Often we say infinite growth (capitalism) is not sustainable and reasonable. Can we also say infinite progressivism is also not sustainable and reasonable? - eviltoast

This question is social/political, and meant to trigger a nice debate on the negatives of imbalanced infinite progressivism we seem to be heading in social and technological spheres, ignoring science, practicality and reason.

Let me put up a disclaimer that I am not trying to poke transgender community here. I am trying to hint towards the “traditional” gender roles that seem to be frowned upon in a cultist manner, even though it is accepted in an unspoken manner that most of us do prefer a lot of “traditional” aspects once we surpass 30s, and life demands responsibility, accountability and maturity.

8values made me think of the fundamental parameters that we gauge ourselves and others on, and this seems like it would have opinions coming from leftists that frown upon traditional values in an almost religious manner, as well as centrists and conservatives that might not have as traditional views as leftists think. Just an open discussion.

We can replace “progressivism” with “liberty” and “nationalism” and create couple more questions, but those are not as debatable I think.

  • Hello_there@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Traditional capitalism back in the day was sweatshops and traveling snake oil salesmen.
    In modern times, that’s sweatshops in India and drug ads on TV with 'tiny text of ‘This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.’
    For sustainability - we clearcut forests and filled coastlines without restraint - that’s not sustainable and we had to stop because there aren’t as much left.
    I don’t think the last is necessarily the source of goodness that you seem to think it is.

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Would sustainable long lasting products be considered “capitalism” or “traditional”? Isn’t sustainability not a capitalist thing? Would it not be a good “traditional” thing, since we have decades old products we are able to reuse without buying new stuff? How or what would exactly be bad in this?

      • Hello_there@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think you’re placing too much value on the label in this discussion.
        E.g., you could make houses out of redwood beams back in the day. It was great - insect resistant, fire resistant. Lasts a long time. Problem is that these trees take much too long to grow, and there’s no way they’re coming back any time soon. You’re mining a nonrenewable resource and you’re going to run out (and also kill an ecosystem). That’s an unsustainable business practice.
        Also, people are much more disposable oriented than you seem to be considering. Japanese houses last for like 20 years before they’re considered in need of replacement. I’ve seen a brand new house in the US, 3 years old, be razed and rebuilt because the rich owner wanted the building made his way, and not the way the former owner built it.