this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
1564 points (96.3% liked)

memes

9658 readers
3464 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lath@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No idea. Never met a libertarian.

No realistic society can satisfy everyone, because when it comes to individual desires, "we the people" falls apart.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How about a society that isn't predicated on the exploitation of others?

Some societies are objectively more pleasant to humans than others, otherwise we wouldn't strive at all

[–] lath@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Any society needs resources. In order for a society to grow or maintain itself, their consumption of resources must not exceed the production of it. Should we pursue a society that doesn't depend on the heavy exploitation of resources, it would mean to severely limit the reproduction of its population within the society's means of sustaining them. Our planet does not have the capability to sustain our current 8 billion population.

Many of us will die and after that many would be restricted in their rights for procreation.

As such, while those societies might be pleasant for some humans, the ones it needs to get rid of to achieve its desired status won't be too happy with it needing them gone.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think it's doable. Sure we won't have so much cheap crap in the north, but no one needs to starve.

[–] lath@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

It might be. Depends on the people really. Hopefully there will be a good example to follow.