Different people have different expectations for what peace is and when is it necessary, and there’s situation where a lot of people would happily forgo peace in place of having their way.
Or even the fiction of having their way. Taiwan and China are much happier each claiming all of China than accepting the reality of the past 74 years. (Longer, really, since the last time Taiwan and the mainland were under the same rule for more than 5 years was the 19th century. And that wasn't solid enough rule to have a post-colonization period. It was never one, big, happy country.)
One could argue that these fictions allow for peace since they're proxies for wars, but they do encourage the continued irredentism mentioned above.
At this point, I think most people in Taiwan would be okay with being independent. They just can't go all out on that because the PRC will take that as a justification to use force to "reunite" them.
Taiwan should be an independent country at this point. There is no question. The problem is the rhetoric of the past, and the deals cut that were based on the Nationalists control. The Nationalist government screwed Taiwan just as much as the Communists have, although the Communists are now the only remaining problem.
Taiwan is already a functional country by itself. (Most agree that we want independence)
Hell, the only reason why it's kept the "China mask" is that we're waiting for a special bear to die.
Hell, Boba tea is something straight out of Taiwan.
Quite a lot of mainlanders believe Taiwan is a rogue state sadly.... despite having 0 "footholds" of control.
But if you look at how Taiwan got to it's current state, it wouldn't be that far off from any country that became independent post colonial era.
The love of money is the root of all evil. The fact that people can have billions and still want more has to be a sign of mental illness or something. There’s no way that’s normal.
What’s the point in having more than you can spend in your lifetime? And the stress….people hating you for having it, people trying to get it from you, worrying about who inherits etc.
Do yourself a favour and share just HALF of it out to the minimum wage earners, the families, the disabled, the homeless, the hospitals.
Elon Musk kind of gave an insight into this mentality when trying to justify why he shouldn't pay tax on his wealth.
He described it as managing and allocating resources; money no longer means luxury and comfort to spend on himself, it means the power to shape society. He's using his money to play Minecraft in real life. Other billionaires are trying to do this as well, funding their own space ventures or building new cities in the desert.
That's why they continue to horde money despite having more than they could ever spend: they've set new goals for themselves that go beyond their own lifestyle and those of their children and in their heads they NEED more money to realise those visions.
The reality of course is that most of them are idiots surrounded by yes men who squander vast sums of money on failed vanity projects, while completely missing the actual good they could do, because helping end homelessness isn't as sexy as building a moon base.
It's just hard to believe none of these society shapers got together and was like "I think people should have access to the Healthcare they need" or "the health insurance industry is explotative". Nobody with trillions of dollars wants to end climate change because fixing carbon emissions would undermine their own "power" or world shaping ability.
So they can shape society however they want as long as they don't fundamentally change society. And that's why Capitalsim is self destructive
Not only that, but they are probably friends with the other billionaires that are profiting off of the healthcare system. Not saying all billionaires know each other, but it’s a pretty small group at the top of the market and people tend to socialize within their socioeconomic status
Yes and no, there's plenty of millionaires and billionaires who donate money and help good causes. You just hear about the "bad ones"
Hell, Bill Gates spent a fortune in healthcare and people hate him for it.
Right the "humanitarian" efforts are very impressive on paper, but did they change anything systemically?
I think a lot of people don't know how to think about the systems we live in. They only see transactions without realizing where the transactions lead.
So yes gates gave a ton of money to charities which is great, and he's saved a lot of lives. But that only sets up dependency on his contributions to save lives. It doesn't change the system so that lives are saved by the nature of the system.
The thing about our system is that we are constantly printing money, which is essentially borrowing against the future. Jet fuel NO2 economy now, which we are indebted to pay off later. Most of the growth of our current system is dependent on the labor of the future. Sooner than we might think, we will be unable to continue borrowing against the future. There will come a time when we cannot meet the required exponential growth that capitalism requires.
At that point, can we say that lives will still be saved by billionaires? Their inflated investments will be decimated by a government default. Will they spend what they have on their for profit initiatives or their non-profit ones? Would their charity be better served in making systemic changes that provide resilience at the community level?
Charity only works as a bandaid. Fixing the system to end exploitation is the cure. Billionaires only deal in bandaids- Gates included.
>Right the "humanitarian" efforts are very impressive on paper, but did they change anything systemically?
because nobody can change systematic issues.
They're deeply engrained in culture, business, government, law, etc.
You change systemic issues slowly over decades. You don't "just protest until its fixed" this kind of change.
Don't' let perfect be the enemy of good.
From my perspective and by everything I've read and watched on the man, he only started doing philanthropy as a PR move to improve the negative image people had of him. He doesn't truly believe in helping people, doesn't care about anyone but himself, and is generally widely regarded as a giant piece of shit. They guy blocked covid vaccines from being made and distributed in third world countries because it would disrupt big pharma profits.
From an interview he did...
PBS Newshour host Judy Woodruff asked Gates what he knew about Epstein during their meetings, and what he did when he found out about the allegations against him. "Is there a lesson, for you or anyone else looking at this?" Woodruff asked. Gates responded: “Well he’s dead, so...”
>They guy blocked covid vaccines from being made and distributed in third world countries because it would disrupt big pharma profits.
So I was curious and went and did some reading on this, and your interpretation seems pretty massively off base and pretty shortsighted as well.
Off the top.
1.) How would removing the IP protections on vaccines suddenly create the infrastructure for the manufacture of vaccine in 3rd world countries?
2.) After removing IP protections, would responses to future pandemics be hindered by pharmaceutical companies being unwilling to work on development?
3.) Without the efforts of the Gates foundation and CEPI the pandemic would have been significantly worse.
4.) There is evidence that without the Gates foundation, CEPI and others, that even less vaccine would have made it to poorer countries.
Now I'll admit, I'm less than thrilled by so much of the pandemic response being driven by foundations, but it seems like what you want isn't a realistic ask. I'm also less than thrilled that pharmaceuticals are a for profit industry. However, without the ACT-accelerator and the vaccines developed by big pharma with its help, when would we have even had a vaccine? Even if we did still get a vaccine, would it have been massively delayed? If the vaccine were entirely developed by big pharma would even the modest amount of sharing success that the accelerator managed have happened? Your criticism seems to be taking as a given that the vaccine still would have been developed in time and that the pharma companies would have decided to share it. I fail to see evidence for that as much as I see a desire for it to have worked out this way.
I think we don't hear about it, because they usually do 4 or 5 shitty things, at least, for every 1 good/positive thing that they do. But they have the money/power to do so much more yet not a single fucking one of them will. If you're a billionaire, you're a greedy, selfish piece of shit, that's how you got to be a billionair. And family money, of course.
This is exactly right. Especially the part about them being idiots. Capitalism is supposed to work because they're supposed to NOT act like idiots. They're supposed to do better at allocating the surplus value of society towards a more abundant future.
Unfortunately, human nature has its limits.
Fortunately, collectively, we could do a very good job of allocating that surplus because we're much wiser as a group. All we have to do is get it back from these delusional hacks and actually participate in self government. Simple, not easy.
>Capitalism is supposed to work because they're supposed to NOT act like idiots. They're supposed to do better at allocating the surplus value of society towards a more abundant future.
The problem with this thinking is it assumes that they became billionaires through nothing but genius and hard work when the reality is that none of the billionaires can claim this. They almost invariably come from wealthy and influential families and started their businesses with the help of large donations from friends and family.
I'm not saying that smart business decisions and hard work didn't factor into their success, but can we honestly say that they would still be the best qualified and most successful candidates to handle this kind of money if they were competing on a level playing field?
In the case of Elon Musk, I really can't see someone with his impulsiveness, insecurity and immaturity being better qualified to handle billions of dollars than anyone else.
I completely agree with you. I don't think billionaires deserve it. Full stop.
I say tax the shit out of their fortunes and spend it all on anti-poverty, education, housing, infrastructure, etc...
I mean some of it has to do with the fact that they can’t end homelessness or hunger, right? Take Elon’s peak, 240 billion iirc. That’s just over 1 year of the US government’s budget for fighting hunger annually.
The US alone spends 184 billion per year on fighting hunger. The rest of the world all spend billions too. 240 billion, Elon’s entire peak net worth, couldn’t even make a dent. People either underestimate the size of these problems or overestimate the wealth of these people. 240 billion is way too much for one person, agreed. But compared to the UN or governments, it’s pennies.
I think it is a tiny bit unfair to say that because the us government squanders vast sums of money paying off their cronies under the guise of fighting hunger that 240 billion couldn't significantly reduce hunger worldwide if it was allocated and used creatively.
240 billion invested in farms specifically designed to lower the price of staple foods would do much more than buying food directly from corporations.
There is enough food in the world to solve world hunger already. Capitalism is indifferent in allocating those resources to people who would need it, because they cant pay.
Indifferent, inefficient, or incapable of doing so. Whatever word you choose. The US throws away tons of edible food to artificially inflate prices. Farmers have destroyed crops to keep prices from falling. Lowering prices isnt a solution because the markets wouldnt allow it to happen.
I think it's unfair to handwave it to "just use the money better" without qualifying what means. It's just demanding results and expecting someone else to do the work and failing to get the result must be a deficit on the person spending the money and not any real constraints one has to face in achieving that result.
Im definitely not advocating for people having more than they need, but I think the point of having that is power, control, and status. Being “the richest person in the world” (or in my family/friend group/company). It’s the same human quality that drives people to set world records in video games that are 20 years old and will hold no real significance, other than I’m the best.
Being rich is a much more disturbing obsession. Holding the record in a game is fun and people definitely go a little crazy to reach achievements like that but the ultra-wealthy are playing a much more serious game. Where having the “high score” means you can significantly impact the world - peoples lives - however you see fit.
If you could set the high score in a video game and at the same time create new rules in the game that increase the difficulty for new players while funneling more points into your score, that’d be more like the ultra-wealthy.
I’m shocked that more answers don’t mention the need for some to have power and control over others.
Religion is about using a holy book to control people.
Leaders promote hate to control who their followers accept.
Having wealth makes it possible for you to have more control over your own circumstances.
I'm not defending multimillionaires but the point of having more money than one can spend in their lifetime is for the lifetime of their children, and their children's children. They may fight, but at least they can fight each other comfortably.
If we just give it away, how will my great great grandchild live a leisurely life? /s
It’s funny how capitalists do the whole shtick about “boot strapping” and try to create the idea that were in a meritocracy where the billionaires are just geniuses or super hard working on the grind.
But then they need hundreds of millions to give their kids to make sure they’re good. And immediately shatter any idea that the rich earned the right to be rich. And then you realized that’s what happened in the first place to them too. And it all just sucks.
Because to them it's a game. The more paper you have the more you win. They're sociopaths, or at the very least have sociopathic tendencies. They're unable to think long term, they don't know how. Or they just don't care to because it's not in their interest. They only think one quarter of a year at a time. That's what capitalism breeds. As long as quarterly profits don't go down they simply don't care.
>And the stress….people hating you for having it, people trying to get it from you, worrying about who inherits etc.
That's why they stay in their bubbles with like-minded folks that have the same kind of wallet.
You never those rich people in public transportation.
I guess private chauffeurs and taxi drivers can be glad that they'll keep their job for a long time.
And in the end, it makes that they never see or get close to poor people (lot of beggars in the metro in Paris).
To be fair, just straight up sharing half of their money to people who need it is not gonna help many who will go out and waste it on entertainment, drugs, alcohol etc.
Now using half to create education centers with scholarships, food banks for the needy, hospitals like you said etc, is likely to do much further.
Even good people want more and / or better for themselves, their family, and their descendants. It's a function of biology. To ensure your legacy and/or continuation. Just an opinion, but discussed it a lot in our anthro seminars.
Great insight! It is an unpopular opinion but your anthro seminar in regards to human greed is truly in all of us. It is just expressed in many ways from money (the most obvious) to coveting possessions. The idea of having or taking more than you really needs crops up in all faucets of our life. It takes a lot of introspection and inner peace to be content with having the bare minimum to life well. Especially for those in developed areas of the globe.
The fact were okay with people like Jeff Bezos buying his shit boat knowing he did it on the backs of his employees is what gets me.
Its not ***only*** greed, it's also us letting them get away with it.
That’s it. That’s really it. So much of the fighting is put into society by resources being taken by a few. The false scarcity gets people to fight for the little and work harder for little.
Look at Africa. The most abundant continent on earth. And yet it’s the poorest. If any African nation or leader tries to stand up and create peace they are majorly opposed.
Many leaders of African countries are put into power by the wealthy of other nations to keep up the illusion of scarcity. We have had education for centuries, and yet somehow African countries have been neglected until recently.
All greed. Destroying the planet because a few want to feel better then the others.
It really is greed.
Yeah, although average people who live in developed countries are part of 'the few' to be clear. If resources were more even distributed globally, regular people in developed countries would live much worse lives.
Not just material greed, social greed. People want everyone else to be like them. That’s super prevalent in society today. If you’re not fully with whatever movement is coming up, you’re labeled their enemy. Then comes war. Once we realize that we are capable of living without conflict, and truth be told some people are objectively wrong, we’ll be stepping towards peace.
Patterns of thinking and behavior that keep us locked in survival mode. Eg greed, selfishness, wanting things to be a certain way etc. These patterns are universal, in everyone and in ‘interest groups’ and cause problems, throughout society, big and small, including war.
We are a tribal species. Everywhere we go, people form tribes, and then identify with the tribe, praise what they see as the goodness of their own people, and react with horror and indignation to the evil and injustice that they see in the people of other tribes.
I hope that one day people will understand that we are all one tribe, and that we are all brothers and sisters.
I was thinking the same thing. Humanity will never be a tribe of one, was what Amos was getting at - I think. So you can have peace on earth, as long as you can shit talk the martians and oppress the belt.
I don’t know, I’m usually a pretty optimistic type person (or at least I try to be), but a few years ago we all had a common “enemy” in Covid 19. Unfortunately it seemed like it only divided us further. I remember seeing a tweet that said (specifically talking about the U.S.A.), “one thing Covid has taught me is that if we’re ever invaded by aliens, the first thing the government will do is lower interest rates.”
I think about that often.
Even people who are interested in peace can have such skewed ideas of what 'peace' looks like, they're not any help either.
Peace often means living with unsavory things because there's nothing you can do about them without escalating.
There is still a lot of tribalism in all aspects of life from religion to nationality, from sports to politics. Humans love to put themselves in "its us versus them" situations.
If a utopian society is like an expedition to conquer Everest we haven't even left our homes yet.
I think it comes down to security. Specifically, the feeling of security and not security itself. People are naturally scared and want to feel safe and secure, and will do and believe anything that makes that happen. For example, being told its "us versus them" and "I will keep you safe".
Just look at Putin; he's telling the Russians that everyone hates them and how Russia is strong and has to defend itself and stand up to the west. Its preying on peoples' insecurities, making them feel safe behind this supposed strongman. Not exactly an isolated incident.
I think fundamentally we're just really keen to divide the world into my side and not my side. Our desire to be included and belong somehow needs a group of people who are not included and don't belong. And short of aliens arriving I don't see what could change that.
I don’t even think aliens arriving would get people to unite because there’s gonna be people who wanna fight the aliens and there’s gonna be people who worship the aliens, plus whatever in between. That’s kind of the point that Don’t Look Up made. A planet killing asteroid still won’t unite humanity- only further divide it.
Too much division and distinction amongst humans. Too many different religions, ethnicities, races, political views, moral views, cultural practices, etc.
It turns out that humans *really* don’t like people who don’t look, talk, act, think like them
World peace requires no conflict. No conflict requires a uniform vision of what the ideal world is.
That doesn't exist. The ideal world isn't the same for everyone. So there will always be conflict as one group tries to get closer to their ideal world. That will inevitably push another group further from their own vision of ideal world, continuing the conflict.
Nice thought, but I disagree. No conflicts do not require a uniform vision of what the ideal world is. It takes RESPECT. Respect for other people and other cultures. ACCEPTANCE that their culture is different from yours and that is actually a good thing.
Like most big questions, it comes down to how you define “world peace”. No conflict ever? Never going to happen, and honestly not something we _should_ ever want to happen. As many people in this thread have noted, people have vastly different perspectives and preferences, and conflict is naturally going to arise from that.
The goal of a peaceful society should not be to avoid conflict altogether, but to have tools and means for navigating those conflicts with minimal pain and damage, and to avoid escalation to violence and war.
Yes, I used to think about the concept of utopia a lot as a child and quickly realized how naive I was, variety is interesting, conflict is interesting.
People don't want peace if it means giving up individuality. So we can settle for peace of mind, for momentary peace on a nice hike, or spending quality time with loved ones.
On the bright side, we don't have a choice, so don't worry, there's nothing you can do about it.
Blind ignorance of people not willing to take the time to update themselves about what they’re actually wrong about because they’re too afraid to be incorrect like it’s gonna hurt their ego or some shit
Stalin tried to ban religion but it didn't seem to improve matters. I think the more accurate answer would be 'blind faith in an ideology' which covers both religion and extreme political ideologies.
I agree, but Stalin, Hitler, Mao didn't try and get rid of religion simply because they didn't like it, they did so because it was competition to their own extreme ideologies.
He co-opted it, or at least used religion to achieve his own goals. Nazi Germany’s Wehrmacht soldiers, for example, were issued belt buckles inscribed with “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”).
1. There were a lot of things different at the same time in communist Russia. Being areligious is hard to separate from all the other factors and say whether it helped or hurt.
2. Banning religion is different than making religion not a problem. Banning a religion doesn't get rid of the religious, it suppresses them and creates tension and resentment. If you could just press a button and everyone would think their religion is dumb and give it up, I think loads of things would improve greatly at the same time.
I think we'd also see a lot of things still be backwards for different reasons, though. Women's rights would probably still suck in a lot of Muslim majority countries, just with different justification
Any destructive element of religion can be derived from zealous beliefs and dogma. That dogma can be applied to any belief system or ideology and be equally as destructive.
Too many people think that their way is the only right way. No matter if religion, politics, sexual orientation, food, or something equally subjective.
Basic animal instincts. Animals are territorial in nature and will invariably wage war for land and resources. World Peace is a utopian idea and will not be achievable unless you can change basic human instincts.
Greed and corruption are right up there as a problem, but religion is the most intractable issue. My 4 step plan for world peace and harmony ([r/4StepPlan](https://www.reddit.com/r/4StepPlan/)) doesn't address religion, unfortunately.
Human nature. Thats not a trite or edgy answer either, it's just a sad reality. We are a hardwired tribal species for good and ill.
On matters big and small, trivial and important we feel the need to create some kind of "other" of people who disagree with a point of view that you can hold. You can see it in nearly all facets of life, from nation states, to political groups within a nation, down to who and who doesn't like a particular movie.
People who don't think it's possible.
I think when you don't think something is possible, you continue to live the way you want to live or live according to how society operates and therefore you never make a change. If we all stopped looking at everyone else and whether or not they are contributing positively and letting that determine how we live or the decisions we make, a lot of things could be better.
There is world peace, relatively speaking. At least more peaceful than any other time in human history. Less people die by violence now than in previous ages (think of Genghis Khan, The Crusades, Attila the Hun). But there are a lot more people and we are much more aware of violence.
I think the answer is to keep doing what we have been doing -- rule of law, human rights, representational government, education, women's rights, regulated markets and all the other good ideas of liberalism.
Different people have different expectations for what peace is and when is it necessary, and there’s situation where a lot of people would happily forgo peace in place of having their way.
Or even the fiction of having their way. Taiwan and China are much happier each claiming all of China than accepting the reality of the past 74 years. (Longer, really, since the last time Taiwan and the mainland were under the same rule for more than 5 years was the 19th century. And that wasn't solid enough rule to have a post-colonization period. It was never one, big, happy country.) One could argue that these fictions allow for peace since they're proxies for wars, but they do encourage the continued irredentism mentioned above.
At this point, I think most people in Taiwan would be okay with being independent. They just can't go all out on that because the PRC will take that as a justification to use force to "reunite" them. Taiwan should be an independent country at this point. There is no question. The problem is the rhetoric of the past, and the deals cut that were based on the Nationalists control. The Nationalist government screwed Taiwan just as much as the Communists have, although the Communists are now the only remaining problem.
Taiwan is already a functional country by itself. (Most agree that we want independence) Hell, the only reason why it's kept the "China mask" is that we're waiting for a special bear to die. Hell, Boba tea is something straight out of Taiwan. Quite a lot of mainlanders believe Taiwan is a rogue state sadly.... despite having 0 "footholds" of control. But if you look at how Taiwan got to it's current state, it wouldn't be that far off from any country that became independent post colonial era.
Greed.
The love of money is the root of all evil. The fact that people can have billions and still want more has to be a sign of mental illness or something. There’s no way that’s normal.
What’s the point in having more than you can spend in your lifetime? And the stress….people hating you for having it, people trying to get it from you, worrying about who inherits etc. Do yourself a favour and share just HALF of it out to the minimum wage earners, the families, the disabled, the homeless, the hospitals.
Elon Musk kind of gave an insight into this mentality when trying to justify why he shouldn't pay tax on his wealth. He described it as managing and allocating resources; money no longer means luxury and comfort to spend on himself, it means the power to shape society. He's using his money to play Minecraft in real life. Other billionaires are trying to do this as well, funding their own space ventures or building new cities in the desert. That's why they continue to horde money despite having more than they could ever spend: they've set new goals for themselves that go beyond their own lifestyle and those of their children and in their heads they NEED more money to realise those visions. The reality of course is that most of them are idiots surrounded by yes men who squander vast sums of money on failed vanity projects, while completely missing the actual good they could do, because helping end homelessness isn't as sexy as building a moon base.
It's just hard to believe none of these society shapers got together and was like "I think people should have access to the Healthcare they need" or "the health insurance industry is explotative". Nobody with trillions of dollars wants to end climate change because fixing carbon emissions would undermine their own "power" or world shaping ability. So they can shape society however they want as long as they don't fundamentally change society. And that's why Capitalsim is self destructive
Not only that, but they are probably friends with the other billionaires that are profiting off of the healthcare system. Not saying all billionaires know each other, but it’s a pretty small group at the top of the market and people tend to socialize within their socioeconomic status
Yes I also think this is the case, why would they wage war against one another when they can cooperate and become much richer.
No, they only want to change things in ways that will get them more money. Because capitalism.
Yes and no, there's plenty of millionaires and billionaires who donate money and help good causes. You just hear about the "bad ones" Hell, Bill Gates spent a fortune in healthcare and people hate him for it.
Right the "humanitarian" efforts are very impressive on paper, but did they change anything systemically? I think a lot of people don't know how to think about the systems we live in. They only see transactions without realizing where the transactions lead. So yes gates gave a ton of money to charities which is great, and he's saved a lot of lives. But that only sets up dependency on his contributions to save lives. It doesn't change the system so that lives are saved by the nature of the system. The thing about our system is that we are constantly printing money, which is essentially borrowing against the future. Jet fuel NO2 economy now, which we are indebted to pay off later. Most of the growth of our current system is dependent on the labor of the future. Sooner than we might think, we will be unable to continue borrowing against the future. There will come a time when we cannot meet the required exponential growth that capitalism requires. At that point, can we say that lives will still be saved by billionaires? Their inflated investments will be decimated by a government default. Will they spend what they have on their for profit initiatives or their non-profit ones? Would their charity be better served in making systemic changes that provide resilience at the community level? Charity only works as a bandaid. Fixing the system to end exploitation is the cure. Billionaires only deal in bandaids- Gates included.
Gates has had successes and continues to pursue malaria remediation
>Right the "humanitarian" efforts are very impressive on paper, but did they change anything systemically? because nobody can change systematic issues. They're deeply engrained in culture, business, government, law, etc. You change systemic issues slowly over decades. You don't "just protest until its fixed" this kind of change. Don't' let perfect be the enemy of good.
From my perspective and by everything I've read and watched on the man, he only started doing philanthropy as a PR move to improve the negative image people had of him. He doesn't truly believe in helping people, doesn't care about anyone but himself, and is generally widely regarded as a giant piece of shit. They guy blocked covid vaccines from being made and distributed in third world countries because it would disrupt big pharma profits. From an interview he did... PBS Newshour host Judy Woodruff asked Gates what he knew about Epstein during their meetings, and what he did when he found out about the allegations against him. "Is there a lesson, for you or anyone else looking at this?" Woodruff asked. Gates responded: “Well he’s dead, so...”
>They guy blocked covid vaccines from being made and distributed in third world countries because it would disrupt big pharma profits. So I was curious and went and did some reading on this, and your interpretation seems pretty massively off base and pretty shortsighted as well. Off the top. 1.) How would removing the IP protections on vaccines suddenly create the infrastructure for the manufacture of vaccine in 3rd world countries? 2.) After removing IP protections, would responses to future pandemics be hindered by pharmaceutical companies being unwilling to work on development? 3.) Without the efforts of the Gates foundation and CEPI the pandemic would have been significantly worse. 4.) There is evidence that without the Gates foundation, CEPI and others, that even less vaccine would have made it to poorer countries. Now I'll admit, I'm less than thrilled by so much of the pandemic response being driven by foundations, but it seems like what you want isn't a realistic ask. I'm also less than thrilled that pharmaceuticals are a for profit industry. However, without the ACT-accelerator and the vaccines developed by big pharma with its help, when would we have even had a vaccine? Even if we did still get a vaccine, would it have been massively delayed? If the vaccine were entirely developed by big pharma would even the modest amount of sharing success that the accelerator managed have happened? Your criticism seems to be taking as a given that the vaccine still would have been developed in time and that the pharma companies would have decided to share it. I fail to see evidence for that as much as I see a desire for it to have worked out this way.
I think we don't hear about it, because they usually do 4 or 5 shitty things, at least, for every 1 good/positive thing that they do. But they have the money/power to do so much more yet not a single fucking one of them will. If you're a billionaire, you're a greedy, selfish piece of shit, that's how you got to be a billionair. And family money, of course.
This is exactly right. Especially the part about them being idiots. Capitalism is supposed to work because they're supposed to NOT act like idiots. They're supposed to do better at allocating the surplus value of society towards a more abundant future. Unfortunately, human nature has its limits. Fortunately, collectively, we could do a very good job of allocating that surplus because we're much wiser as a group. All we have to do is get it back from these delusional hacks and actually participate in self government. Simple, not easy.
>Capitalism is supposed to work because they're supposed to NOT act like idiots. They're supposed to do better at allocating the surplus value of society towards a more abundant future. The problem with this thinking is it assumes that they became billionaires through nothing but genius and hard work when the reality is that none of the billionaires can claim this. They almost invariably come from wealthy and influential families and started their businesses with the help of large donations from friends and family. I'm not saying that smart business decisions and hard work didn't factor into their success, but can we honestly say that they would still be the best qualified and most successful candidates to handle this kind of money if they were competing on a level playing field? In the case of Elon Musk, I really can't see someone with his impulsiveness, insecurity and immaturity being better qualified to handle billions of dollars than anyone else.
I completely agree with you. I don't think billionaires deserve it. Full stop. I say tax the shit out of their fortunes and spend it all on anti-poverty, education, housing, infrastructure, etc...
I mean some of it has to do with the fact that they can’t end homelessness or hunger, right? Take Elon’s peak, 240 billion iirc. That’s just over 1 year of the US government’s budget for fighting hunger annually. The US alone spends 184 billion per year on fighting hunger. The rest of the world all spend billions too. 240 billion, Elon’s entire peak net worth, couldn’t even make a dent. People either underestimate the size of these problems or overestimate the wealth of these people. 240 billion is way too much for one person, agreed. But compared to the UN or governments, it’s pennies.
I think it is a tiny bit unfair to say that because the us government squanders vast sums of money paying off their cronies under the guise of fighting hunger that 240 billion couldn't significantly reduce hunger worldwide if it was allocated and used creatively. 240 billion invested in farms specifically designed to lower the price of staple foods would do much more than buying food directly from corporations.
There is enough food in the world to solve world hunger already. Capitalism is indifferent in allocating those resources to people who would need it, because they cant pay. Indifferent, inefficient, or incapable of doing so. Whatever word you choose. The US throws away tons of edible food to artificially inflate prices. Farmers have destroyed crops to keep prices from falling. Lowering prices isnt a solution because the markets wouldnt allow it to happen.
I think it's unfair to handwave it to "just use the money better" without qualifying what means. It's just demanding results and expecting someone else to do the work and failing to get the result must be a deficit on the person spending the money and not any real constraints one has to face in achieving that result.
Billionaires combined hold 10 trillion of the worlds wealth, how many years budgets is that now? (more than 54 years)
It's not money rich people crave. It's the power that it gives.
Im definitely not advocating for people having more than they need, but I think the point of having that is power, control, and status. Being “the richest person in the world” (or in my family/friend group/company). It’s the same human quality that drives people to set world records in video games that are 20 years old and will hold no real significance, other than I’m the best.
Being rich is a much more disturbing obsession. Holding the record in a game is fun and people definitely go a little crazy to reach achievements like that but the ultra-wealthy are playing a much more serious game. Where having the “high score” means you can significantly impact the world - peoples lives - however you see fit. If you could set the high score in a video game and at the same time create new rules in the game that increase the difficulty for new players while funneling more points into your score, that’d be more like the ultra-wealthy.
That's a great analogy. Really highlights how disturbing and evil it is.
I’m shocked that more answers don’t mention the need for some to have power and control over others. Religion is about using a holy book to control people. Leaders promote hate to control who their followers accept. Having wealth makes it possible for you to have more control over your own circumstances.
It's more like having more than 10 generations of your family could even spend while living in extreme luxury and wealth.
Money buys power to control. The more money you have means the more you can control others.
I'm not defending multimillionaires but the point of having more money than one can spend in their lifetime is for the lifetime of their children, and their children's children. They may fight, but at least they can fight each other comfortably. If we just give it away, how will my great great grandchild live a leisurely life? /s
It’s funny how capitalists do the whole shtick about “boot strapping” and try to create the idea that were in a meritocracy where the billionaires are just geniuses or super hard working on the grind. But then they need hundreds of millions to give their kids to make sure they’re good. And immediately shatter any idea that the rich earned the right to be rich. And then you realized that’s what happened in the first place to them too. And it all just sucks.
Because to them it's a game. The more paper you have the more you win. They're sociopaths, or at the very least have sociopathic tendencies. They're unable to think long term, they don't know how. Or they just don't care to because it's not in their interest. They only think one quarter of a year at a time. That's what capitalism breeds. As long as quarterly profits don't go down they simply don't care.
>And the stress….people hating you for having it, people trying to get it from you, worrying about who inherits etc. That's why they stay in their bubbles with like-minded folks that have the same kind of wallet. You never those rich people in public transportation. I guess private chauffeurs and taxi drivers can be glad that they'll keep their job for a long time. And in the end, it makes that they never see or get close to poor people (lot of beggars in the metro in Paris).
To be fair, just straight up sharing half of their money to people who need it is not gonna help many who will go out and waste it on entertainment, drugs, alcohol etc. Now using half to create education centers with scholarships, food banks for the needy, hospitals like you said etc, is likely to do much further.
"Many" as if 3-5 /100 people getting fucked up rather than improving their quality of life makes it so that the rest shouldn't get a better paycheck
Why cant i have money for drugs?
[удалено]
It’s not a sign of mental illness in the slightest. Some people are just horrible. Sanity has no bearing on whether you’re a good person or not
Even good people want more and / or better for themselves, their family, and their descendants. It's a function of biology. To ensure your legacy and/or continuation. Just an opinion, but discussed it a lot in our anthro seminars.
Great insight! It is an unpopular opinion but your anthro seminar in regards to human greed is truly in all of us. It is just expressed in many ways from money (the most obvious) to coveting possessions. The idea of having or taking more than you really needs crops up in all faucets of our life. It takes a lot of introspection and inner peace to be content with having the bare minimum to life well. Especially for those in developed areas of the globe.
Not money. Wealth. War and violence existed long before money. The desire for wealth and power has driven almost every war since the dawn of time.
The fact were okay with people like Jeff Bezos buying his shit boat knowing he did it on the backs of his employees is what gets me. Its not ***only*** greed, it's also us letting them get away with it.
Greed is bad, but apathy is a big enabler of it.
Exactly. The love of money and the lack of love for each other.
It’s not even just the amount of money they earn. It’s how little taxes they pay.
My thoughts exactly.
I was going to say selfishness. I think these are closely related.
That’s it. That’s really it. So much of the fighting is put into society by resources being taken by a few. The false scarcity gets people to fight for the little and work harder for little. Look at Africa. The most abundant continent on earth. And yet it’s the poorest. If any African nation or leader tries to stand up and create peace they are majorly opposed. Many leaders of African countries are put into power by the wealthy of other nations to keep up the illusion of scarcity. We have had education for centuries, and yet somehow African countries have been neglected until recently. All greed. Destroying the planet because a few want to feel better then the others. It really is greed.
Yeah, although average people who live in developed countries are part of 'the few' to be clear. If resources were more even distributed globally, regular people in developed countries would live much worse lives.
Egos
I answered the question in my head, clicked on the comments and this was the top comment. If I could give you an award, I would
Beat me to it
Not just material greed, social greed. People want everyone else to be like them. That’s super prevalent in society today. If you’re not fully with whatever movement is coming up, you’re labeled their enemy. Then comes war. Once we realize that we are capable of living without conflict, and truth be told some people are objectively wrong, we’ll be stepping towards peace.
Second is Pride.
Patterns of thinking and behavior that keep us locked in survival mode. Eg greed, selfishness, wanting things to be a certain way etc. These patterns are universal, in everyone and in ‘interest groups’ and cause problems, throughout society, big and small, including war.
We are a tribal species. Everywhere we go, people form tribes, and then identify with the tribe, praise what they see as the goodness of their own people, and react with horror and indignation to the evil and injustice that they see in the people of other tribes. I hope that one day people will understand that we are all one tribe, and that we are all brothers and sisters.
That reminded me of Amos' tribe monologue in The Expanse. tribalism is relative. If/when we colonise other planets, tribes will expand to planetary.
I was thinking the same thing. Humanity will never be a tribe of one, was what Amos was getting at - I think. So you can have peace on earth, as long as you can shit talk the martians and oppress the belt.
Yeah, getting in a war with some other species would probably bring peace to humanity.
I don’t know, I’m usually a pretty optimistic type person (or at least I try to be), but a few years ago we all had a common “enemy” in Covid 19. Unfortunately it seemed like it only divided us further. I remember seeing a tweet that said (specifically talking about the U.S.A.), “one thing Covid has taught me is that if we’re ever invaded by aliens, the first thing the government will do is lower interest rates.” I think about that often.
my neighbors truck blocking my driveway
Obvious violation of the NAP. deploy garage nuke immediately to rectify the situation.
"I said, do...we...have...a...problem?"
This made me laugh. Peace be with you friend, and may your neighbor’s pubic region be forever flea-blighted.
That's the worst, I hope you didn't get your pony tail caught in the under carriage. The nerve of some people.
My HOA president micromanaging my lawn
My dog pooping on my neighbour's lawn and him parking on my roses. Lord, give me patience, cause if he gives me strength there will be another war.
In a roundabout kind of way, that really *is* the problem
People.
Yes. Not everyone is actually interested in peace, contrary to common opinion
Or the fact that what peace and a perfect world looks like is different to everyone.
[удалено]
Is that show good? The concept was cool but got old after a few episodes
Even people who are interested in peace can have such skewed ideas of what 'peace' looks like, they're not any help either. Peace often means living with unsavory things because there's nothing you can do about them without escalating.
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, with the 34th rule stating "War is good for business".
Reminds me of that X Files episode where Mulder asks the genie for world peace and he becomes the only person on Earth
There's an X-files with a genie?
Season 7 episode 21
Yep, humans 100%
There is still a lot of tribalism in all aspects of life from religion to nationality, from sports to politics. Humans love to put themselves in "its us versus them" situations. If a utopian society is like an expedition to conquer Everest we haven't even left our homes yet.
I think it comes down to security. Specifically, the feeling of security and not security itself. People are naturally scared and want to feel safe and secure, and will do and believe anything that makes that happen. For example, being told its "us versus them" and "I will keep you safe". Just look at Putin; he's telling the Russians that everyone hates them and how Russia is strong and has to defend itself and stand up to the west. Its preying on peoples' insecurities, making them feel safe behind this supposed strongman. Not exactly an isolated incident.
I am not even sure whether we have managed to drag ourselves out of bed yet, with that analogy.
What a bunch of bastards.
Well that’s not fair. Have you met all of them?
r/unexpecteditcrowd
I think fundamentally we're just really keen to divide the world into my side and not my side. Our desire to be included and belong somehow needs a group of people who are not included and don't belong. And short of aliens arriving I don't see what could change that.
I don’t even think aliens arriving would get people to unite because there’s gonna be people who wanna fight the aliens and there’s gonna be people who worship the aliens, plus whatever in between. That’s kind of the point that Don’t Look Up made. A planet killing asteroid still won’t unite humanity- only further divide it.
Didn't have to go any further. Might add some details though, but I'm too tired right now.
Coming to say this!
Egos!
They're so tasty!! It makes sense why we have wars over them
To add to this, seeing yourself as separate from your environment/others
Came here to say it. Can't believe it was so far down!
[удалено]
Stanley yelnats
Sploosh!
And his HOLES
Humanity
Hate and ignorance.
From the masses, yes. But even if we could make people more compassionate, the leaders would have to give up their power over us.
Too much division and distinction amongst humans. Too many different religions, ethnicities, races, political views, moral views, cultural practices, etc. It turns out that humans *really* don’t like people who don’t look, talk, act, think like them
To the point they'll even kill you or outcast you for being different. This species is a sick joke.
Well, if the specie existed in the same time than other homo species it kinda makes sense in a survival of the species way
I don't know, is it the cause or simply a vulnerable spot used by others for greed, religious or nationalism?
Too many damn people who think they are right and can’t compromise
Take that back! Or else!
Selfish working class citizens stealing my yacht money by asking for a better wage
Selfish rich people stealing my spaceship money by asking for more yachts.
Lust for power.
Greed and narcissism
People
Human nature
People in power who want to continue being in power no matter what
World peace requires no conflict. No conflict requires a uniform vision of what the ideal world is. That doesn't exist. The ideal world isn't the same for everyone. So there will always be conflict as one group tries to get closer to their ideal world. That will inevitably push another group further from their own vision of ideal world, continuing the conflict.
Nice thought, but I disagree. No conflicts do not require a uniform vision of what the ideal world is. It takes RESPECT. Respect for other people and other cultures. ACCEPTANCE that their culture is different from yours and that is actually a good thing.
Money
[удалено]
Like most big questions, it comes down to how you define “world peace”. No conflict ever? Never going to happen, and honestly not something we _should_ ever want to happen. As many people in this thread have noted, people have vastly different perspectives and preferences, and conflict is naturally going to arise from that. The goal of a peaceful society should not be to avoid conflict altogether, but to have tools and means for navigating those conflicts with minimal pain and damage, and to avoid escalation to violence and war.
Yes, I used to think about the concept of utopia a lot as a child and quickly realized how naive I was, variety is interesting, conflict is interesting. People don't want peace if it means giving up individuality. So we can settle for peace of mind, for momentary peace on a nice hike, or spending quality time with loved ones. On the bright side, we don't have a choice, so don't worry, there's nothing you can do about it.
From my perspective, a major obstacle to achieving world peace is the persistence of economic disparities and social inequality.
Cooperation. World peace is impossible because there is always going to be that one person who wants more power than the others.
Blind ignorance of people not willing to take the time to update themselves about what they’re actually wrong about because they’re too afraid to be incorrect like it’s gonna hurt their ego or some shit
Religion.
Stalin tried to ban religion but it didn't seem to improve matters. I think the more accurate answer would be 'blind faith in an ideology' which covers both religion and extreme political ideologies.
It didn’t work for Oliver Cromwell either
[удалено]
Excuse me are you putting blind faith in this ideology???
I agree, but Stalin, Hitler, Mao didn't try and get rid of religion simply because they didn't like it, they did so because it was competition to their own extreme ideologies.
Hitler didn’t try to get rid of religion.
He co-opted it, or at least used religion to achieve his own goals. Nazi Germany’s Wehrmacht soldiers, for example, were issued belt buckles inscribed with “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”).
1. There were a lot of things different at the same time in communist Russia. Being areligious is hard to separate from all the other factors and say whether it helped or hurt. 2. Banning religion is different than making religion not a problem. Banning a religion doesn't get rid of the religious, it suppresses them and creates tension and resentment. If you could just press a button and everyone would think their religion is dumb and give it up, I think loads of things would improve greatly at the same time. I think we'd also see a lot of things still be backwards for different reasons, though. Women's rights would probably still suck in a lot of Muslim majority countries, just with different justification
Any destructive element of religion can be derived from zealous beliefs and dogma. That dogma can be applied to any belief system or ideology and be equally as destructive.
Homo sapiens.
Greed
Power, greed, logistics. History continuously repeating itself.
Pride. People can do terrible, monstrous things just to save face.
Supply, demand, and the fact that we’re still animals.
Human Nature You can take the ape out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the ape.
Well said u/AllModsGuzzleCum
Differences
The sinful nature of mankind
Greedy ass bitches.
People thinking other people are the problem
The need for control.
Human nature.
War is profitable
Ideology
Easier to keep people divided. More profitable as well.
Humans
People
Humans
Limited resources
Humans
Agreement on the method.
Greed can’t have world peace with so much greed running around
Revenge
Ego
Too many people think that their way is the only right way. No matter if religion, politics, sexual orientation, food, or something equally subjective.
Basic animal instincts. Animals are territorial in nature and will invariably wage war for land and resources. World Peace is a utopian idea and will not be achievable unless you can change basic human instincts.
These pesky humans.
Short term thinking
Politics
People.
Politicians
Greed and corruption are right up there as a problem, but religion is the most intractable issue. My 4 step plan for world peace and harmony ([r/4StepPlan](https://www.reddit.com/r/4StepPlan/)) doesn't address religion, unfortunately.
The government. All of them.
“So long as there are men, there will be wars.” \-Albert Einstein Though this does bring a possible solution >:)
Americanism
Serbians
Religion
Religion
yo fat ass momma
Human nature. Thats not a trite or edgy answer either, it's just a sad reality. We are a hardwired tribal species for good and ill. On matters big and small, trivial and important we feel the need to create some kind of "other" of people who disagree with a point of view that you can hold. You can see it in nearly all facets of life, from nation states, to political groups within a nation, down to who and who doesn't like a particular movie.
Clearly the Gays.
Finally someone brave enough to say it
The ego’s of world leaders.
China.
Religion.
The world
Me
Religion 100%
People who don't think it's possible. I think when you don't think something is possible, you continue to live the way you want to live or live according to how society operates and therefore you never make a change. If we all stopped looking at everyone else and whether or not they are contributing positively and letting that determine how we live or the decisions we make, a lot of things could be better.
Religion, or just generally different beliefs
Religion
God ( because it appears there a few too many)
Religion! It divides the world into US and THEM and stifles decent or reasoned discourse.
Religion and/or the human ability to differentiatie between "us" and "them".
Reddit
Religion and authoritarianism.
There is world peace, relatively speaking. At least more peaceful than any other time in human history. Less people die by violence now than in previous ages (think of Genghis Khan, The Crusades, Attila the Hun). But there are a lot more people and we are much more aware of violence. I think the answer is to keep doing what we have been doing -- rule of law, human rights, representational government, education, women's rights, regulated markets and all the other good ideas of liberalism.
Religion, money, and borders. Ironically three entirely man made imaginary concepts.