How quickly we accepted that it’s normal to pay someone to go get our groceries for us. To drive us around when public transportation is available. To run errands for us. To bring us fast food.
Covid capitalized on it.
People don’t want to give up that luxury now that they’ve had it. Even if it makes things cost 2x-3x as much.
Even when we all know its exploitive labor.
It’s true delivery and driver services have been around for hundreds of years but now instead of companies with full time employees (with benefits) , the gig employee gets paid less while taking on risk that aren’t compensated by the employer (car accidents, gas, car repairs, injury or attacks).
Gig work is a much worse thing than maybe a lot of people realize. And it’s also making more people servants to others.
It’s moving full time employees with benefits and using company property to no benefits and using their own property that they have to pay for.
Removed by mod
Great idea, we still have some buildings here in germany that were used for such a cleansing purpose before! I am sure they only need a bit of maintenance.
The above is sarcasm!
Killing people, and even more so genocide or mass murder, is NEVER a valid option! Every idea, ideology or system that includes killing people is always rotten to the core!
Those rich fucks would off you without a second thought. They don’t understand anything beyond greed and fear.
So you propose the Final Solution to the Rich Question then? Maybe you should read a history book, and ask yourself if you are the baddy!
Read plenty of then. Find me a history where the ruling class was the oppressed? The marginalized?
Wait. You can’t.
Well, you can’t really call them the ruling class anymore when you start to round them up for the killing squads. They become the oppressed in exactly that moment.
I speak about the genozide part of the history books
In @devolution@lemmy.world’s defense, the gory French Revolution, American Revolutionary War, etc. all led to socioeconomic improvements, as far as I know. They’re not advocating for genocide, but just for the highest ruling class to be clamped down on.
The french revolution had the Jacobins with all his atrocities and so many death of innocent people as a result. It is not called Reign of Terror without a good reason. And in the end it didn’t really changed much for the lower class, because the ruling upper class only was replaced by another.
Killing whole extended families, as proposed by @devolution@lemmy.world, sounds a lot like something Adolph Hitler would do and we all know where this ended! Accepting killing people will created a spiral, with more and more who will be send to death. It happened after the french revolution, it happened during the nazi Regime, it happened in the chinese culture Revolution. When killing is accepted it becomes a normal tool, and that is always bad!
You don’t need to kill anyone, deplete their wealth and they are only people like everyone else. Create a international Court and put them to trial for their crimes against mankind, but don’t kill anyone. There are always better solutions then killing! Is the blanket of civilisation really that thin that we fall back to barbaric solutions so easily? Have we not learned from the many, many mistakes of the past?
To clarify, I’m not strongly for one nor the other side here (maybe that’ll get me in trouble already but I feel compelled to be transparent), because I deeply understand the pains and woes of the oppressed lower classes, yet I get the primitive act of violence being problematic. The problem is that there is so much power up there that they can buy even int’l courts of law out, or manage to thwart them. If killing is all that horrible (which I agree it normally is), shouldn’t we be seeing sanctions from Europe against the US in immediate reaction to Iran the way Russia was economically shot for ripping into Ukraine? Why aren’t we seeing this? Where is the tribunal? The US (just as an example) clearly has too much power for other nations to even express their concerns properly. All I see is the French government leaving Windows (which, while genuinely cool, is still a drop in the bucket relative to what more could be happening).
You know, this all makes me think of the podcast Stuff You Should Know’s Revenge: Bitter, Not Sweet episode, which explained how the only reason society even exists is because of the threat of punishment. That is why I worry that, yes, “the blanket of civilization” is possibly permanently “really that thin.” That podcast episode, specifically, is an incredible listen that I highly recommend to everyone (whether showering, driving, or doing dishes; it’s fine to listen in chunks over days).
For example, if you could be 100% sure that nothing bad would happen to you (that you weren’t fine with, at least), you might easily take others’ money or luxuries, too, as might I; the only reason we don’t is because of the threat of discovery and punishment, as morals are applied after for justification, not before (we just think that they come before). Restraint is typically superhuman. In fact, we are already doing that legally, even without tax loopholes, etc.; for example, I despise the global pyramid scheme of housing (make enough money to buy housing and then live off of charging struggling tenants when you yourself were once one of them; no landlord thinks this system is wrong?!), and am not sure I want to get involved with that even after I have enough money to buy a home or more.
But what is the alternative? The indigenous ones who correctly hated the entire economic philosophy of putting price tags on homes got killed or displaced, and their people have been suffering from high suicide rates ever since. Technology could even the playing field a bit, but the drone factories be churning and AI is increasingly monitoring our every move. It’s getting to be a really freaking scary world with no sign of stopping.
So, I’m not sure if we have the luxury of waiting for proper channels even as protesters push for them. That would be nice and ideal, of course. It may not need to come down to either, though, as I suspect that Trump may die before the end of his presidency because of health problems rather than anyone doing anything; videos have shown him potentially hiding a catheter and hinting at further, more serious problems based on his behaviors as of late. Of course, that may only lead to Vance… yuck!
Oh, and I absolutely do not endorse killing extended families; I’m also not sure that that’s what they meant.
I think @DarkMetatron@feddit.de is implying for us to be better than them and not stoop to killing. (I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing and am just inferring this line of thought.)
I want to believe that… But so did Michelle Obama and look where we are at now.
Wait, are you calling for a genocide of all people with inherited, terminal syndromes? Are you serious? What about CRISPR?
If the gene is one that allows psychopathy, inherent greed, and lack of empathy, then yes.
Oh, I thought you were referring to physical disabilities, like all Down-syndrome people, etc.
Well, I’ve never read of a sociopath who had said, “I was raised in a normal family.” I thought this was a really interesting read:
- https://scienceinsights.org/is-sociopathy-genetic-nature-nurture-and-the-brain/
God no.
Exceptional people can be exceptional. My daughter is thrice exceptional (asd, ADHD, gifted). I would never advocate the elimination of people born with physical disabilities. They are some of the best and most resilient people if not tainted by the environment.
My issue is the ruling class and psychopathy that has been passed along since well before 5000 BC. The ruling class has never been fully purged in all aspects except very close during the French Revolution and the Bolshevik revolution.
Both of those failed long term because of usurpers like Robespierre (psycho) and Stalin (false revolutionary).
There is no evidence that psychopathy is determined by a gene.
Like most human traits, the environment makes a bigger impact on outcomes.
Until we as a society/species stop rewarding psychopathy , things will keep ending up here.
Genetics are irrelevant.
However I do agree that capitalism cannot work.
It is inevitable destruction.
Also pretty sure capitalism wasn’t the structure during French revolution. Wasn’t it serfdom ?
I mean. That’s almost the same. But yeah.
We need to stay fully objective here and acknowledge that @devolution@lemmy.world is at least partly correct:
Denser reading:
I didn’t know this until now myself (I’ve seen the above article earlier but must have skimmed through it long ago and missed or forgot all that). However, there’s also a lot about the environment further exposing or shutting down sociopathic tendencies, as I noted in another comment here. It could be more difficult to round up these people (who are masters at lying anyway) versus enacting your systemwide proposal to forcefully integrate empathy through all levels of society. The problem is applying it to the highest echelons where it matters most—and, frankly, who @devolution@lemmy.world’s proposed guillotine should apply to the most either way; they’d both be hard to do… maybe together?
Psychopathy is a combination of genetics and environmental factors. Genetics does not cause this condition. You can have the genes associated with higher prevalence but that does not mean you will have it.
This is why eugenics for behavioral or personality factors is irrelevant.
Also these are not necessarily hereditary but likely are common mutations that will persist in the gene pool regardless if current people with said gene are sterilized.
Genetic research, not to sound pretentious, is largely misunderstood.
When a study says genetics are 30%. It means genetics account for 30% of the variance.
The variance is not “effect”. Or how much a gene contributed to the trait.
It’s a bit more complicated. But to make a simple example.
Let’s think of height.
Let’s say someone has a gene(s) for being tall.
But the person grew up malnourished. It doesnt matter, the kid won’t be tall. But will the kid be taller than other malnourished kids with out the gene. ? Probably. But it’s hard to say by how much.
Will the kid be taller than other kids that werent malnourished.
Maybe. Maybe not.
If extreme malnourished, the answer is no.
Ultimately the environment determines how much effect a gene(s) can determine a trait.
That’s why you can’t measure a general effect % from a gene(s).
Instead we measure how much variation in a group of people with a given trait is predicted by a gene.
“The wiggle room”. A gene is best thought of as the limits of a trait. Each extreme.
When it’s in optimal environment to be expressed and when it’s in the most restricted environment to be expressed.
Even in average environments, genetics still usually doesn’t account for more that 30-40% of the variance for people who score within 1 standard deviation of the mean/average of a trait. And that number declines the farther you get from the mean.
And also most genetics don’t score that high. Very few are as high as 30%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variance
Interesting, thanks for the enlightenment! I have admittedly not delved into it this much before…
Many people/news outlets present genetic data as “effects” or as percentage of a trait.
Like if someone scored 80% on a trait, people say genes determined 30% of that score.
Which is incorrect. But this interpretation is pushed all the time. I see it a lot with intelligence IQ score. Yes intelligence is genetic but only 30% of variability is predicted by genetics.
And if you think about it. That’s only for people with an IQ of 70 to 130 (1 standard deviation).
For the really smart people and the really dumb people, genetics has a lower ability to predict variance.
The reason genes aren’t as predictive as you would think they would be , is just like my example of height.
If the environment doesn’t allow for potential to be fulfilled, it won’t be.
Human development has what’s called “sensitive periods” . Where if some function isn’t learned by that age, it likely will never be mastered. Because the brain does a lot of pruning at young age. If you aren’t using it, you lose it. This is why learning a second language is hard as an adult and easy as a child.
So taking that into account. You can see how limited genetics are for determining an outcome of a random child.
It certainly has an impact. But it is limited by the environment.
How many amazing geniuses are born every day in 3rd world countries that have the potential to solve big world problems who will never reach that level because the stimulation they need to reach that potential is unavailable to them?
Hmm, true. This all immediately brings back an old quote I hadn’t thought of in a while, but now do remember: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/99345-i-am-somehow-less-interested-in-the-weight-and-convolutions
If your argument is nature vs nurture, then all the more reason for a mass culling.
No. The environment has to be changed.
We can stop promoting the wrong people.
We can have harsh penalties for lying. Exploitation
In the Netherlands, any company found to be un ethical business are barred from getting government contracts.
Also companies with better employee benefits, unions, and pay are prioritized for government contracts.
That’s how to combat the problem.
But in the u.s and most of the world. The most ruthless gets the contact. The one that lies the most. Defrauds. Exploits. They get the contacts for decades.
Most of musk’s and palantir money is from u.s tax payers.
The wrong people need to be eliminated. You’re too idealistic. We’re beyond voting them out.
The system creates these bad people.
You have to stop the cause.
It’s not genetics.
Just look at Vivian Musk. Nothing like her father.
I think Hitler also think the same.
Hitler targeted the wrong people.
You don’t permanently eliminate the ruling class by killing the people in it. Elites will continue popping up as long as the system itself allows it. Incentives are just too biased towards people betraying and becoming elite when there is an empty slot.
Who do you think shapes the system to allow it?