys, so they join Team White Rich.
They get no benefit other than brownie points, and it makes more sense to band together with the poor blacks and eat the rich. But they dont because they want to be rich too.
It's not bigotry itself but the way it's used to break up groups. Anyway that's just a oversimplification.
Communist societies do this too, like when the Soviet Union was quick to brand Jewish People as reactionaries almost universally. Socialism does have better economic equality, but economic equality is not panacea for social prejudice.
It has to do with it (or, rather, it's an important consideration to make) because though discrimination is not unique to it, how it happens under capitalism is specific to it and requires specific measures to fight it that must be designed with capitalist systems in mind.
Moreover, capitalism is arguably more tendencial towards systematic discrimination of disprivileged people because it's not concerned with supporting them.
If you go full on nihilist then yeah, you're right. I will admit I was acting facetious.
I suppose it's about scope and priority. How much do you care about the world around you? Because one person living fully ethical and sustainable will not change the world - at all. Neither will two, three, four, etc. You have to convince the population at large to do the same. I do not have the power, nor the means, nor the persuasiveness to do this, so why bother?
I know that I am not that person. I only care about myself, and those that are close around me. And even then I'm at the top of the list of what to care about. I'm not ashamed about this, and I will not let anyone shame me either. I'm content this way. Figure this out for yourself and you can live with the unethical consumption, I think.
I will say that I do try to mostly use ethical and sustainable products though. I applaud those that take it seriously and I think they're objectively better people than me.
I mean this is the Yuval Harari argument (assuming you've read Sapiens). I see the appeal, but I'll still take the mod cons and 4x lifespan ;)
The increased lifespan is actually more or less a result of modern medicine and sanitation. Civilization at its inception actually lowered human lifespans from h-g averages. And I think there's an argument to be made for a shorter more fulfilling life than just working and consuming (which is what you do under any economic system) until you slip into the hell of senescence.
But, yeah, we're not un-ringing that bell. Still the only model for humans to truly sustainably exist, though.
Speak about being faux-woke, end on saying all combat sports should be banned?
Self-awareness?
You do also realize that unlike say MMA/boxing, Wrestling is largely acting?
Should all action movies be banned because stunt doubles actually do some combat/physical stunts?
I don't even give a shit about Wrestling but it is amusing to talk about being faux-woke and then erupt into absolutism by implying fatalism around humanity trying to have some fun/competition/community.
If you had just said you didn't like it and were boycotting it, fine. Dropping in the it should all be banned is what elevates you to the kind of levels of hyperbole people normally mock as being "faux-woke".
"Violence porn" sounds like something a right-wing Christian Conservative would be shouting about in the 90s. Heavy handed moralistic claims that bear little scientific backing to show the levels of society crumbling that are suggested. But I'm sure you'll reply and show me the hard stats to how Wrestling has led to literally thousands of deaths and the crumbling of the family/family entertainment.
I agree with this.
Al Gore's sustainable capitalism manifesto is about the closest philosophy for a human future that I agree with:
https://www.algore.com/news/a-manifesto-for-sustainable-capitalism
Summary: Applying best practices in evironmentalism, community, social outreach and long term thinking also happens to be good for business.
Last edited:
why just combat sports? ban all violence, physical or otherwise, from all media.
This. Even then odds are that land was shanked for someone during the course of history.
At the moment for sure there is no ethical consumption, it is all about how good you can accept that for yourself. No matter what you buy somewhere in the chain there were unethical practices involved outside of rare cases.
Going to automation will resolve a lot of that too though as you have less segments in the chain and less "chances" for unethical things to happen.
Going to automation will resolve a lot of that too though as you have less segments in the chain and less "chances" for unethical things to happen.
Every once in a while I imagine some Era members taking polysci for the first time and it reminds me a bit of this clip from Grim Fandango:
Anywho, we have the freedom to choose what we financially support to an extent. Sometime it's not in anyone's control, especially if you're in poverty. Choosing your battles, etc.
Anywho, we have the freedom to choose what we financially support to an extent. Sometime it's not in anyone's control, especially if you're in poverty. Choosing your battles, etc.
Last edited:
Well yeah basically that's right, humans are corrupt and there's nothing you can do about it,, you can't "fix" humans, especially not to fit the mold of your ideals; and especially not via "authority". As far as I know there is no such thing as a framework in which humans aren't incentivized to take for themselves, there's a reason every socialist government turns into an authoritarian shitshow. It's because humans can't be trusted, not because ideas are good or bad. This is why capitalism "works" *****(major asterisks, its very flawed and comes with a lot of really bad stuff too) better than other systems, is because it acknowledges two very important truths which is that incentive is the most powerful human motivator there is, people are willing to excel if there's something in it for them; and that the government can't be trusted (although this aspect is devolving quickly, we are becoming more and more centrally planned). Honestly at least capitalism has the decency to not pretend you can put your trust in a central authority that can be captured, corrupted, and overly powerful. These guys can't even be trusted to not spend your social security money. They took over the school system and it became the worst in the world. They go to war with your money and dont tell you why. Governments are bad at everything, that's what we need to fix.
To me, the much more important thing than arguing macro ideologies like capitalism vs alternatives is granular policy debate. I care much more about the specifics of each issue and how they should be handled. This other stuff is basically fodder for extreme opposites to fight about unrealistic hypotheticals.
America isn't even capitalist it's a mixed economy, by the way. It's both capitalist and socialist.
If you're viewing this as a binary classification instead of a spectrum where any form of private ownership is a sign of capitalist society then sure okay.
Will this endless cycle of parasitism ever be solved????
Drones will have to pry Homer's The Odyssey from my cold dead hands.
There's no ethical consumption, sure there are gradations of badness but your objective should be to bring about a system where consumption is wholly ethical.
The sad thing is there is a way to have a free, open capitalistic marketplace while also instituting policies to ensure people are safe, treated fairly, and compensated generously but unremittent greed is so entrenched in the corporate ethos that most companies cannot envision the notion of doing so because they have consumed this fiction that the shareholder is the only person they serve.
You're making this high and mighty post on a device that was probably sourced by parts mined through violent slave labor and assembled in Chinese labor camps.
"No Ethical Consumption" isn't a get out of jail free card, it's a "Don't Act High and Mighty" card.
If you are already predisposed to not support something that others are interested in consuming maybe don't try to feel morally superior about it. Someone can easily point out your moral and ethical failings.
And then it's just nit picking and semantics and excuses all the way down from there.
Anything that requires privatization, scarcity, and alienation will result in a scapegoat, yup.
It depends on how you derive your ethics. Pretty sure you can have a moral system that is more concerned with outcomes which could play out in a way where you are a staunch supporter of regulations that would make things more "ethical" under your subjective standards while your engagement in the system in itself wouldn't make that stance hypocritical.
Kinda like the nuance of how you can support government intervention to solve homelessness because of its outcome efficiency while still being able to reject taking in homeless people yourself without that being an inconsistency since the general outcome at large would be ineffective.
(sorry for talking around philosophical terminology or maybe using some in a wrong way I'm not familiar enough yet with it as I'm in the process of working my way through)
Kinda like the nuance of how you can support government intervention to solve homelessness because of its outcome efficiency while still being able to reject taking in homeless people yourself without that being an inconsistency since the general outcome at large would be ineffective.
(sorry for talking around philosophical terminology or maybe using some in a wrong way I'm not familiar enough yet with it as I'm in the process of working my way through)
Yeah its a comedy sketch but I like how Jim thinks.
Starts around 3:00 if you wanna skip the Amazon stuff.
If you live in the developed world, most every dollar you spend goes towards making someone or something's life shittier. That's not to say that you shouldn't try to make a difference where you can, but maybe don't shit on others for not boycotting the same products you choose to. And vote for people who will have a greater power to actually change these systems into something more fair and equitable.
Agree here. Draw your own lines in the sand and don't shit on others. I abhor the WWE but am happy for members of the WrassleERA community who are entertained by it. As i have other things I can be doing, I'll do those things over shitting on other people's taste
I think we are getting things mixed up here, entertainment taste is a completely futile area to fight over. Consumerism and capitalism however are larger economic/political subjects worth debating over. Double standards are another thing and something you can call people out too.
Compared to every other economic system in history, capitalism (broad definition of a system where free entreprise is allowed) has lifted the most people out of poverty, improved education and health standards and advanced technology the most.
While some companies are shitty, I don't think that contributing to any company is shitty.
Reality is more nuanced, and while some here see only opression, a lot of people are happy to have a job that provides a reasonable income.
While some companies are shitty, I don't think that contributing to any company is shitty.
Reality is more nuanced, and while some here see only opression, a lot of people are happy to have a job that provides a reasonable income.
Did the industrial revolution only happen because of capitalism? The world was on a crash course with technology and that covers a lot of the benefits we see and would have happened with or without capitalism.
The problem is that an economic system itself can't be ethical. Capitalism is about private ownership, means of production, market and stuff. How can you blame the most efficient economic system (something Marx agrees) blame the fact that the actual people don't care about climate change or working conditions in a way to change their consumption or create a functional legal framework.
Even ignoring the fact that countries with capitalism are actually running the most environmental protection laws.
Marx was pretty clear about that capitalism is the base for the industrial revolution, he saw communism as next development step of a capitalistic society.
The advancements in technology are very much intertwined with the economic system.
The simple version of the argument goes like this: Advancements in technology require investments. But if someone else (the state, the aristocracy) can steal what you create you have no incentive to invent. Additionally, those who hold economic power (and monopolies) will sink any attempt at innovations who may threathen their position. Thus the economic liberty in capitalism is critical for that technological advancement.
You can read more about this in Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson, one of the most influential books in social science in the last decade. There they propose the example of the UK and how an early verison of the mechanized loom was invented centuries before it was adopted, because the aristocracy who held the monolopoly in weaving was threatened by it and decided to bury it.
Certain economic and political institutions are vital to growth (and technological adoption).
I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. I feel we agree and disagree at the same time.
Also throughout history the countries with the most functioning legal frameworks and workers rights have been capitalistic