I like this list, but “what is not needed should not be made” basically ends all processes of discovery and creativity.
Also who decides what is needed? Sure, ideally we live in an equitable and inclusive society and everyone’s need are respected, but we don’t yet, and many people today see, for example, things disabled people need to exist, as completely unnecessary, extravagant, and even harmful, and would happily stop producing at our expense.
I get what they’re trying to say, we absolutely make enormous amount of shit no one needs to feed an endless cycle of overconsumption created because line must go up, but they’re focusing on the wrong part. It isn’t production that is the problem, humans have always wanted to make things, it is the “for profit” component that leads to all the problems, because you’re not just selling (E: or ideally simply making) to meet a need, you’re creating needs that don’t exist so you can sell, and always prioritise profit over anything else (sustainability, working conditions, quality, and so on).
There are social needs as well, which should be respected. The way to deal with that is to have 100% tax for wealth and income over a certain level. That takes the means to buy completely useless stuff. Then bans on advertising, heavy taxes and fines for waste and limits to working hours, pollution and so forth. Once you apply enough of that production of those products is going to go down.
It’s a cute poster sketching the outline of a better way of viewing economics, not a legally binding document intended to be implemented without reflection.
This is a bit of an odd objection. What are these “processes of discovery and creativity” that require lots of material waste? As for things needed by disabled people, I can’t imagine there are many who object to that or see it as waste. It’s needed, after all.
I like this list, but “what is not needed should not be made” basically ends all processes of discovery and creativity.
Also who decides what is needed? Sure, ideally we live in an equitable and inclusive society and everyone’s need are respected, but we don’t yet, and many people today see, for example, things disabled people need to exist, as completely unnecessary, extravagant, and even harmful, and would happily stop producing at our expense.
I get what they’re trying to say, we absolutely make enormous amount of shit no one needs to feed an endless cycle of overconsumption created because line must go up, but they’re focusing on the wrong part. It isn’t production that is the problem, humans have always wanted to make things, it is the “for profit” component that leads to all the problems, because you’re not just selling (E: or ideally simply making) to meet a need, you’re creating needs that don’t exist so you can sell, and always prioritise profit over anything else (sustainability, working conditions, quality, and so on).
There are social needs as well, which should be respected. The way to deal with that is to have 100% tax for wealth and income over a certain level. That takes the means to buy completely useless stuff. Then bans on advertising, heavy taxes and fines for waste and limits to working hours, pollution and so forth. Once you apply enough of that production of those products is going to go down.
It’s a cute poster sketching the outline of a better way of viewing economics, not a legally binding document intended to be implemented without reflection.
Yes, and I offered some reflection.
How would you rephrase it capture the sentiment?
Also who decides what excess is? I’d say most foods are excess if you could just live off potatoes alone.
This is a bit of an odd objection. What are these “processes of discovery and creativity” that require lots of material waste? As for things needed by disabled people, I can’t imagine there are many who object to that or see it as waste. It’s needed, after all.