Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
669 comments
  • 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.

669 comments