Back

The issue you run into with any economic theory other than capitalism is that there is no automatic distribution of resources according to demand and always whoever is in power ends up globing all the resources to themselves because unfortunately that tends to be human nature. I mean I'd love to see it work like it does in Star Trek Next Generation, but that's fiction, real world it's more like the Klingons, so that's problem with socialism. Capitalism works as long as you don't have any one entity monopolizing the market, but the Sherman Anti-trust act hasn't been enforced since a decade after its' creation. So in reality nothing works as it exists now. I really would like to see a world like Star Trek where we are energy and resource rich without destroying our habitat, but the big thing that gets in the way of that is not the inability to achieve that kind of environmentally friendly abundance, although it sure and hell can not happen with windmills and solar panels, it could perhaps with hydrogen fusion and asteroid mining, but the real issue isn't the physics of getting there, it's the genetics. Humans evolved in mostly times of scarcity, therefore female genetics favor mates that can provide a lot of resources, and male genetics favor acquiring as much resources as possible to acquire desirable mates even if it's far more than they, their mates, or their offspring could need in one hundred lifetimes. Maybe that's what drives people to cut off their sex bits and try to pretend they're the other sex, but reproduction doesn't happen that way so that's a genetic dead end, unless the turd baby in Ren and Stimpy's pregnant episode counts is reproduction. Anyway, you can see why I don't feel the value in investing a lot of energy into the argument.