Do not, my friends, become addicted to water

[Broomstick]

Also, please do tell me how capitalism isn't related to the need for unstoppable economic growth... which in turn isn't related to global climate change... and global climate change isn't related to turning the Middle East and Africa into uninhabitable wastelands with catastrophic consequences for some of the most densely populated nations on Earth.

Well, to start the Cedars of Lebannon were felled during the era of god-kings and theocracies, not modern civilization. The degradation of the lands of the Middle East started thousands of years ago. As populations rose and irrigation needs were invented and increased the deserts spread - and that had nothing to do with capitalism, as much of it predated what we conceive of as "money", and what didn't was done under the command of absolute monarchs and priesthoods who controlled everything.

On a smaller scale, the needs of the statue carving and moving industry on Easter Island played a significant, even primary role in the ecological crash and subsequent population crash on that island from which said island has yet to recover. Not a capitalist society, that.

That's the point you are failing to grasp - this is NOT something generated by capitalism. It's generated by human greed, which exists under every economic system ever invented. Pre-money it's a greed for stuff - more food, more camels or more carved god-images or whatever. Post-money it's greed for stuff AND money. It comes down to wanting more resources and more stuff that makes you feel good - junk food, movies, games, whatever.

[K. A. Pital]

KA: As soon as I posted this, I saw that you had posted again in this thread. At the moment I have to run and don't have time to read your latest post, so my apologies in advance if you addressed any of the points I am about to raise.

No worries, you know how it is with these threads and me. I'm always there. Take your time, if you have something to say.

I never said they were an industrial necessity. Whether or not they are a necessity or luxury is really besides the point, because luxuries exist and are produced in non-capitalist societies as well.

It is not beside the point, I am afraid, because capitalism encourages the production of luxuries before necessities due to purchasing power disparities. That's why real people, right now, can't get something very essential for their survival - water - but the production of Coke exists, and expands, at the same time.

The onus is on YOU to PROVE it is a specific capitalist thing, not wave your hands and say capitalism created the problem then act incredulous when people don't take you on good faith that this is so. The Soviet Union product its own soft drinks, though I suppose you are going to pull another 'No True Scotsman' fallacy out of your back pocket, moving the goalposts to further obfuscate the issue as you ave thus far.

The USSR imitated the capitalist economies with its consumer goods palette. It is not a "no true scotsman", but pure substance. It was built as an attempt to hastily industrialize a backwards nation by importing foreign technologies and production processes; in its essence, it was a large capitalist corporation, a corporation-society. There were advantages to this, but soft drinks aren't in their list. However, the USSR did not have bottled water, as an example of a difference of substance again. It simply wasn't there. Bottled water is energy-inefficient and wasteful at the core, and brings no benefits whatsoever.

This is a false dichotomy. These are not the only two options, as I know you are smart enough to be aware of.

So did bottled water then exist in pre-capitalist or socialist socities? Is that what you're claiming? I'll help you with the socialist: it did not. Pre-capitalist, you can check your hist books.

Again, YOU are making claims, the onus is on YOU to provide factual support for the fact that these problems would not exist in a non-capitalist system. All you have done is spam graphics that show the problem exists; it is ridiculous that you think this is satisfactory. Nobody is denying the problem exists, so posting figures that show it exists is irrelevant.

I've said already: try as I may, I don't think that a non-capitalist system would produce something like bottled water, left to its own devices, and do it with such grandeur that it would be actively destroying freshwater reserves on a planetary scale. Surviving pre-capitalist societies show clearly that this could not happen. They don't build bottle water factories. Does it pain you to admit that it exists only under capitalism?

You need to demonstrate why capitalism is a sufficient and necessary condition for these problems to arise, and why an alternative system would have avoided these problems.

My pleasure: because capitalism firstly encourages to profit on addiction, foolishness and every other possible vice in the world, and secondly posesses an efficient industrial machine which makes a successful attempt at the above damaging on a planetary scale. The greater the success, the greater the damage. A system that discourages bottled water as a distribution method because it is energy-inefficient would curtail at least one problem. A system which can't produce either soft drinks or bottled water due to a lack of need for both curtails both problems. In essence, if humans are not conditioned by filthy inhumane scum like Coca Cola "marketing" execs into drinking a mix of potent aromas and liquified sugars, then the need to produce them never arises and a great deal of issues are alleviated at step one. We can at least be certain that precapitalist societies are incapable of industrial production; pre-class societies have no need for it. As societies where no profit can be gained from making soft drinks or bottled water exist, it is logical to conclude that any society where making these products is not bringing any profit, would likely not have them at all. Or only as a copycat attempt, as it was the case with socialist countries.

I only challenged your assertion that this is a problem UNIQUE to capitalism.

Show me another system that could industrialize a huge swath of the planet by extracting enormous amount of raw resources from poorer lands, then proceed to produce harmful goods on a global scale. I mean, industrial socialism is bad, and I've said as much above. But how does production of soft drinks or bottled water benefit industrial socialism? Where from would the NEED for such products even originate? Do you understand.

See? Now that actually IS a good point, and getting at the actual heart of the problem, as opposed to you just hurling fallacies at strawmen as fast as you can build them. I think it IS possible to construct an argument around this point, although I think there would still need to be a good deal of elaboration on how any alternative economic structure would have avoided the same pitfalls. After all, the relative inability of humans to think long-term has plagued us for far longer than capitalism has existed. So the onus is on looking at the ways that capitalism encourages or amplifies this tendency, in comparison to alternative systems.

How should I elaborate on why there would be no incentive to produce bottled water, will you? You're asking me to prove a negative. There's no real need for bottled water. I know, because I grew up where there was none. I didn't die. There was no water shortage. Or anything of the sort. So this proves conclusively that it's simply not needed in any logical way, an absolutely unecessary product which only harms the environment.

Now you're asking me to prove that a non-capitalist system would not be producing absolutely unnecessary, needless bullshit products? Is that the question?

The point is to COMPARE it to what would have happened under a different system.

I'll make a simple picture for you:


OK?

[Kane Starkiller]

Which human nature, the hunter-gatherer one? Blame it on the hunter-gatherers? I don't see tribal societies building Coca Cola plants, sorry. Which means human nature doesn't encourage people to profit on scientifically proven addictive substances while destroying the environment. Must be something else.

What a pitiful strawman. Clearly hunter-gatherers don't have the knowhow to build a factory but they sure as hell don't care how many mammoths are left once they manage to catch one. The point is that human instincts and even bodies have been honed by millions of years of evolution when finding food was extremely difficult wheres the era of unprecedented food availability was only around for maybe a century or so. Hence human overindulgence in food. Is that simple and clear enough for you?

But they exist. They are also placed in water-scarce regions, just to make the picture complete. You can't just bullshit here "hurhurhur nothing demands there be Coca Cola factories" when Coca Cola controls like half the world's soft drink market and uses up 14% of the world's sugar. How would that even exist without massive demand inside the system? Idiot. That's like saying "nothing about the capitalist system demands that there be coal mines" or "nothing about the capitalist system demands that there be shipyards" or "nothing about the capitalist system demands that there be oil wells". Sure, you can say that, but who's gonna believe you? I don't.
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqj ... 9x-999.png

Ooooh you have thrown in irrelevant factoids about sugar market share and pretty maps about where exactly pepsi factories are. What does that have to do with my point that these factories are there simply to meet demand? Demand that doesn't come from the "system" but from the consumers. Just like coal mines. Just like oil wells.

Except they are used to produce Coke, which has caused you to show up in this thread and start spewing nonsense. "But nothing demands they should exist", waaah waaah.

Damn but you suck at this . I said "Nothing about capitalist system requires that there be Coca Cola factories.". The demand by the people clearly exists.

There are many ways to drink yourself to death indeed, but home production of moonshine does not destroy the freshwater reserves of the Earth. I mean, there's much to be said about the alco industry, too, but let's not pretend the soft drink industry is blameless, or the system is blameless, or individual actors are blameless. That's just childish nonsense, and you're sour. Don't be - Coke has the solution for you:

...the head of marketing for Coca-Cola in Egypt, said, “We have young generations who can consume any kind of food and beverage; [they’re] not caring about their health yet.”

Wait, wait, wait. You can't be that fucking dumb can you? In my opening post I said "Putting instant gratification over long term consequences that won't directly impact you personally is a general human (animal) thing" and you respond with this gotcha quote in which Coca Cola officials say that there are "young generations..not caring about their health.".
That's MY point you idiot. Yes they don't care about their health. I was even too generous with my "impact them personally" bit. Hence they drink the fucking stuff even as it makes them fat and fucks up their liver. But wait a CEO in Atlanta is supposed to care about their health?
And even if we did make Coca Cola into a controlled substance how is that in any way a condemnation of the economic system as opposed to the that particular beverage?

[K. A. Pital]

...On a smaller scale, the needs of the statue carving and moving industry on Easter Island played a significant, even primary role in the ecological crash and subsequent population crash on that island from which said island has yet to recover. Not a capitalist society, that.

That's the point you are failing to grasp - this is NOT something generated by capitalism. It's generated by human greed, which exists under every economic system ever invented. Pre-money it's a greed for stuff - more food, more camels or more carved god-images or whatever. Post-money it's greed for stuff AND money. It comes down to wanting more resources and more stuff that makes you feel good - junk food, movies, games, whatever.

Um..., one page ago:

Look guys, I see your points. You are basically saying that 200 years after the scientific revolution, our civilization is just as dumb and pathetic as Easter Island, about to cause ecological destruction on itself. That is an indictment, not an excuse, I hope you do realize. If capitalism is no better than the Maya or Ganges civilization and puts mankind on track for catastrophic water shortages because “exceeding carrying capacity” is an uncontrollable tumorous growth, what exactly are you trying to say? “It is the fault of man, do not blame the system?”

I've bolded the relevant bits.

It's generated by human greed, which exists under every economic system ever invented.

200 years after a scientific revolution, I'm being told on the internet that mankind is basically a virus and is destructive by nature, but capitalism is blameless - don't me dare touch the precious. *yawns*

[Broomstick]

Not saying capitalism doesn't have its sins, but YES, HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS JUST AS DUMB AND PATHETIC AS EASTER ISLAND. Easter Island wasn't inhabited by gnomes or hobbits, it was (and still is) inhabited by modern humans. They're us we're them. We have a bit more factual knowledge but that's it. Otherwise we're just as stupid, irrational, and greedy as they were. Changing the economy or who/what rules society doesn't change that.

[K. A. Pital]

Clearly hunter-gatherers don't have the knowhow to build a factory but they sure as hell don't care how many mammoths are left once they manage to catch one.

If they kill all mammuths around, the tribe will die. But it won't wreck the planet in the process.

The point is that human instincts and even bodies have been honed by millions of years of evolution when finding food was extremely difficult wheres the era of unprecedented food availability was only around for maybe a century or so. Hence human overindulgence in food.

So why does an overindulgence in food by some humans - not all humans, mind you - deprive the poor and the poorest of water?
Japan is also a rich country, but why aren't they guzzling up on soft drinks, if it is human nature?

Mexico is a poor country but by now they drink more soft drinks than the USA. What is this "human nature" shit you're peddling, wanna know your dealer. Works wonders, kills brain.

What does that have to do with my point that these factories are there simply to meet demand?

But you said there's no reason for them to exist. Now you backtrack - ah, there's "demand".

Demand that doesn't come from the "system" but from the consumers. Just like coal mines. Just like oil wells.

Wait, you are seriously that dense? You don't understand temporal development? Like, the fact that for capitalist production to grow, trade has to accelerate; a combustion engine was invented to transport goods faster, which required oil, which in turn gave birth to the pumps; for capitalist production to grow, we need to transition from manufacture to the factory; so we are in search of a compact power source, hence the coal and hence the mines. If you start selling shit to people with a poor understanding of risk, because you can profit (and that you can, it's capitalism!) - you can expand your trade empire. And become Walter White. It will be a while until the consequences kick in.

I said "Nothing about capitalist system requires that there be Coca Cola factories.". The demand by the people clearly exists.

This "demand" doesn't exist anywhere but inside the capitalist system. It's not even a need, you don't need soft drinks or bottled water to live and survive. Hell, you can even organize an industrial society without them. Point is, you failed at step one: evaluate whether the historical development of capitalism creates demand in society for certain products. Even then, it fails to completely subjugate the world, because some people aren't idiots and consumption of bottled water and soft drinks in many nations is still low - sometimes despite their wealth.

Inspiring to know that "human nature" doesn't exist!!!

That's MY point you idiot. Yes they don't care about their health. I was even too generous with my "impact them personally" bit. Hence they drink the fucking stuff even as it makes them fat and fucks up their liver. But wait a CEO in Atlanta is supposed to care about their health? And even if we did make Coca Cola into a controlled substance how is that in any way a condemnation of the economic system as opposed to the that particular beverage?

Idiot, it is the capitalist system where you can say things like that and lead a MNC, profit, legally, by selling people highly addictive substances that will likely ruin their health, destroy the environment, and in the end ... just be a rich motherfucker.

It's not "your point", or did you wake up now to the fact that in this system, this shit's encouraged?

Even historically, one of capitalism's greatest triumphs were the Opium Wars - the drugging of an entire continent, consequences of which are still felt till that day. But you say "oh but it's not capitalism waaah mean Pital, little fluffy ball of hate"

You don't even understand that demand can be created - it's not something that originally exists. How am I supposed to argue with you, anyway?

[K. A. Pital]

Not saying capitalism doesn't have its sins, but YES, HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS JUST AS DUMB AND PATHETIC AS EASTER ISLAND. Easter Island wasn't inhabited by gnomes or hobbits, it was (and still is) inhabited by modern humans. They're us we're them. We have a bit more factual knowledge but that's it. Otherwise we're just as stupid, irrational, and greedy as they were. Changing the economy or who/what rules society doesn't change that.

Okay.

But that's totally uninspiring and it's throwing all humans into one big lump of stupidity, saying "it's the plebs they are at fault, we just did as they wished!"

No, not all nations wreck the world by drinking Coca Cola like there's no tomorrow - some did (sadly, they also created monster corporations that now wreck other countries which are innocent and not culpable in this). No, not all nations produced bottled water, because they're full of idiots - only some did.

There's no demand for bottled water, it is a combination of abuse and propaganda which feeds on human vices and exploits the gullible.

So we aren't Easter Island. The people who are at the top is exactly the problem here.

[Vendetta]

That's the point you are failing to grasp - this is NOT something generated by capitalism. It's generated by human greed, which exists under every economic system ever invented. Pre-money it's a greed for stuff - more food, more camels or more carved god-images or whatever. Post-money it's greed for stuff AND money. It comes down to wanting more resources and more stuff that makes you feel good - junk food, movies, games, whatever.

You're thinking too small.

You're thinking on the individual human level, but the individual human level isn't the one that matters. Most of the developed world is run by corporate interests, and corporations are paperclip maximisers. The paperclips in their paradigm being share value. No matter what a corporation was originally started for, self preservation in the market forces it into certain behaviours, reduce costs, increase profits, pay share dividends.

We have been largely co-opted by slow running paperclip maximising AI.

[ray245]

Really? Why don’t we just drug the masses? You know junkies just want more of the same, right? Or wait, perfect analogy! They are drugged, we are talking about addiction here.

But the cartel is blameless! The system is blameless!

What a sad, sad day.

The systems replicate human wants. I'm not saying the systems shouldn't be blamed on the harm they produce, but you're making an assumption that your communist system is somehow better at preventing such a scenario in comparison to the capitalist system. I'm saying all system rooted in a power structure will try their best to exploit the masses by giving what they want in order to maintain control.

[K. A. Pital]

The systems replicate human wants.

That's where you and all the others here failed.

The system creates demand.

It doesn't just "replicate", it creates.

I'm saying all system rooted in a power structure will try their best to exploit the masses by giving what they want in order to maintain control.

Capitalism actively creates demand for new products (no matter the ensuing harm), exploits and encourages human vices.

Unless you're willing to argue humans are by some unchangable nature evil. Which sounds dangerously close to the unscientific concept of sin.

I argue that there's no human nature, it's all society (human is molded by the environment, and the mind is plastic - we don't consider eating human flesh for dinner OK, but in a different society it would be fine, so there is no "nature", only the social from which the human is molded into well, a human). Mowglis just behave like animals.

So "human nature" is a misnomer and so is "human wants". Human "wants", except the most basic and important of them - food, shelter, socialization - are manipulated, created and destroyed by the propagandists of the ruling class. That's why bottled water.

[Kane Starkiller]

If they kill all mammuths around, the tribe will die. But it won't wreck the planet in the process.

What is the difference from the human perspective? If you're dead you're dead. We can wreck the ecosystem on a larger scale because we are more advanced. Are you a Luddite?

So why does an overindulgence in food by some humans - not all humans, mind you - deprive the poor and the poorest of water?
Japan is also a rich country, but why aren't they guzzling up on soft drinks, if it is human nature?

Mexico is a poor country but by now they drink more soft drinks than the USA. What is this "human nature" shit you're peddling, wanna know your dealer. Works wonders, kills brain.

Japan doesn't drink as much soft drinks as US and therefore it's not in the human nature to be attracted to sugar? Huh? How does that follow?
And again: what does overindulgence in food have to do with capitalist system? Capitalist system actually made countries like US, Canada into major food exporters. Communist system in USSR made it into grain importer.

But you said there's no reason for them to exist. Now you backtrack - ah, there's "demand".

I didn't even use the word "reason" in this entire exchange.
But anyway no there is no "reason" for them to exists as far as capitalist system goes. There is demand and thus they exist.

Wait, you are seriously that dense? You don't understand temporal development? Like, the fact that for capitalist production to grow, trade has to accelerate; a combustion engine was invented to transport goods faster, which required oil, which in turn gave birth to the pumps; for capitalist production to grow, we need to transition from manufacture to the factory; so we are in search of a compact power source, hence the coal and hence the mines. If you start selling shit to people with a poor understanding of risk, because you can profit (and that you can, it's capitalism!) - you can expand your trade empire. And become Walter White. It will be a while until the consequences kick in.

Accelerating trade, transporting goods faster, growing production...Wait which one of us is arguing that capitalism is bad? Or should production decrease? Trade slow down? Goods transported slower? What in the fuck is your point dude?

This "demand" doesn't exist anywhere but inside the capitalist system. It's not even a need, you don't need soft drinks or bottled water to live and survive. Hell, you can even organize an industrial society without them. Point is, you failed at step one: evaluate whether the historical development of capitalism creates demand in society for certain products. Even then, it fails to completely subjugate the world, because some people aren't idiots and consumption of bottled water and soft drinks in many nations is still low - sometimes despite their wealth.

Inspiring to know that "human nature" doesn't exist!!!

Fucking LOL. Of course it doesn't exist outside of the capitalist system because those systems are piss poor. So humans don't have the luxury so self control doesn't even come into question. In capitalist systems you have the option but then have to excercise self control. Maybe even on a national level through laws but the very fact that "OMG I'm getting too fat" is a concern is a testament to the capitalist system.

Idiot, it is the capitalist system where you can say things like that and lead a MNC, profit, legally, by selling people highly addictive substances that will likely ruin their health, destroy the environment, and in the end ... just be a rich motherfucker.

It's not "your point", or did you wake up now to the fact that in this system, this shit's encouraged?

Even historically, one of capitalism's greatest triumphs were the Opium Wars - the drugging of an entire continent, consequences of which are still felt till that day. But you say "oh but it's not capitalism waaah mean Pital, little fluffy ball of hate"

You don't even understand that demand can be created - it's not something that originally exists. How am I supposed to argue with you, anyway?

We'll we can't have people selling foodstuffs that will ruin their health now can we?
By the way you have called me an idiot several times in this thread.
John Spartan you are fined 1 credit for the violation of the verbal morality statute.

[Broomstick]

Not saying capitalism doesn't have its sins, but YES, HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS JUST AS DUMB AND PATHETIC AS EASTER ISLAND. Easter Island wasn't inhabited by gnomes or hobbits, it was (and still is) inhabited by modern humans. They're us we're them. We have a bit more factual knowledge but that's it. Otherwise we're just as stupid, irrational, and greedy as they were. Changing the economy or who/what rules society doesn't change that.

Okay.

But that's totally uninspiring and it's throwing all humans into one big lump of stupidity, saying "it's the plebs they are at fault, we just did as they wished!"

The average person still operates at the hunter-gatherer level - they try to accumulate resources, they eat what tastes good, do what feel good, and leave some kids behind when they're done. Why not? It's been a successful strategy so far and evolution doesn't look ahead.

Only a minority of people can step out of that mindset for any significant length of time. We have had enough of them to build modern civilization and a few creature comforts but those aren't the guys who are really in charge and making large-scale decisions.

Yes, it's a bleak outlook in many ways but the universe is not a kind place.

So we aren't Easter Island. The people who are at the top is exactly the problem here.

That was also the problem on Easter Island - the average schmoe there didn't wake up one morning and say "hey, let's spend valuable time and resources carving giant-ass head statues and then chop down all the trees in our little world to move them about!" It was an accumulation of power and resources at the expense of the environment that lead to ecological and social catastrophe.

The average person today doesn't wake up in the morning and decide to destroy the world but the average person isn't in charge. The people at the top are busy being greedy (like human beings tend to be) and stripping the place of resources, expecting they'll be insulated from the negative effects. Which they will be, until the whole house of cards collapses completely and they discover money and political influence can't buy food and water when there is none to be had.

Now, the one spark of hope we have is that SOMETIMES human beings can recognize a danger and discipline themselves enough to take the necessary steps to prevent it. Sometimes. Rarely, in fact. I'm not holding my breath on this one.

Some places will get to a certain level of stress then attempt to adapt - rather like Arab nations investing heavily in desalinization plants, or Israel trying to figure out new ways to make the same amount of water go further without fucking up the land. Others will, figuratively, cut down the last tree on Easter Island and crash hard.

I'm not convinced a command economy would change any of that, because it's still humans beings making the decisions and setting the priorities, and if we were good at that we wouldn't have such problems to begin with. The problem with communism is that it assumed people could be trusted to act both rationally and altruistically over the entire population when in reality people are often irrational and altruism doesn't even always extend to genetic relations, much less larger groups. That's why communist/socialist economies always have a capitalist black market and/or start leaning toward some form of profit-making elements in their economies - the system works better when you can harness a little bit of greed. Sure, you can appeal to the agricultural worker to bust ass for the benefit of all, but if he can bring home a bit more to his own kin group for extra-hard effort you're going to get more effort from him and a better result overall.

The problem with capitalism, of course, is that it enshrines greed the way socialism enshrines altruism - and too much greed means the last tree on Easter Island gets chopped down. As I said, no one is denying that there are serious problems with unbridled capitalism, but the upcoming water shortages would have happened regardless of who was in charge when human populations reached a sufficient size. It wasn't capitalists who drained the Aral Sea.

[Broomstick]

Capitalism actively creates demand for new products (no matter the ensuing harm), exploits and encourages human vices.

And that's why capitalism should not be permitted in its purest form but rather tempered by socialism. Even in the US there are socialist programs like social security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps for the poor... Not to mention government regulation to prevent capitalist entities from committing certain harms like dumping a lot of poisons into the environment or stealing wages from workers.

Likewise, socialism in its purest form has not been demonstrated to work. Socialist systems always seem to have some capitalist elements in them, like allowing some profits or awarding extra stuff for extraordinary feats and achievements.

Unless you're willing to argue humans are by some unchangable nature evil. Which sounds dangerously close to the unscientific concept of sin.

SOME humans are pretty bad operators, just as some are super-altruistic. Human nature is a spectrum. Super-altruists probably could set up a socialist system and make it work, but they're a minority. Sociopaths probably could exist in a pure capitalist system, but most people aren't sociopaths. Pure communism and pure socialism only work for the outliers (if at all) and not for the vast majority.

I argue that there's no human nature, it's all society (human is molded by the environment, and the mind is plastic - we don't consider eating human flesh for dinner OK, but in a different society it would be fine, so there is no "nature", only the social from which the human is molded into well, a human).

The Aztecs had quite a civilization based in part on endless human sacrifice and butchery that included cannibalism. Eventually, it lead to those around them banding together (along with these strange, pale newcomers with riding animals and bangsticks) and ending them.

There used to be a lot of human societies that practiced human sacrifice, but as populations rose and more and more groups organized it turned out not to be viable in a crowded world. So the practice has largely died out. Societies can get weeded out just as individuals are. Societies that are maladaptive cut down the last tree and are destroyed. Societies that can change and adapt and STOP cutting down trees have a chance to survive. Not entirely sure which sort we are.

[ray245]

That's where you and all the others here failed.

The system creates demand.

It doesn't just "replicate", it creates.

How are you going to stop someone from creating cola and someone from enjoying the drink? That's a human desire to do so in whatever kind of society they are living in. People will try and get more of the stuff they enjoy. It's basic human behaviour.

Capitalism actively creates demand for new products (no matter the ensuing harm), exploits and encourages human vices.

And that demand won't exist in a communist system?

Unless you're willing to argue humans are by some unchangable nature evil. Which sounds dangerously close to the unscientific concept of sin.

I argue that there's no human nature, it's all society (human is molded by the environment, and the mind is plastic - we don't consider eating human flesh for dinner OK, but in a different society it would be fine, so there is no "nature", only the social from which the human is molded into well, a human). Mowglis just behave like animals.

Humans and animals want to have more stuff that they like. Animals prefer certain food over others. That's basic psychology.

So "human nature" is a misnomer and so is "human wants". Human "wants", except the most basic and important of them - food, shelter, socialization - are manipulated, created and destroyed by the propagandists of the ruling class. That's why bottled water.

Human and animals alike do have a basic preference. As long as preferences exist, you will have "human wants". I mean I'll be perfectly happy to know if you know any psychology studies that actually prove that human only want the most basic needs, with all other kinds of "wants" being entirely artificial.

You're being terribly unconvincing here.

[K. A. Pital]

What is the difference from the human perspective?

The difference is very big. If I'm dead, sure, I'm dead, but I also think about others who live in this world. You think only about yourself, and it shows. If I die, or my tribe dies, it doesn't mean humanity's finished. If you wreck the Earth in a way that can't be fixed (exceed carrying capacity, overuse or overextract some resource so that the whole ecosystem is thrown off-balance and there's no way to stop the snowballing collapse and death), it 100% does mean humanity's finished as well. And all other lifeforms along with it.

Japan doesn't drink as much soft drinks as US and therefore it's not in the human nature to be attracted to sugar? Huh? How does that follow?

Not just Japan. Singapore is quite rich, but also has some of the lowest sugar per capita consumption figures. If it was "human nature", we'd expect all rich countries to eat shitloads of sugar because they can afford it. As you said, the system is blameless, so it is the humans who have to want it. But wait, maybe it's not human nature to want soft drinks...

And again: what does overindulgence in food have to do with capitalist system?

Because under the current system, the rich can overindulge and have enough purchasing power to keep buying so much soft drinks that poor people elsewhere are out of water? Or you can't connect the dots even with a ruler?

Accelerating trade, transporting goods faster, growing production...Wait which one of us is arguing that capitalism is bad? Or should production decrease? Trade slow down? Goods transported slower? What in the fuck is your point dude?

Tell me about the demand for oil before the first combustion engine was built. Tell me about the demand for opiate drugs before the first person was drugged. "Demand" lol; what a simpleton you are.

Fucking LOL. Of course it doesn't exist outside of the capitalist system because those systems are piss poor. So humans don't have the luxury so self control doesn't even come into question. In capitalist systems you have the option but then have to excercise self control. Maybe even on a national level through laws but the very fact that "OMG I'm getting too fat" is a concern is a testament to the capitalist system.

Junkies are a testament to capitalism, I agree. There's something on which we agree, comrade. Indeed. "Piss poor" So a human is only worth as much as the money he has. Again you show your true colors.

We'll we can't have people selling foodstuffs that will ruin their health now can we?

Don't know how about you, but I'd prefer not to encourage this behaviour, yes. What's the point of bottled water? "Demand" lol

By the way you have called me an idiot several times in this thread.

Yes, because you're an idiot, and a particularly good example thereof.

[K. A. Pital]

And that's why capitalism should not be permitted in its purest form but rather tempered by socialism. Even in the US there are socialist programs like social security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps for the poor... Not to mention government regulation to prevent capitalist entities from committing certain harms like dumping a lot of poisons into the environment or stealing wages from workers.

That's a good argument. Actually you don't need to say it has to be socialist, it just has to be controlled, for starters. Like, to prevent the Easter Island scenario. But I've awaited more from a system that was supposedly built by clever men in an age of science and reason.

SOME humans are pretty bad operators, just as some are super-altruistic. Human nature is a spectrum. Super-altruists probably could set up a socialist system and make it work, but they're a minority. Sociopaths probably could exist in a pure capitalist system, but most people aren't sociopaths. Pure communism and pure socialism only work for the outliers (if at all) and not for the vast majority.

No, what I was getting at was that actually, humans don't always act on their evil impulses originally, but if you start to encourage and train them to do so, they will keep doing it. It's Pavlovian.

Societies that can change and adapt and STOP cutting down trees have a chance to survive. Not entirely sure which sort we are.

Good point, but if we're Easter Island, there won't even be a chance to observe the end except for very select few. *laughs sadly* In previous years, collapsing or unstable societies weren't threatening the entirety of humanity or Earth as such in case they fuck up. Just themselves.

[K. A. Pital]

How are you going to stop someone from creating cola and someone from enjoying the drink? That's a human desire to do so in whatever kind of society they are living in. People will try and get more of the stuff they enjoy. It's basic human behaviour.

So humans really enjoy bottled water from the tap?

And that demand won't exist in a communist system?

Humans and animals want to have more stuff that they like. Animals prefer certain food over others. That's basic psychology.

Bottled water?

You're being terribly unconvincing here.

So even animals would enjoy bottled water?

[ray245]

So humans really enjoy bottled water from the tap?

No, but do people enjoy sugar drinks?

Can demand be artificially created through marketing? Sure. That does not mean there won't be demand for Cola.

Bottled water?

What about cola?

So even animals would enjoy bottled water?

Do dogs enjoy meat more so than vegetables?

[K. A. Pital]

No, but do people enjoy sugar drinks?

Do people enjoy heroin? Alcohol? Yes, they do. Probably just indicates the industry has to be heavily controlled. Like, alcohol is controlled to prevent poisoning - at least from bad manufacture.

But it seems there are places where people don't enjoy alcohol as much as elsewhere, and there are places where people don't enjoy sugar drinks.

What happens? Bad people? Faulty people? Inhuman nature?

Can demand be artificially created through marketing? Sure. That does not mean there won't be demand for Cola.

You can play all sorts of games on the human mind. Even convince dumbasses to swap tasty Cola for Bottled Water:

I'm being grim here, but although the gigantic plastic patch will grow and bottled water is the dumbest thing after Teletubbies, at least maybe there's less demand for sugar cane.

Do dogs enjoy meat more so than vegetables?

No idea, I'm not a dog.

[Kane Starkiller]

The difference is very big. If I'm dead, sure, I'm dead, but I also think about others who live in this world. You think only about yourself, and it shows. If I die, or my tribe dies, it doesn't mean humanity's finished. If you wreck the Earth in a way that can't be fixed (exceed carrying capacity, overuse or overextract some resource so that the whole ecosystem is thrown off-balance and there's no way to stop the snowballing collapse and death), it 100% does mean humanity's finished as well. And all other lifeforms along with it.

Hehe you're quite a little weasel aren't you. We were talking about the fact that hunter gatherers gave no thoughts to sustainability. Therefore if they had sufficient numbers they too would kill and eat everything that moved until they ran out of food. What the fuck does "single tribe" has to do with anything? Christ don't you get tired of being such a dishonest shit.

Not just Japan. Singapore is quite rich, but also has some of the lowest sugar per capita consumption figures. If it was "human nature", we'd expect all rich countries to eat shitloads of sugar because they can afford it. As you said, the system is blameless, so it is the humans who have to want it. But wait, maybe it's not human nature to want soft drinks...

Well there you have it. Singapore as well as Japan doesn't consume as much sugary drinks as US therefore being attracted to sugar is not in human nature. Hey if it turns out that married couples in Japan and US don't have sex with equal frequency does that also mean that sex isn't in human nature?

Because under the current system, the rich can overindulge and have enough purchasing power to keep buying so much soft drinks that poor people elsewhere are out of water? Or you can't connect the dots even with a ruler?

What does consuming resources at an unsustainable rate have to do with the capitalist system? Where is the Aral Lake?

Tell me about the demand for oil before the first combustion engine was built. Tell me about the demand for opiate drugs before the first person was drugged. "Demand" lol; what a simpleton you are.

And you have the gall of calling anyone a simpleton. The demand was for transportation. The demand was met with combustion engines. Combustion engines need oil. You are still welcome to walk to work.

Junkies are a testament to capitalism, I agree. There's something on which we agree, comrade. Indeed. "Piss poor" So a human is only worth as much as the money he has. Again you show your true colors.

Another pitiful strawman. Accompanied with chestbeating about what a good good person you are. K. A. Pital is against getting addicted to drugs didn't you know. K. A. Pital is special.

Don't know how about you, but I'd prefer not to encourage this behaviour, yes. What's the point of bottled water? "Demand" lol

Clearly yes, demand. People buy it. It's convenient for them. Oh but bottled water in US and Europe is why Sudan doesn't have enough water. That's it. Fuck Kapitalizm.

Yes, because you're an idiot, and a particularly good example thereof.

Keep on projecting buddy.

[ray245]

Do people enjoy heroin? Alcohol? Yes, they do. Probably just indicates the industry has to be heavily controlled. Like, alcohol is controlled to prevent poisoning - at least from bad manufacture.

But it seems there are places where people don't enjoy alcohol as much as elsewhere, and there are places where people don't enjoy sugar drinks.

What happens? Bad people? Faulty people? Inhuman nature?

Can the amount people consume be controlled? Yes. I am not denying that. I'm saying they should be controlled if there is an overall benefit.

Sure, there are places where people don't enjoy alochol and sugar drinks, but there is a human want for that stuff. And if they can get it via legal means, they will turn to illegal means.

You can play all sorts of games on the human mind. Even convince dumbasses to swap tasty Cola for Bottled Water:

And I never said you can't. But those preferences aren't entirely shaped by marketing alone. If so, people won't be trading for spices, salt and sugar since early human civilisation.

I'm being grim here, but although the gigantic plastic patch will grow and bottled water is the dumbest thing after Teletubbies, at least maybe there's less demand for sugar cane.

The amount people chose to consume can change. That does not mean their want would disappear entirely.

No idea, I'm not a dog.

Apparently, they do base on what I've read. A biologist can correct me if I am wrong.

A bland diet with the odor of meat or air blown through it was presented to Beagle dogs in daily two choice preference tests. At first, there was a 70% preference for the food that smelled like meat but, by the third week, the preference had fallen to 52%. These results indicated that, although dogs initially prefer food that smells like meat, odor must be paired with some other property of meat, probably taste, for the preferences to be sustained. Intact dogs significantly preferred lamb over horsemeat 67±4%, pork over lamb 89±3%, pork over horsemeat 89±3%, beef over lamb 84±2%, and beef over horsemeat 89±2% in two choice preference tests. Dogs made anosmic by intranasal infusion of zinc sulfate had preferences significantly less than those of intact dogs and did not show a significant preference for one meat over another with the exception of pork, which was preferred to lamb (61±4%). Anosmic dogs showed preferences similar to those of intact dogs for a sucrose containing over a nonsucrose diet and for a horsemeat containing diet over a non-meat diet. These results indicate that olfaction is important in canine food preferences which involve discrimination between meats, but not for sweet versus non-sweet and meat versus non-meat preferences.

[K. A. Pital]

Therefore if they had sufficient numbers they too would kill and eat everything that moved until they ran out of food.

Well exactly - that's why it is a good thing that the ecosystem generally prevents overpredation, and species that overpredate would die out! What an idiot you are, spectacular.

Well there you have it. Singapore as well as Japan doesn't consume as much sugary drinks as US therefore being attracted to sugar is not in human nature. Hey if it turns out that married couples in Japan and US don't have sex with equal frequency does that also mean that sex isn't in human nature?

Thanks for your concession, dumbass. Considering that Japan has an atomized society which is suffering a severe reproductive crisis, and many are actually turning completely asexual, seems like human nature is a very elastic thing. ITT it turns out that you can actually manipulate and change so-called "human nature" over time, with great effect, up to people not wanting to have sex, which is kind of the most "unnatural" development ever, and one that also ensures no offspring, so goes against everything evolutionarily ingrained.

Neo, the answer is not that sex isn't in human nature. The answer is... there's no such thing as "human nature".

What does consuming resources at an unsustainable rate have to do with the capitalist system? Where is the Aral Lake?

It was drained to make cotton, also because people who cared about the Aral Sea couldn't save it, but other people got cotton clothes instead. Same thing. Well, at least cotton clothes you can wear a long time and they won't give you diabetes. But tell me, you agree that these people, deprived of water, they need water much more than you need a bottle of Coca Cola? Or they are worthless, too low purch power?

And you have the gall of calling anyone a simpleton. The demand was for transportation. The demand was met with combustion engines. Combustion engines need oil. You are still welcome to walk to work.

Demand for transportation, and only that? The combustion engine is a versatile tool! There was more to it. So you agreed with my point: capitalism creates demand where there was none, then fulfils it, and so proceeds to the next stage. It's historical.

Another pitiful strawman. Accompanied with chestbeating about what a good good person you are. K. A. Pital is against getting addicted to drugs didn't you know. K. A. Pital is special.

I tend to stop before I call a system where getting filthy rich on addiction and propaganda of addiction to millions of potential addicts "best", especially after considering the effects of said addiction and seeing some of the other side effects of the whole production cycle first-hand. You seem to have no such reservations. May your water be taken from you, and may you get fat and diabetic.

Clearly yes, demand. People buy it. It's convenient for them. Oh but bottled water in US and Europe is why Sudan doesn't have enough water. That's it.

Why oh why did I not notice the problem of bottled water being needed for me, being so convenient for me? It's not as if I had a lack of bottles... And of water... What's the convenience? Bottles are readily available (many from better materials than plastic), and so is water from the pipes. I hope you go out there and buy as much bottled water as possible. As they say, a fool and his money are easily parted.

Fuck Kapitalizm.

Amen. Also fuck you.

[K. A. Pital]

Can the amount people consume be controlled? Yes. I am not denying that. I'm saying they should be controlled if there is an overall benefit. Sure, there are places where people don't enjoy alochol and sugar drinks, but there is a human want for that stuff. And if they can get it via legal means, they will turn to illegal means.

Let those who want to kill themselves put sugar into water and mix it. No different than Coke, but at least not an industry which immiserates poor people with bottling plants sucking out all the water from below ground.

And I never said you can't. But those preferences aren't entirely shaped by marketing alone. If so, people won't be trading for spices, salt and sugar since early human civilisation.

You underestimate the power of the dark side. Modern society can make it so that people will stop having sex at all, lots of them, and die out without offspring, rejecting the all-important evolutionary goal of procreation. Tell me more about how people can't be molded. You confuse the existence of a start state and potent evolutionary instincts etc. with the end state, which could be pretty much anything. The "nature" is shaped by society.

The amount people chose to consume can change. That does not mean their want would disappear entirely.

There are those who don't consume certain products at all, does it mean they're wrong people and have to undergo capitalistic correction? PSYCHO CORRECTION

Apparently, they do base on what I've read.

I wasn't being serious here, sorry.

[ray245]

Let those who want to kill themselves put sugar into water and mix it. No different than Coke, but at least not an industry which immiserates poor people with bottling plants sucking out all the water from below ground.

You'll just give rise to a black market.

You underestimate the power of the dark side. Modern society can make it so that people will stop having sex at all, lots of them, and die out without offspring, rejecting the all-important evolutionary goal of procreation. Tell me more about how people can't be molded. You confuse the existence of a start state and potent evolutionary instincts etc. with the end state, which could be pretty much anything. The "nature" is shaped by society.

Sex in Japan is still understood as a desire and a want, even if people don't act on it. Those base desire still exist, and more often than not, it's simply redirected via things like pornography. Desire and want are transformed, but they still exist.

The lack of having sex does not mean people see sex as something they would reject.

There are those who don't consume certain products at all, does it mean they're wrong people and have to undergo capitalistic correction? PSYCHO CORRECTION

Lack of consumption does not mean those desires don't exist. We can exercise control over our desire, but we can't remove them. If it was possible, prohibition in the 1920s would not have failed.

I wasn't being serious here, sorry.

All I am saying is animals and humans by extension do seem to have a basic biological preference for certain kind of food. Even without any form of marketing, such preferences do exist. We as humans can exercise some degree of self-control over our preference ( like avoid eating oily food too often), but that doesn't mean it's gone from our biological desires.

[K. A. Pital]

You'll just give rise to a black market.

If you think that there was a black market of soft drinks in societies where they didn't exist for whatever reason, you, too, are delusional.

I'd hate to call you an idiot, ray. Don't make me do it.

Desire and want are transformed, but they still exist.

Well, it is not that I said there's no start slate - there is. I just explained to you how unnatural and warped it could be. So if you transform the basic need to drink into a desire to drink liquified sugar, that's OK? Okay. I mean, you could condition people into being masochists, if you break them psychologically, there's a lot of stuff you can do. It's crazy, let's not get too deep in this.

Lack of consumption does not mean those desires don't exist. We can exercise control over our desire, but we can't remove them. If it was possible, prohibition in the 1920s would not have failed.

Maybe it failed because drinking already was an established habit before the prohibition? It's like saying fighting addiction failed because we already had lots of addicts. Sure, once it's done, it's done. What do you want me to say?

All I am saying is animals and humans by extension do seem to have a basic biological preference for certain kind of food. Even without any form of marketing, such preferences do exist. We as humans can exercise some degree of self-control over our preference ( like avoid eating oily food too often), but that doesn't mean it's gone from our biological desires.

You're right, but you don't know what kind of food can be preferred. It's mostly cultural conditioning. The basic need is a diverse diet, one that corresponds to our health as well. The induced desire to overconsume, get wasted, etc. - that's something else. Conflating the two makes for very bad outcomes. That's all.