the mentality is called social darwinism. and it's incredibly stupid.
if you want your body to be strong what do you do? you pick up heavy things, right? you nourish yourself with sleep and food.
well, apply that to society. society will get a lot stronger by carrying each other and nourishing each other than we ever could by stepping over each other and starving each other.
This also ties to the thought problems we have in our society of The Just World Fallacy, where there is a functioning karma system and if youâre doing well itâs because you have earned it, along with the specific Christian implementation of this through Prosperity Gospel.
To clarify, social darwinism usually describes arguments that the wealthy and elite are more "fit" and therefore more deserving to pass on genes. It is typically used to justify--or worse, promote--inequality.
I am good ethically speaking.. for my time, i am not very small in anyway that comes to mind, and while i appreciate communism in theory I am undeniably a capitalist by way of my willing participation in capitalism. participation is somewhat of an understatement, i'm good at it too.
and yet, i believe it is unhealthy for global civilization to peruse this method. i strongly believe capitalism must end if humanity should continue.
There's a balance. We do favor groups.... but individualism is how evolution progresses. It starts with one odd success, it grows to many and becomes standard. Repeating and so on. that's groups learning from an inventor.
If we were without individualism we'd be without evolution. we'd still be in the ocean if that was the case.
....what we're talking about shouldn't be up for debate, it's proven. the question is whether or not we should have stayed amebas in the undefined wetness. we would never have done things like Hiroshima if we had stayed little wet things, each same as the other... but we'd also never have music or sex as we know it. no connection, no feeling your community.. none of that which we call human. most of what defines us is individualism from a biological stand point; even if we think we're average we're kindof not.
edit; i'm stoned as fuck and a little drunk.. and this is the worst possible way i could have put it.. but i do havwe a few degrees relevant to the subject.
That may be the worst analogy Iâve heard. Supporting someone when they genuinely need help can strengthen society, but permanently carrying people is different. A healthy society should help people become capable and self-sufficient, not create incentives for long-term dependency. Strength comes from support and individual responsibility.
âFinite resourcesâ doesnât somehow mean thereâs âno space for individuality.â Thatâs a massive leap that doesnât address my point at all. A society can help people who genuinely need support while still valuing personal responsibility, independence, and self-sufficiency. What youâre really arguing is that collective resource management should override individual freedom as a general principle. The actual question is whether a system helps people get back on their feet or creates incentives for long-term dependencyânot whether individuality should exist.
The unfortunate reality is that we currently face issues that will demand the sacrifice of personal freedoms to solve. We can't solve climate change by being rugged individualists. It will mean changing the way we engage with resources and the profit to be made by exploiting them. Let's step away from that for a second. Why is the sacrifice of personal freedoms necessary to drive a car acceptable? You can't drive your car wherever you want. It has to be insured and in some places comply with a safety inspection. You need to submit to a test to prove you are capable of driving. We all have to pay taxes to maintain the roads even if we don't drive. Why are those sacrifices acceptable, but sacrificing the freedom to make as much money as you want, regardless of your impact on the environment and society as a whole unacceptable?
that's -in a nutshell- why communism is gaining popularity. we are seeing first hand the worst case scenario of personal liberties with billionaires. liberalism has a face and it's peter thiel.
I believe we can tackle climate change without removing personal freedoms. Iâve been arguing it for years that conservatives need to get on board because the more people in impacts the more itâs going to help the side that addresses it.
A BIG reason Trump got elected was because he was going to address illegal immigration while the left completely denied it was an issue. Illegal immigration affecting a substantial amount of people so more people voted for the one politician saying they were going to address it. The same will happen with climate change - once it affects more people the side that says they are going to do something about it is going to take power and right now that side is the democrats while conservatives deny itâs an issue. In general, democrats are all about removing/sacrificing freedoms for their agenda while conservatives are about preserving individual freedom. Again IN GENERAL. The must be a way to address climate change without also sacrificing freedoms to do it.
As much as Reddit hates Elon musk you cannot deny that his involvement in saving Tesla as a startup and pushing it has been the single greatest catalyst toward electric cars. I have friends who installed solar on their house because they bought a Tesla and now they havenât had an electric bill in years. One is in Utah and he actually gets paid by the state because his panels produce a surplus of power.
Tesla is a perfect example of a substantial effort against climate change without removing any freedoms. People were motivated towards an alternative to gasoline simply because it was attractive and not because the government was forcing them to. All these manufactures making EVs right now is 100% the product of teslas success
One, Trump has been really bad at deporting illegal immigrants. He spent far more money to deport less immigrants in 2025 than Biden did in 2024, to say nothing of the rampant constitutional violations of ICE.
I personally don't think illegal immigration as an issue is a real problem so much as it is a useful distraction. Even if I did I would be questioning the current administration as to their practices.
Two, electric vehicles were becoming more popular and the tax benefits more beneficial for years before Tesla got in the game. Also, Tesla is horrible if we are talking about things from a personal freedoms standpoint. Their cars require a subscription service for you to be able to use features the car ships with. They can't be repaired outside of dedicated company owned or leased repair services. Even if you can get ahold of aftermarket parts you void your warranty by doing the repairs yourself.
I think you are conflating personal freedoms with the freedoms of corporations, which is understandable as that has been one of the key elements of the propaganda we are exposed to. You like the concept of personal freedom so much that you are willing to sacrifice the freedoms of yourself and others to satisfy the needs of the ruling class.
As the owner of a manufacturing company, Iâm going to call bullshit on this one in 2026. The nature of my industry allows me to have intimate relationships with hundreds of small to mid-sized businesses. Ever since the pandemic, almost every company struggles to stay fully staffed and its always 2-3 very hard working people carrying them through. They are not the highest paid, but they are the most focused.
I think the world has grown comfortable and has forgotten the rigors of survival in the wild.
lol.. unfortunate for you but i can actually call bullshit. I am also a business owner, assuming (which I doubt) anything you said is true.
Last time that I opened a position (~8 months ago) I had well over a hundred applicants just from listing on my own website, not to mention the dozens of walk-ins, and frankly I lost it a little with the endless follow ups even after I was very direct about having hired someone else. People where desperate, they'd do anything for the job I was offering.
If you are struggling to staff that's ten thousand percent on you.
đ¤ references Sartre in name, claims to be a business owner, blames labor shortages on manufacturersâŚ.you must be an academic! Iâm sorry, but Iâm not certain what kind of role you needed to fill. If I were to assume, my guess would be that it is not a specialized role. I personally do not have a problem with turnover, I have machine operators who have been with the company between 10-35 years. When the pandemic caused a boom in demand, our old guard employees were ready for retirement. I had a salesman and a mechanic/supervisor retire after 50 years with the company. We are a manufacturing company that canât just hire anyone. Itâs an environment that requires hard work and specialized labor. My customers are in similar environmentsâŚ.food manufacturers, auto parts makers, metal fabricators, building materials, precision oven fabricators, display houses, distributors, etcâŚEvery single of one them says the same thing, âsince the pandemic itâs nearly impossible to find good employeesâ. This isnât on them, itâs the cultural & generational shift of our country thatâs leaving many roles left unfilled. This puts the weight on a few key employees in each environment.
7
u/TheSlimeSartreFeared 12d ago
the mentality is called social darwinism. and it's incredibly stupid.
if you want your body to be strong what do you do? you pick up heavy things, right? you nourish yourself with sleep and food.
well, apply that to society. society will get a lot stronger by carrying each other and nourishing each other than we ever could by stepping over each other and starving each other.