filter: 💡 🐦 🏟 👽 📺 🐘💰

👽

Olympic Discovery is so awesome. One of my favorite rides. We also rode up to Sol Duc Falls of the trail. You can see if you can camp up there if you like to hike.

👽

Great ride! Where will you go to next?

👽

And what do we do about the heat death of the universe?

👽

I took this to mean there are a few organisms in the kingdom animalia that possibly don't have sentience. I think clams may fall into this category.

👽

I would love to see any proof. We both live in a world where there's a common capitalist narrative that is accepted as dogma. But if you just look the system in the face without preconception, dividing the world into an owning class that earns rent and a wage earning class that pays with their labor doesn't make sense for the betterment of everyone. Capitalism suggests that everyone doing what is best for themself is beneficial for everyone. That premise is used to justify the greatest excesses of greed conceivable. And yet no one has ever shown me a causal link between innovation, or increased wellbeing and ownership. In fact, [average life expectancy fell through most of capitalism until progressive policies took over](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/22/progressive-politics-capitalism-unions-healthcare-education). And most of the greatest innovations of the 20th century came from government funding. But you're right, we probably won't convince each other. My main aim is to make sure you are questioning this dominant political philosophy. Eventually I hope you'll start to see the holes.

👽

> But it’s silly to think we can’t eat them for food. You were so close. If you were to take a step back from the assumptions that we live with due to our cultural heritage, you'd probably conclude that murdering animals to eat when you don't have to is equally wrong. Remember that extending compassion to all humans on the planet was once a "silly" idea.

🐦

🐦

👽

I want to go to there.

👽

So I've seen that analogy before and it makes intuitive sense if that were the whole story. But capital accumulation doesn't refer to the existence of the fishing pole, it refers to you owning the fishing pole specifically. The major problem with this is assuming that fishing pole as the final manifestation of capital accumulation. In a most realistic story, capital accumulation eventually allows you to buy the pond and the patent on fishing poles and charge rent for others to use the only food source in your village. It's actually net detrimental to the common good and even to individual liberty, but over-simplified stories sidestep the real-world ramifications of capitalism. Again, I'm not asking for over-simplified analogies. I'm asking for some proof that establishing private property rights and abolishing the commons was net beneficial to the median human.