ITT: guys who probably consider themselves too smart for religion thinking in terms dictated by the church.
“Deserving” and "undeserving* are made up concepts disconnected from any concrete reality, just shards of Christianity preserved in the amber of American civic religion and exported throughout the capitalist-dominated world. If you talk about who “deserves” this or that, you might as well be talking about who’s holy and who’s a sinner. The truth is, we are just animals who banded together tens of thousands of years ago to help each other survive. Many anthropologists say that society began when we started taking care of those who could no longer contribute as much physically: the old, the sick, the injured. But hey, if you want to be less socially evolved than a bunch of cave-dwelling hunter gatherers, that’s your choice. Just don’t expect the rest of humanity to entertain your rotten ideas about useless eaters, and don’t act surprised when you find yourself put out on the ice.
Well since it’s literaly us vs the planet (since we seem to be unable to regulate our society’s consumption of finite resources), the question is : does the planet exist for us to consume it ?
The answer is no, but we’ll still consume it.
Do we deserve to live ? Well outside of society, there is no reason we’re deserving it more than any living being. And sometimes I clearly wonder, when some individuals contribution is a big negative legacy for the next ones, and to the planet.
Tbh I do not mean we (humans) do not deserve to live, but I clearly wouldn’t want it taken for granted, cause it is not.
That varies quite a bit by country. Capitalist systems have no problems with destroying the world, but socialist countries are better able to plan production and distribution. You can see this in action in the PRC right now, and its major shift towards renewables and electrification at an astounding scale.
That’s basically the core difference between the 2 political parties in the US currently. One essentially believes humans have a right to be alive, and the other does not. All the other policy differences kind of stem from that.
They don’t actually disagree, though. Both operate under the direct control of the wealthiest in the country, the capitalist class, and work to ensure imperialism persists and that their private owners continue making immense amounts of money.
Evolution makes approving noises
Removed by mod
“Ugh, look at these delusional commies who think that the purpose of human society is to keep each other alive.”
Judge us by our enemies
Gotta love when you out yourself as a social Darwinist.
Removed by mod
Not an idiot nor an LLM. You’re taking issue with people saying that society should take care of everyone, and saying those who can’t secure food or water deserve to die. Feel free to clarify further, but read literally you are saying disabled people deserve to die, and that those who support social welfare for them are wrong. This is a social Darwinist take.
Removed by mod
Are the cultists with silver spoons hanging out of their mouths in the room with us?
Our society (with US at the forefront) is built on contradictions. On one hand, capitalism says you don’t deserve anything, you have to earn it. On the other hand, consumerism says you deserve every new gadget, luxury, treat.
I believe both are false: everyone deserves a reasonable standard of living (UBI?), nobody inherently deserves more than that but it should be possible to earn it. And we should acknowledge that earning something is not a matter of moral superiority, but a combination of some effort and some luck.
Capitalism is sold by liberalism as a grand system where everyone is on equal footing as buyers and sellers of goods and services, including labor. Consumerism is pushed by capitalists to increase the purchase of commodities beyond what would naturally happen (no need for a new phone every year), a sign of capitalism’s inefficiencies.
Earning more through labor isn’t wrong, but the problem is that the system is built off of the theft of value created by workers, and parasitic capitalists sitting at the top siphoning off vast amounts of material wealth. Every sale of a commodity continues this vast siphon from the working classes to the capitalist class. UBI doesn’t fix this, what would fix it is moving onto socialism, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, the working classes are in control, and production and distribution are aimed at satisfying needs, rather than private profits.
Everyone deserves survival of the fittest
Okay congrats, you have now been wiped out by a society that prioritizes collective well-being and is therefore able to field a larger, healthier army with more advanced technology.
Deserving to live and surviving are not the same. In the natural condition if you don’t gather or hunt, you have no food. You die. You do not deserve anything.
Even in society you are not entitled to others working for you. However, in a civilised society we should provide for those incapable to provide for themself due to ethics.
Hey, you! The zebra on the right! Get in my belly, I deserve to live!
Gruesome how we have social darwinists even here in comments
It’s crazy how expensive it is to be alive.
I dont belong on this planet. That’s why I have to rent space until I mercifully pass away. Giving birth is child abuse and the most selfish act possible.
Giving birth is child abuse and the most selfish act possible.
Hard disagree. 🤷♂️ Surely depends on who you are and your means of providing for the child, both materialistically and emotionally. That’s just my opinion.
In some countries you are a disease away of financial bankruptcy. Good luck being able to 100% guarantee a living.
Furthermore, this is the first generation that is worse off than the previous one, and its a trend that seems will continue.
In the lucky event of being part of the select 3% that has financial security, no luxury can shield you from the pain the rest of the people is suffering.
Maybe I’m a pessimist, but introducing a child into this roulette is not the kindest if you think about it.
Some people really enjoy someone else being worse off than them.
Removed by mod
You don’t deserve to be alive in this kingdom, but the catch is there is nowhere to live that is not owned.
Well, l don’t earn a living since I don’t feel pressurised. But I ought to do something worthwhile just to feel that I am alive !!
The main thing is to remember what is worthwhile is not necessarily something that is imposed by mass culture, tv or the Internet.
No one deserves to be alive, except perhaps by virtue of being alive in that everyone deserves the converse: not to have life taken from them.
You had millions of possible brothers and sisters who didn’t make it. You were just the lucky one.
And, of course, earn a living means make enough to support yourself, and others if you choose. Nothing to do with what is inferred and also not something everyone can do.
When you realise that we already produce (and throw away) enough food to feed the whole planet, then its evident that scarcity is fabricated.
You know what beings live by the rule of virtue? Animals.
I believe we should aim for more.
So if someone isnt able to work than what?
Society should care for and provide for people who really can’t work, as most civilised societies do.
Who “really can’t work” in your opinion?
I don’t work. Every few months I’ll really put in the effort and throw the applications in but nobody wants to hire me at this point. I’ll get demotivated and accept my couch surfing lifestyle again. The times I have had a job, they’ve not lasted long either.
You ask my friends if I’m disabled and you’ll get mixed answers. I personally don’t see myself as such, but I am very defiant and not particularly skilled.
Many people would say I’ve “chosen” to be unemployed (I don’t see it that way, but many people do)
Do I deserve to have my needs met? Healthcare, food, water, shelter?
I think a functioning state, not the US, would assign you some sort of work. I don’t know your exact situation, but it sounds like you’re capable enough. Based on what you’re saying in this one comment at least. I’m not going to pry for details, but it’s possible that something is preventing you from completing tasks. I think whatever it is can be worked around though. Should be able to find you some way of contributing at a pace you can handle.
Unfortunately I feel this is still a slippery slope and one that also even AES haven’t been very good at handling. Who decides what is “some way of contributing”? Is community work, emotional support, spreading knowledge about a hobby, some form of art a “valid” way to “earn one’s living”? And how much of those you would have to do? What happens if you are hindered? Who decides?
I think without a post-scarcity (or severely degrowth) economy, these will stay hard to find a common ground on.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
You don’t deserve to be alive though, and it applies to everyone, even animals, if you don’t do the bare minimum you’ll die hot, cold, thirsty or hungry.
When you realise that we already produce (and throw away) enough food to feed the whole planet, then its evident that scarcity is fabricated.
You mention animals, I would’ve thought we are better than them… Or at least we should try.
Yet I am to believe that Elon Musk deserves to be alive by a factor of several million times more than the people who grow my food?
Elon doesn’t work, though, so he doesn’t deserve to be alive. It’s not about money, it’s about effort to contribute to society. My favorite saying is “community is uncomfortable,” because it portrays the work that it takes to be there for your fellow person. Even someone with a disability or other issue that prevents them from doing traditional work is already working plenty just to get through the day. Elon is the exact opposite of that.
No, that is not what the commenter above said, in any way.
The anti-natalist folks and the pro-natalist folks are clearly in some kind of competition to produce the shittiest ideology imaginable.
Congrats for putting points on your side of the board.
If only i wasn’t alive, then you wouldn’t have to read what I type.
Good thing most of us don’t live like animals or think like you: we live in a society.
Even in the US, at least some effort is made to not let the disabled who can’t care for themselves or financially support themselves die in the street. https://legalclarity.org/what-does-ward-of-the-state-mean-for-adults/
The appointment of a state or public guardian is a measure of last resort, as courts prefer to appoint a family member whenever possible. State wardship occurs when the incapacitated adult has no spouse, willing family members, or a previously designated agent to take on the responsibility.
That’s a really nice society you got there /s
Fair enough to support disabled people or those who definitely can’t work by themselves.
But if we’ve all got oars on a boat and some people just choose not to paddle then they can get off the boat. I bet there’s a lot more rich people and trust fund babies not paddling than there are lazy poor people though.
It means by default you have to contribute to the society that you live in. And this is required in order for there to be a functional society to live in. It’s not an arbitrary rule, just a logical requirement.
Not true in capitalism, capitalists don’t contribute but instead serve as elaborate parasites plundering the wealth created by the working classes.
Capitalism is just a way to organize work. Yeah, it’s a plenty unfair one. But we are just using money as a means to trade work for food/products/shelter/services. It ends up driving the society - getting people to make society work, and to enjoy the benefits of it.
Unless you’re one of the billions capitalism has decided it’s more profitable to slaughter, starve or plunge into a lifetime of poverty making t shirts and truck tires. Then you don’t get to enjoy shit.
Trade isn’t capitalism, though. Capitalism is a mode of production characterized by private ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Capitalists essentially cast money out into the system, siphon the fruits of labor, and then repeat this process endlessly. Everyone does not enjoy the benefits of it, especially not those in the global south that are crushed by imperialism and unequal exchange.
Capitalism is a form of trading. It is providing a service / lending resources, for a fee. It’s part of the notion that we use money to buy and sell anything and the economy works because everyone tries to make a buck and implicitly drive efficiency for society. It certainly has got out of whack now and needs some serious regulatory fixes. But for most people, they work to get money to buy what they need and as a result, they provide services, products, etc for others to buy what they need. It goes in a circle, and we end up helping each other. Yes, the rich siphon money off the top, but they don’t really affect the use or need of resources significantly. Their billions are just a number on a computer in a bank somewhere.
No, you’re confusing trade itself for capitalism, and severely downplaying the immense siphoning of material wealth that goes on, especially at an international scale. Capitalists steal the value created by workers, workers are not on an even playing field with capitalists. They sell the only commodity they can, their labor power, while capitalists leverage their ownership of capital to fix labor prices around subsistence wages.
Regulation can’t fix capitalism or save it from the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. We need to move onto socialism, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and production and distribution are oriented towards satisfying needs rather than profits.
The siphoning of material wealth occurs everywhere, including China, former Soviet union, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. It’s not a capitalism thing, it’s a human thing.
Not necessarily. Capitalism functions by the following circuit:
M-C…P…C’-M’
Money is used to buy commodities, such as machinery, raw materials, and labor power, then production happens, then higher value commodities are the result of said production and sold for greater sums of money. M’ is fed back into this system, and M’’ is output at the end, over and over. The increase in value comes from unpaid labor, ie wages that don’t actually cover all of the value created, because capitalists cannot profit otherwise.
Socialist systems don’t have equal pay for everyone (that isn’t the goal to begin with), but also don’t have this system of capital ownership as the principle aspect of their economies and as such private ownership is phased out over time in these countries.
You‘re not even trying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
Says ‘you’re not even trying’ then just copies from Wikipedia.
Maybe try thinking for yourself?
society
One small problem, we don’t actually have one of those
