The “Humans are the Virus” line is one of the sneakiest moves you’ll run into the New Age -> Alt Right pipeline
Well, economic system is flawed because mutated ape is flawed. It’s all flawed everything is flawed.
That’s not a particularly useful statement, that’s more nihilism. That kind of rhetoric leads to conclusions like “if everything is flawed, why fix it?” Instead of “how are systems flawed, and how can we overcome them?”
I definitely never claim to be an optimist. But I didn’t argue that either. I was just commenting on the inherent fallibility of anything created by humans, since we seem to have an annoying habit of thinking that whatever human-created systems we like are somehow endowed with divine purpose and will never fail us. The great invisible hand of the market, and all that.
Nobody believes that, though, you’re punching ghosts.
This is just a thought terminating cliche that capitalists have developed now that the problems with the system are undeniable. It’s the classic retort of the scum bag, after they’ve realized “I didn’t do it” won’t fly, to say “well, everyone does it!”
The bourgeoicene
Embrace the paradox, humans are arguably the greatest rights violators in all forms of violence, but they are also the only beings capable of granting rights through moral agency. The paradox is also true of anthropocentric climate change, it’s creator, but also it’s only possible resolver. The environment only has instrumental value to conscious beings so it would miss the mark to assume the absence of humans is in anyone’s (including animals) best interest.
Guess we should just try to get through each others thick skulls instead of being edgy :/
Cats are a really close second. I don’t think there have been too many humans that have driven entire species to extinction. There have been a few cats that were allowed to exterminate multiple entire species. Don’t get me wrong. I love the furry little psychopaths, but they are furry little psychopaths.
I always felt capitalism was just humans at their most pure and Evil. At their worst. In their most unfettered state.
It’s more of a natural development from the rise of industry, that doesn’t mean it’s eternal, but it does mean we can learn how to move beyond it and into Socialism.
Soviet Socialism was very polluting as well
Sure, it was also a developing country in a world that hadn’t created cheap renewables. They also invested in research for nuclear power as well.
See Chernobyl as to why the politburo system and the need for the committee to have an opinion on everything was so flawed. Also look at Kruschev and his attempt to pivot agriculture to corn.
Socialism absolutely works, we use it all the time. But the Soviet system was not a good implementation of Socialism. The workers did not own the means of production nor did they have much power.
Chernobyl was a cascading series of errors, not a fundamental flaw with Socialism. Kruschev’s reforms were largely bad, yes, but that too isn’t a problem with Socialism itself.
I don’t know what you mean by “we use Socialism all the time.” Who? Socialism is a descriptor for an entire system, not portions of it. Unless you think we are both Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, etc, then “we” don’t use Socialism.
The Soviet System was absolutely a good implementation of Socialism. It was not perfect, but it was real and came with real victories. The Working Class did own the means of production, and held all of the power, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
Chernobyl was much worse than it had any need to be due to meddling from political officers and a general structure of fear of challenging them. A failed test light started the problem however shutting down the plant before it got out of hand was delayed. Also. it was not reported to the wider affected world until the Swedes raised the alarm after fallout had reached their detectors.
https://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-19-mn-16808-story.html
https://www.voiceofbelarus.com/how-and-why-authorities-hid-truth-about-chernobyl/
The average Soviet farmer rarely benefitted from their labor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Soviet_Union
The same for the average factory worker.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_reform_in_the_Soviet_Union,_1956–1962
Then you only need to look to the current oligarchs and where they came from in the fall of the Soviet Union to see how wealth was already stratified in such a way as Clinton and Western banks could assist in raiding what was left of the Soviet coffers.
https://jacobin.com/2017/03/russia-us-clinton-boris-yeltsin-elections-interference-trump/
The Soviet system being inherently top down and heirarchal is susceptible to Dictatorship and political hegemony. It is patently not a good system. I don’t need to even get into the minor rebellions Trotsky put down or the rise of Stalin and his famine.
Chernobyl was a cascading list of failures not unique to Socialism, nor incapable of being solved. Fukushima was also a cascading list of failures in a Capitalist country. Are you just anti-Nuclear? There can be some legitimacy to that, but to blame a nuclear disaster on Socialism specifically when similar failures happen in Capitalism is wrong, it’s a procedural issue.
As for the Peasantry and Proletariat, wealth disparity drastically shrank, while GDP grew dramatically:
Metrics improved drastically. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates went from the low 30s to 99.9%, healthcare and education both became free and grew to be high quality, the economy was democratized, and working hours lowered as compared to Capitalism. Famine, when previously common, was ended. If you want to blame Socialism for famine in a country that had regular famines, you need to credit it for ending famine as well.
I don’t know what you mean by the Soviet system being “susceptible to dictatorship” any more than any other system, it was both top-down and bottom-up. The Working Class held control of the State and oppressed the bourgeoisie.
I think that the fundamental flaw of our economies, is that they weren’t created with rules in the first place. We just took the vague notions of trade and coinage, then began to add the rules after the fact. What if we did a hard reboot, but with an economic Constitution to guide the economic system?
For such a system, I believe we would want three things at the most basic level:
1: Transparent and simple rules. Ordinary people should be able to easily identify and troubleshoot the excessively wealthy.
2: Universal but boring benefits that guarantees survival for everyone, with a basic income. Money is for buying upgrades to lifestyle, not survival. Jobs are for affording to buy more expensive luxuries, like vacations to a foreign land, attending the theatre regularly, and so forth.
3: Absolute floors and ceilings on income, assets, and wealth. Beyond a specific point, wealth is taken as tax.
Understand that reality doesn’t run on computer code; you can’t hard reboot history, and you can’t just hard code in universal rules that people are compelled to follow. Coming up with good rules for a hypothetical society is the easy part, it’s the political problems that come with trying to implement them that is hard.
Your approach is called “Utopianism,” and was tried in the past already by people like the Owenites. The problem is that you can’t change a system by simply convincing people to adopt a better one, systems evolve and change over time based on material conditions.
I think its just nature and nature is brutal.
We are animals, we need to destroy the environment to survive (ex cut down trees for shelter, kill living things to eat). We have the urge to reproduce, so there is more of us which leads to more destruction. If a person is threatened, they will be prepared to kill another for their survival. This is pretty much true for most living beings.
I wouldn’t call us a virus, but it was probably our intelligence that will bring us to our downfall. Maybe an anthropologist can comment on what the tipping point was.
This is just a thought terminating cliche that capitalists have developed now that the problems with the system are undeniable. It’s the classic retort of the scum bag, after they’ve realized “I didn’t do it” won’t fly, to say “well, everyone does it!"
Note how I didnt even mention capitalism here, attacked or defended any system but tried to understand the “virus” argument in the most basic form. I’ve looked at humankind from the biological aspect far far removed from any social or economic constructs such as capitalism.
At its core, I don’t believe humans can live with zero impact on their environment and that we all have self preservation built in, just like any animal. I did not draw a conclusion that capitalism is therefore inevitable - or that our nature is solely responsible.
Capitalism arises from social and economic conditions, it is a historic phase - one which we came to due to wealth accumulation, commodification of land and labor and technological advancement (industrialization). According to Marx, it was inevitable.
Will the “virus” argument go away in a post capitalist society? I don’t know, you tell me. The biological traits I mentioned will still be there. The social and economic conditions won’t. Will we still be killing each other and impacting the environment?
What causes, and conducts capitalism if not humans?
Capitalism is a system of class oppression where one class of humans that produces nothing exploits the other who produces everything. This also occurred under feudalism, which utilized religion to mediate all social relations and maintain social order, the subject of religion being God. The subject of capitalism is profit.
The struggle between classes will remain after the defeat of capitalism, but we must make sure to develop a society in which the many continue to struggle for the benefit of all over the domination of the few who struggle only for their own benefit. The rule of the few dehumanizes the many to varying degrees to justify their own dominance, and through that dominance influences the many to accept the imposed condition of their own diminished humanity. Through the dehumanization of others however, the ruling class makes its self less human.
So even though it is humans carrying out this oppression, it is necessary to diminish the humanity of others in order to rule, and their rule sets the standard for what is and is not human.
When we fail to see nature as a unity of opposing forces, then we fail to recognize that every object is defined not in itself but by the things that relate to it, and we can’t understand some vital truths. Namely, that every social thing is defined not just by it’s own existence but also by the existence of its opposite.
Which is to say, that while it appears that humanity is the problem, this belief is a condition of our own oppression. Humanity of the many is not the “virus,” it is on fact the cure for the virus of class oppression and dehumanization. But to accomplish this, the masses must reassert our own humanity, unflinchingly in the face of violence that seeks to make us low and break our spirit.
As Paolo Friere said, “it is the historic mission of the oppressed to restore the humanity of the oppressor.”
Paulo Freire mentioned!
Seriously underrated practical intellectual, especially among Marxists. I will never stop mentioning Friere!
All capitalists are humans but not all humans are capitalists so it’s a bit of an overgeneralisation.
machines, in the future
A lot of folks in the replies don’t like imagining they might be problematic… Sorry folks; we’re all to blame.
a single flight on a private jet smashes any amount of carbon I could output in my entire lifetime. it is not all of us equally, it is a handful of ultrawealthy people destroying the planet.
That’s off by several orders of magnitude! The number I found from Nature is an estimated average of 3.6 tons of CO2 emitted per private jet flight in 2023. By contrast, a person in the United States averages about 16 tons per year. That’s still nuts to think that one private jet flight has roughly the same CO2 output as about three months of living for the average person, but I for one, have a lifetime that’s a bit longer than 3 months.
Carbon tax. Double rates for private jets.
Taxes just become prices for being evil when targeted this way, they don’t solve the fundamental reason for the existence of the issue. Solve the problem, don’t band-aid it.
Use the taxes to subsidise green alternatives. Carbon taxes on fuel get spent on building bike lanes for example.
That can be a somewhat nice supplement, but not a solution. The solution is, of course, Socialism, and strong central planning in infrastructure such as green energy and public transit.
The people who own the private jets choose the tax rates.
Luigi wants to know their location
Yet here you are using a device created by both stripping the earth of resources and exploiting already suffering humans to argue that you’re not a significant part of the problem… Yes the ultra wealthy are worse, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t bad.
Everybody Sucks Here. Now what?
Oh you got me. This comic has negated everything I’ve said and proven that my perspective is just wrong…
Correct
Nah, this is just defeatism. If people want to exist in society, they have to play by the rules of society, so it’s better to change society.
Those kids covered in cobalt are just trying to exist in a society.
This kind of “you choose to use deeply exploitative systems that have no real alternatives” rhetoric is wrong. If there are no real alternatives within the system, then it is important to push to change the system, not blame those who exist within it. Blame the Capitalists for engaging in horrible labor practices, and those complacent. Don’t blame the people engaging with what’s available.
Who makes the decisions to do this?
And who forced us to use phones and computers by making everything digital/online? Are we to be blamed bcs we have a car that could’ve been electric ages ago? That car we need to go to a job producing more stuff for the benefit of stock holders?
Is it us that need to grow the economy for those same people bcs that’s the system we live in? Did we ask for planned obsolescense?
Is it a coincidence big oil coined the phrase ‘carbon footprints’ ? You’re shifting blame as intended, everyone knows who the biggest polluters are and why.You’re right. You have no choice in any of this… Victims and villains.
This is just a thought terminating cliche that capitalists have developed now that the problems with the system are undeniable. It’s the classic retort of the scum bag, after they’ve realized “I didn’t do it” won’t fly, to say “well, everyone does it!"
No. I’m not minimizing the role capitalism has, I’m reminding people that as long as they participate in any capacity in capitalism that they are causing harm. Look at the replies to my post. They verify what I said. People will go to great lengths to separate themselves from fault.
millions of Africans live and eat close to our human nature and in balance with their surroundings
So y’all just gonna ignore all of human history showing that it’s not a modern thing?
Humans have been dog shit from the beginning. Always at war, multiple genocides, constant ethnic cleansings, torture en masse, all of these things have been prevalent in all of recorded history.
As bad as capitalism is it’s just another example of humanities inability to just be fucking decent to each other.
This is just a thought terminating cliche that capitalists have developed now that the problems with the system are undeniable. It’s the classic retort of the scum bag, after they’ve realized “I didn’t do it” won’t fly, to say “well, everyone does it!"
Yeah it wasn’t capitalists that gave me this mindset. It was researching human history. And it’s completely filled with slavery, racism, unnecessary wars, torture, religious persecution, the list is damn near endless.
If humans are so easily swayed to abhorrent violence then at a certain point you have to realize it’s our nature. Peace is just something wishful people dream of.
Yes ‘humans’ do this but I still think it doesn’t have to be this way and a majority is not bad.
It is unfortunately easier to do something bad than good.
It’s the sociopaths/psychopaths or simply greedy aggressive people who don’t think twice about being ruthless and not playing by the rules that acquire power. The rest simply is put in a position to follow orders.
None of the people fighting wars want this, the people far away from the front who send them there do.
Humans invented and seem to naturally gravitate to capitalism, it’s not some cosmic evil imposed on them. They’re still a virus.
it only took ~12 000 years to “naturally gravitate to capitalism”
I dunno man, ever since someone invented money, there always were rich and poor people, and class division
Wrong again. The earliest date possible you could put on the emergence of class societies, would be ~12k years ago with the agricultural revolution. Modern humans emerged about 300k years ago, and 2 million years if you want to consider other close relatives.
So most charitably, class societies have only existed for 4% of human history, or 0.6%
Okay, I said “when money was invented” not “when humanity emerged” mr WRONG AGAIN 🙄 Learn to read if you want to be bitchy on the Internet
Capitalism arose well after money, it’s a specific mode of production.
Yeah, because the previous prelevant system, feudalism, was so fair and not at all exploitative of the poor by the rich
Feudalism was also exploitative, but in a different manner and character as the class character was different. I don’t see what your point is, here.
using money does not mean it’s capitalism
but i do think that capitalism is better than feudalism and most, if not all that came before
but i also think that we need to move further, or we’re getting screwed
Humans invented and seem to naturally gravitate to capitalism
Do we naturally gravitate towards capitalism? I’d say we gravitate towards communism on family to tribal scales. Seems like capitalism or its precursor takes hold after one group conquers another and exploitation begins.
Closer, Capitalism is just another development in class society that arose alongside industrialization. Tribal communism is different from post-Socialist communism, in that tribes are small units and Communism would be one massive unit. Just like tribal communism, feudalism, and socialism, capitalism arises alongside material development and will fade with it as well, through revolution.
The bougieoise and lackeys are a tiny minority compared to the many good humans
Sure, I’m sure its just the bourgeoisie, while you’re enjoying your iPhone and Nike shoes
…and lackeys
It would be nice if communism was an emergent behavior of humanity. It’s got to be forced from the top down with a vanguard.
Vanguards don’t force anything, they drive the spearpoint. In Russia, China, Cuba, etc the vanguards have all gained legitimacy through mass support of the working masses. You have it backwards.
We need a real path to communism. That means we need to completely control the population. It can be a mix of manufactured support and oppressive support, it doesn’t matter too much. Any deviation from the path needs severe punishment.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Why does any of this “complete control” need to exist? Genuinely, what do you even think Communism is?
A stateless and classless society can’t come about without major conditioning. We are on a very short timeline and we can pussyfoot around with half measures.
What do you mean when you say we are on a “short timeline” for reaching statelessness and classless society? Such a society can only be achieved gradually through a long period of Socialism. Revolution is necessary, but afterwards we must build towards it.
Our capitalistic tendencies is our killing our planet. I’d estimate we have about 200 years to change or risk real extinction. I’m firmly in the anarchist camp but we don’t have the time to gradually fit a form we’re not naturally attributed to.
I think it is, but the top is enforcing capitalism and reacts to anything that smells like communism.
Well, the largest expeditor of the problem, but still done by and for an infection.
We still made huge impact to the ecosystems in the past too, it’s just that we now no longer destroy only local ecosystems.
Without capitalism, would we still be an infection?
Yes, we consume & change the environment for millennia on a scale and rate (especially rate!) that could be considered an infection as it is absolutely unsustainable, and it permanently changes environments.
We’ve ended great forests, drained entire bogs, even species millennia ago, under all systems so far.
We never had the mentality of ‘don’t leave a mark’ and and always had the concept of ‘trash’.
We’ve also never had a predator to keep us in check, in fact it is only other humans that keep our numbers in check.
The quantity of humans alone is bound to require so much natural resources that we have a global impact regardless of how we use the current tech we would use (this means enormous areas and natural species subjugated to sustain our needs).
And the same argument about quantity also marks the unmistakable sign of an (unsustainable) infestation - that usually leads to the death of the host.
We needed some 4 million years to get to a billion, and only two centuries to get from a billon to 9 billion.
Infections do not have have the ability to choose to not damage their host. People do have that choice, and many make it.
You are, I think, making a mistake that many people do, in thinking humans should have zero impact on the environment. This is nonsense. Does any other animal have zero impact on the environment? Beavers and wild boars can change entire watersheds! An ecologically aware future is not one where humanity has disappeared, merely one where we have consciously limited our effects on it. Ask a virus to do that.
People have the ability to choose to not damage “the host”?
So we do it willingly?
“Many” when talking for a species is meaningless.Some brain cancers might heighten some of the brains abilities … yet I don’t think that matters.
Also which humans don’t negatively affect kilometres of Earth’s surfaces and species for 100s of thousands of years?
Beavers, or any species really, can and do affect experientially all they can. They do that until they are in equilibrium with the ecosystem. Invasive species are perhaps a more clear example of this process.
The relative speed of the process and how fast the environment responds is crucial in the infestation definition.
In any population the initial growth is basically limited only by the resource availability. So any species at some point, especially at the beginning, behaves (and it’s evolutionary beneficial to do so) like an infestation, the limits come from the environment, and in complex environment that means other species. That’s how ecosystem grow from single species to complex interaction between 1000s of species in more or less stable equilibrium.
I find it difficult to disagree with your points for the most part, although I feel many are not entirely accurate, but your main point remains. So my next question is, isn’t what we’re doing as a species more or less natural? That’s not an excuse for what we’re doing, but calling humanity an infection has too many negative connotations that are unfair. All animals behave this way, boom and bust cycles occur everywhere without human intervention. We’re just the first to know what’s happening.
Anyway, what’s the solution if there is simply an infestation? I think that meme was made for you.
So my next question is, isn’t what we’re doing as a species more or less natural?
It is, imho, and “infestations” are indeed a normal part of ecosystems.
Only few species had global impact tho (and none in the timeframe of a geological second), we arent the first.infection has too many negative connotations that are unfair.
I would say that we embody (literally) all of those negative connotations actually, ofc with some weirdness, like how many billions of chickens now live bcs of us.
I do struggle to find positives in our interaction an consequences to the planets ecosystems.
What gives us the audacity to justify the loss of biodiversity on such a grand scale?
What gives us the audacity to justify the loss is biodiversity on such a grand scale?
Nothing, and it’s disgusting
While i agree with you overall, i’d like to point out a few things.
First of all, “growth” is not a purely human concept. If you believe in the theory of evolution (which I advise you to do), all life strives for (evolutionary) growth sooner or later. That is why saying “humans are exceptionally bad because they spread like crazy” is in itself a false thought - all life does that.
The question is: Is humanity’s rule over the planet justified? In other words, do we have a large enough advantage to all life on Earth that we can reasonably occupy almost all inhabitable land area? What is the advantage that we bring to life?
As i said earlier, all lives ultimately strives towards evolutionary growth. Humans can aid that cause by making life multiplanetary. Don’t get me wrong, i’m not at all a Musk fanboy. But i believe in this single point: Similar to how birds can carry plants seeds to far-away islands, humans can carry all life to other planets and provide it with an essential opportunity for growth. That is why i see it as “humanity has also some very big advantages to life on Earth in general” besides “humanity causes the largest mass-extinction in a long time”. Both are true.
Lol, never said anything to the contrary, my dear friend!
Everything what I compared humans to has a precedence in the wild (we arent that unique), which ended in a catastrophe of sorts (and a rebound an eon later).
Are you suggesting infestation can be a non-life phenomenon? I am def intrigued! (Even in sci-fo terms!)
Ofc it’s part of the natural selection!The question is: Is humanity’s rule over the planet justified? In other words, do we have a large enough advantage to all life on Earth that we can reasonably occupy almost all inhabitable land area? What is the advantage that we bring to life?
As said, an infestation, I never argued if justified or not (whatever even means to be “justified” to lower biodiversity like humans do).
However we are in the midst of a mass eviction event.
Similar to how birds can carry plants seeds to far-away islands, humans can carry all life to other planets and provide it with an essential opportunity for growth.
Yes, exactly, and this can also be an infestation when the “invasive species” (human term) spreads and kills the existing local species bcs the ecosystem isn’t balanced. This usually negatively effects biodiversity.
Like rats killed entire species when were introduced to New Zealand and similar secluded islands.
Yeah probably if we took the immediate means of production and just tried to socialise them. Idk if doing what Lenin did back in the day would work now (just copying capitalist production and socialising it.)
