343
submitted 11 months ago by kat@feddit.de to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

If they could somehow monetize breathing, they would

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] hellequin67@lemmy.fmhy.ml 28 points 11 months ago

Private healthcare has got this covered

[-] SCmSTR@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

Ouch my sides. From laughter though, I don't want to increase my premiums.

[-] Lemmino@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

Well-regulated capitalism on the other hand has resulted in an explosion of technological advancement like no other era in human history.

The key is regulation. Not too little, but not too much either. Some things, like minimum wage, are clearly under regulated. Other things, like mandating USB-C, are honestly better left to the free market (and I fucking love USB-C.)

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 11 months ago

the systems is still inherently flawed and based on exploiting nature and people. Trying to make a system that is based on "infinite growth" adhere to the reality of our finite world is like telling a warrior society that they should start being peaceful

[-] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago

Yes. Regulation helps to work around the problem but doesn't fix anything

[-] Lemmino@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

All systems dealing with human nature will inherently be flawed and require workarounds and bandaids.

There is no perfect system, but throughout human history, capitalism seems to have consistently resulted in technological growth and improved outcomes in terms of health, lifespan, creature-comforts, etc.

We tried communism - over 30 countries did - and the only ones left are China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. Interestingly, current and previous communist states got a lot closer to "regulating breathing" than anything we have today. It's not a good look as far as stable and free systems go.

[-] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

Nothing is perfect and there are infinite other options than capitalism or fake communism

[-] Lemmino@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

What are those options? Have they been trialed and errored?

If not, how do we actually know they will work in practice? For instance, communism was ideal on paper and fell apart in practice - no country was able to ever "truly" implement it. What other ideologies exist that could practically work? It's a bit premature in my opinion to call any of them "better than capitalism" when none have been tried.

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

that's the thing, the same things were said about participatory goverment (democracy) and capitalism before they were implemented. Greece implemented participatory oligarchy and got conquered. Rome tried it out but resulted in dictatorship and fell apart. France wanted to abolish feudalism and ended in bloody tyranny... Reminds you of previous and current socialists experiments, doesn't it?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SCmSTR@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

Tw: rape

You realize that, capitalism, if left EVER unrelated, will use power to endlessly underregulate itself and just gain more power?

This is like saying "firing a gun in my mouth doesn't kill me as long as I live". Sure, it's true I guess, but it's also so, so inherently wrong.

I've been trying to do what you're doing now for so long. But in reality, you have to take a look at what capitalism really is: it's a form of power designation that designates that power with the powerful, or pedantically, with capital, but it's the same thing, for all intents and purposes. And THAT is an unbalanced system from the get-go, right off the bat.

It's also like saying "slave systems are SUPER productive!". Like, sure, they are. But they're also incredibly destructive and prevent a lot of other things from happening.

It's also like saying "a lot of sex happens when you rape somebody". Sure, yes, I guess that's technically a true statement. But.... It's an unwanted power imbalance that hasn't accounted for what would have happened to the victim OR the rapist had they not raped somebody. The rapist could have developed into a normal human being and even fell in love or had a lot of consensual casual sex, and the victim could have stayed not raped and been perfectly happy progressing through their life not raped.

It's just such a half baked, biscuit brained thought and statement. You literally cannot compare our tech right now to the past because technology typically progresses exponentially ANYWAY. You cannot know what would have happened or what would happen if not capitalism, because we've had nothing BUT it for basically all of human history. Every time we even want to try something else, capitalism LITERALLY attacks it with everything it's got and refuses to ever let up until there's nothing but ashes, and a lot of those places are capitalist. Native Americans? IMPERIALISM BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM.

Greed kills selflessness every time in every experiment as long as it exists and is given the smallest chance.

Capitalism is cancer; it just mindless destroys everything in it's path, along with itself, only existing and leeching as long as its host stays alive.

You gotta read some more books and history.

[-] Lemmino@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Capitalism, well-regulated, has worked - it's not some dangerous idea that will result in our self-destruction (at least, there is no historical basis for this.) On the other hand, history shows we are much more likely to see communism self-destruct (into authoritarianism/totalitarianism.)

I agree that the generational wealth aspect is the worst aspect of capitalism and I wish that could be reformed.

A note - technology does not progress exponentially. In fact, it rarely has. We have had dark ages lasting between hundreds and tens of thousands of years between incremental advancements. The progress of technology is in no way guaranteed, your society needs to encourage continued R&D into technology, which regulated competition/profit motive does especially well.

I anticipate that at some point in the future we can abandon capitalism entirely, as we will have technologically advanced to the point where we don't need it anymore.

[-] CIWS-30@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

I used to think this was true too, but then I realized that the fundamental problem with capitalism is that it's incompatible with democracy and regulation. That's why literally every capitalist country on earth (including the wealthy ones) has a problem with regulatory capture, corruption, and buyout and supplanting of the actual government.

Capitalism encourages the greediest, trickiest, and most selfish people to rise to the top and stay there through a mixture of brute force and media manipulation. In essence, it's not much different than totalitarian authoritarian governments, it's just more subtle.

Look at Fox news and right wing media bubbles for instance, or the Democratic party which opposes ranked choice voting whenever it can and constantly says one thing and does another. Humans are too greedy, selfish, and short-sighted to live and exist for long under a system like capitalism. How do we know this? Look around, climate change and pollution's already serious and it's not changing anytime soon.

We're probably already fucked, and we just don't know how much we are just yet.

[-] Lemmino@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

The issue is that greed is an aspect of human nature. You'll never be able to eliminate it. Any system that relies on greed, corruption, and selfishness not existing, will ultimately fail, because that system relies on humans pretending that certain emotions don't exist.

Capitalism is deeply flawed, but it's stability as a system is not predicated on humans trying (and inevitably failing) to delete fundamental human emotions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] reclipse@lemdro.id 5 points 11 months ago

Don't say this here. Everyone hates capitalism here.

[-] CreeperODeath@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

I think it's important to have people with diverse opinions, with exception ofcourse.

Some people's opinions are pretty fucked lol

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] trivialBetaState@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

I am pro healthy capitalism too (including strong welfare state) but don't agree that capitalism deserves any credit for technological advancement. Science does. And there shouldn't be any comparison between the totalitarian states and free-capitalism states of the past. We can't give credit to a thief for prosperity because he is not a murderer.

[-] Lemmino@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. With capitalism, you're directly incentivized to invest in R&D because you can come out with a better product that people will want, thus advancing science. Everything from the lightbulb to HVAC machines started as capitalistic endeavors as opposed to purely academic ones.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Economic systems are fundamentally about resource allocation. Capitalism is not the only system that allocates resources to science nor is it the optimal one. You're making a lot of assumptions on what makes a "better" product. Under capitalism, "better" is quantified as whatever brings in the highest return on investment, which doesn't align with and is often diametrically opposed to the interests of the end users of that technology.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pavnilschanda@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I'm not sure. I only have rudimentary knowledge when it comes to the arts (hello Western school of fine art education), but I'm pretty sure socialist/communist countries were very creative and innovative when it comes to art, or at least animation. In fact, I think the Soviet Union has been incorporating animation with modern art before the US did.

What do you think @chatgpt@lemmings.world? Were there any artworks that thrived under the Soviet Union? Or maybe just innovations in general?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tal@kbin.social 21 points 11 months ago

If air were a limited resource, rather than one available in great abundance, it probably would be.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

The air has already been made in to a limited resource, killing millions annually:

  • Air pollution is one of the greatest environmental risk to health. By reducing air pollution levels, countries can reduce the burden of disease from stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma.

  • In 2019, 99% of the world’s population was living in places where the WHO air quality guidelines levels were not met.

  • The combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution are associated with 6.7 million premature deaths annually.

  • Ambient (outdoor) air pollution is estimated to have caused 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2019.

  • Some 89% of those premature deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries, and the greatest number in the WHO South-East Asia and Western Pacific Regions.

Source - WHO

[-] phorq@lemmy.ml 9 points 11 months ago

Don't worry, they're working on it...

[-] RemembertheApollo@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago

"Come on, Cohaagen. You got what you want. Give those people air."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 11 months ago

The HVAC industry is working on that.

[-] deleted@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

This is why I prefer socialism over capitalism.

In socialism, I’d be poor and have no choice of what I buy or eat but I can live and afford having children.

In capitalism, where you have freedom, the same rules applies to poor and rich citizens. The difference is that the rich can afford lawyers and are able to lobby to change/break the law on their favor. You don’t.

This is how the cost of living would go 100% up and you wage increase by 1.34% each year.

[-] razza856@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

you do know that under a socialist system worker-owned companies would compete in the market right? you’d still have lots of choice lol

[-] deleted@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

I’m interested to know more.

Some people only think of bad vibes of the Soviet Union when anyone talk bad about capitalism.

In my country, we have free healthcare, free education, livable wages, free market.

We’re not capitalist tho. A mix of socialism and capitalism.

100% communism is bad, 100% capitalism is bad, 100% socialism is bad.

[-] razza856@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

socialism isn’t just “government owns/provides everything.

There are different flavours. One of which entails workers owning the companies they work for, rather than the state owning everything.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ModernRisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 11 months ago

In a way that’s already happening, people with astma. Same with being able to see, glasses.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 11 months ago

As someone who has to wear glasses (have since I was a toddler), I fucking hate that there is a paywall for vision.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

They already have monetised breathing: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2021/mar/01/take-a-deep-breath-how-cornish-air-sells-for-60-a-bottle-even-if-its-from-devon

It might seem like just a schtick to con rich people, and it currently is, but that doesn't change the fact that there are scammers out there literally "collecting" air in jars (I saw a segment on them a while ago on tv, they even got a "collection net" out thinking it made them look less like scammers. It didn't) and selling it to Chinese people (who's own air is so bad because their production is trying to keep up with wester demand) for profit.

And it isn't just out of touch rich people who need to do this though, they're just the only ones who can afford to waste their money on this useless "solution" to their problem, but the problem, which was created by capitalism, isn't going anywhere until capitalism has sold us a "solution" for it. Just like they're trying to do with this sun blocking and carbon capturing bullshit now.

[-] YourHuckleberry@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

In capitalism, if you don't work, some capitalist pig will throw your family out on the streets, whereas in communism, if you don't work, some communist pig will throw your family in jail.

[-] Something_Complex@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

And that's why extremes will never work. Look every complex problem need a complex solucion.

We would need hybrids of all past rulling systems in order to actually improve.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] bi_tux@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

I mean they already monitize water in poor countries in Africa, so yeah.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] m15otw@feddit.uk 8 points 11 months ago

I recommend Kaon's Wonderland (novel).

They literally build a solar panel that blocks the sun, so they can charge people for the heat and light.

[-] lemminer@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

We live in a deceiving world. Electricity is supposed to be free but some dude wanted to make money out of it.

[-] jaanus20@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

How would electricity be free?

[-] cottard@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

~100 years ago, when Nikola Tesla discovered AC, he wrote about electricity being a free resource for everyone.

[-] spongebue@vlemmy.net 5 points 11 months ago

It's not so much that Nikola Tesla discovered AC as much as he figured out how to make use of it. I believe generators give alternating current by default as they spin around, but they'd use commutators to convert it to DC.

Source: saw one of those Discovery Channel shows.

Either way, Tesla was a brilliant engineer, but it shouldn't take much to understand that it takes energy (that has to come from somewhere) to produce electricity. That money has to come from somewhere, and I wouldn't want to see a gigantic factory or mansion or whatever paying the same amount (even if $0) compared to some grandmother in Vermont keeping the lights on.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Mesa@programming.dev 4 points 11 months ago

Well, there's a principle of nature...

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SCmSTR@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"Capitalism is paywalling life."

[-] solivine@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

You won't like to see the Dyson Zone

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
343 points (100.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

28307 readers
850 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS