Man, I’m so glad this global warming thing is leftist propaganda or I’d really be freaking out right now.

Luckily, we can choose to reject reality and believe whatever makes us feel better.

I feel best believing the biosphere is gonna force humanity to “find out” for the last century of fuckin around with a recklessly unplanned terraform.

Love how the collective of humanity needs to find out because the richest few fucked around.

But the rich are supplying a demand. And a ton of innovation wouldn’t be there without them.

Imagine thinking CEOs drive innovation lmao

But they kinda do. Imagine Samsung or Apple stopping innovation. Company goes bankrupt.

Oh brother

Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.

But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.

And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.

And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.

And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.

The current capitalism is the system that works best.

Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation. I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.

The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.

And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.

Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.

UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Sorry if you do not understand the system we live in.

My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.

Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?

My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.

But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…

And here we are now. After all those experiments.

Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn?

But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,… Of course the world would continue to turn.

That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?

I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.

Have you considered that this too might be an ‘experiment’?

Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?

Yet here we are, experimenting again.

Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn’t produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start ‘innovating’ after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.

Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:

academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191

demos.co.uk/…/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf

yewtu.be/watch?v=oLLxpAZzy0s

Have you considered that this too might be an ‘experiment’?

Yes. It very well might be. But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break. The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.

Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?

Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.

Yet here we are, experimenting again.

And that’s a good thing.

Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn’t produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities.

That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level. The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies. Just take a look at AI at this point. AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.

All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme.

Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?

The wealthy CEO types only start ‘innovating’ after taxpayers fund most of the R&D.

As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations. Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.

Same with medical advancements,

Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.

material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.

But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.

Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of: academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191 demos.co.uk/…/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf yewtu.be/watch?v=oLLxpAZzy0s

I have a good understanding of sciences. Especially in chemistry and physics. Thanks.