You're not going to do anything at all without money as a fungible exchange mechanism (a sometime measure of 'value'). Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value. Yes, politicians and the rest of us have the job of regulating that process and sometime fail to do a good job. Do you know the right thing to do? I doubt it. You seriously do not see this as an immensely complicated issue? Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'. Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet. Concern isn't action but it's a necessary prerequisite for it.
back
2 comments
Money and value exist in all economical systems and has existed in some form since immemorial times, that has literally nothing to do with capitalism, an ideology developed over the past 250y or so
Also, our current system grossly undermines the functionality of our market economy. A lack of pricing for negative externalities will essentially always result in the basic concept of market failure.
Run inaccurate pricing of carbon emissions long enough and something bad is bound to happen. Same ordeal with cattle ranching & agriculture to feed it in the Amazon basin: >20% of the 55-million-year-old Amazon rainforest has been degraded for cattle in the past 55 years, partially because consumers don't pay accurate prices and producers don't pay accurate costs.
The unwillingness to merely partially solve obvious market failures via accurate pricing is a catastrophic hypocrisy in those among us who thump their chests about 'free markets' while conflating the concept with modern capitalism.
> Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value
Value for who? Value as determined by who?
> Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'.
You're commenting on it right now. Rivers here are drying out. Glaciers are melting. Forests are burning. How long do you think we can keep going like this?
> Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet.
You can compare the results of those 126 years right here: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/01/23/learning/GlobalTe...
Regarding your quality of life claim, let me refer back to the burning forests, drying rivers etc. Would you call that an improvement?
Clearly, its not going great. And action is actively being sabotaged by the most capitalist major power: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/climate/trump-climate-int...
So how do we proceed with all this in mind?
How long can we keep optimizing for capital self-reproduction at the expense of the base conditions we survive on? The incentive structure does not allow for making the systemic changes required for continued thriving of humanity. What good is it then? How is it anything but a suicide pact?
>>Value for who? Value as determined by who?
Value for us, real people who have needs. We decide what we want to buy and not some apparatchik on their pedestal.
>>Rivers here are drying out. Glaciers are melting. Forests are burning.
As if this never happened before capitalism?
Who is "us"? Because in capitalism, only people with capital get to decide what has value.
The values of the poor are not reflected. The values of the indigenous are not reflected. The values of the non-capitalist are not reflected. The value of the unborn is not reflected. The value of nature is not reflected.
The glacier doesn't participate in the market and neither does the river. Are they without value?
> As if this never happened before capitalism?
That's correct. Look at the graph I posted above, you'll notice that things weren't always this hot. Before capitalism they sure weren't.
No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most, because the capitalist first and foremost need to provide value to us. I'm not sure what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? Isn't it evident people assign great value to natural resources. The world is a bit older then 120 years in your graph. There were a lot of natural disasters that wiped quite a lot of living beings from the planet.
> No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most
That is just straight up not true. The tribal elder in the Amazon, who's forest capitalists are burning down never got asked how he defines value. The child not yet born was never asked if it's atmosphere should be heated up for data centers. Neither was the fish in the river or the river itself for that matter.
> what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market?
I'm not sure what's unclear. The glacier melts as a result of somebody who's not the glacier deciding "value" on a market. In reality, the market doesn't decide value. Value is not price. The market decides power structures and violence distribution.
> There were a lot of natural disasters
Why are we pivoting to natural disasters now?