Do you ever get tired of being angry at everything?

Did you run though a field of wheat like Theresa May?

Only 1 live album though. That’s surprising considering.

I think there is only so much humans can change. We aren’t beings of infinite moral potential and there will always be points of conflict.

We didn’t learn about Sikhism in school (actually UK here)

To play devil’s advocate, isn’t it always the case that the government is balancing on the right rope between keeping the economy going and keeping people alive, even without a pandemic? With NHS funding, welfare and all sorts of things government has to decide where to draw the line.

Obviously Johnson handled this crisis horrificly though, but in terms of this quote he just said the quiet part loud.

I think following this logically this won’t be the case. If nobody has money then nobody can buy the products made by the AI companies. This will increase pressure for a generous UBI.

So you think human beings should change their basic hardwired nature? Obviously humans have a tendency to care for the people closest to them over complete strangers. Humans always will come into conflicts of interest. What you’re asking for is for humanity to basically act perfectly all the time.

I would argue the primary cause of all of these problems is that we live in a world of finite resources. I think all of those things would still be problems under any political system we tried to implement. If there was plenty of resources for everyone we would just multiply until that wasn’t the case any more.

I reject the notion that we could rid the world of these things, the entirety of human history provides empirical evidence that backs me up on this. I think it’s fantastical to think we could rid the world of these things, all we can do is try to reduce the impact as best we can in the limited ways that we can as individuals and as a society.

You need to define what you mean by not working.

Of course discussion is needed. How else do you expand your mind and thoughts without discussing things? I don’t take your views as being inherently true in much the same way you don’t take mine, that’s healthy and normal.

There is a lot to discuss. I’m discussing about why I think communal style living/economics don’t scale well. You think it does, there are reasons we both have our opinions and maybe we could actually learn from each other rather than you viewing me as someone to be defeated.

How do we ensure the correct amount of people are doing the correct amount of work? The good thing about markets is that when demand is high and supply is low it suddenly becomes lucrative to do that thing and it attracts people to doing said thing. It becomes self correcting. If you leave people to just do what they most want to do everybody will choose to do what they consider fun rather than what is needed.

Yeah more ad hominem attacks. That’s a really good way to convince someone you’re correct, getting angry and lashing out for the crime of asking questions and trying to foster an open discussion.

For the record, I detest Elon Musk.

Do you have anything to contribute? I’m trying to have an actual discussion about policy.

I think the profit incentive is important in maximising yield, do you have anything to add to this as to why I may be wrong? Or are you just going to signal me as an other so that others just switch off and get defensive.

I think it’s kind of ironic that some claim to want the world to see things from their point of view but then immediately attack those who question their views or try to understand. This just suggests to me you’re more about signalling to your in group than growth in ideas and discussion.

I agree the word raid was the wrong word to use there

They don’t just find land and build a fence around it though in the modern era, that’s extremely reductionist. They pay for the privilege to work the land. Society as a whole agree the land is his because of this.

How do you parse how much belongs to the farmer and how much belongs to the community? I would argue we already have an arrangement like that. Who oversees this and what do they get out of if?

Most importantly where is the incentive to maximise yield if people are just growing personal crops? What if you want to eat but don’t want to work the land?

Instead of an ad hominem attack you could try and explain it better.

So do you think it’s fair for a group of people to raid a farm and pick what they haven’t contributed to growing as long as they take just enough to feed themselves, piggybacking off the work of the farmer? Why should the farmer agree to this?

Edit: rewrote the question to satisfy people who think asking questions about is somehow combative.

Don’t get into this if you don’t want to get dogpiled by prudes. Lemmy is weirdly anti sex scenes.

Shudders like Sideshow Bob… Ergggh Princeton.

There would also be no incentive for anyone to produce anything beyond what they personally need, which would definitely lead to widespread food shortages. The more food that is produced at once the more efficient the labour is per crop, which is exactly why farms boomed in size after the industrial revolution and advent of farming machinery.