That’s like saying “the problem with cancer isn’t the unrestrained tumor growth, it’s the depletion of resources for the rest of the body”—the two go hand in hand.
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
81 points (85.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
41601 readers
319 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 most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Even if it didn't enable them to accumulate more wealth, depriving many so one can live in excess is still immoral.
This hardly qualifies as a showerthought. Better moderation, please.
It's both. The mere fact that there are people with billions of dollars to throw around means a large amount of the world's productive capacity is spent catering to the whims of billionaires when it could instead be spent on useful things for ordinary people. And because money is inseparable from politics, billionaires can more or less directly bend government policies to their will, greatly hindering anyone else from having a real say in government policy.
If the needs and desires of the many were satiated and society was arranged to prioritize each individuals well being/contentedness it wouldn't matter if one individual had more.
That's a really big "if", especially when you consider how billionaires actively use their influence to maintain an underclass by fighting against government policies that would help lower-class people become middle-class.
use their influence to maintain an underclass by fighting against government policies that would help lower-class people become middle-class.
See deprive people of their health and livelihood
Sorry but simply having our needs met is not enough. You are letting one class determine how everyone else works. People want self-determination and that should be extended to all people, not just billionaires.
It's both, pal. Both are bad, 'cause the former enables the later.
in my head these are the same things but im glad you were able to arrive at this conclusion nevertheless
We are not a post-scarcity society, so wealth is still a zero-sum game. For someone to have more, someone else has to have less.
The accumulating wealth is the problem, until we (if ever) achieve post-scarcity.
Depends on what we are talking about. Wealth in the form of oil? Maybe. Wealth in the form of housing, no.
The things people need to have a fulfilling life are in abundance. Sure, we all can't drive humers and fly private jets.
That's really deep /s