• irmoz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It doesn’t need to end fucking immediately, because of that very reason.

    Think for just a second, friendo.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Weird that you’d want economic conditions that don’t contribute to new tech rather than economic conditions that do contribute to new tech, then.

      Also I’m not your friend.

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Source? Do people just not go to school or have ambitions to improve the world, simply because their basic needs are met? You think no one dreams of tech in communism? That a social order based on cooperation and mutual aid would not engender exactly that?

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A source on socialism having less incentive to fund new technologies and more barriers in the way of such progress?

          It’s called “economic incentives” and you are more than capable of giving it a Google.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I tried to find a scholarly article titled “economic incentives” that proves that socialism doesn’t heavily invest in technology, but found none. I ended up discovering great leaps in technology in the USSR and China, though.

            Also, those economic incentives are driving climate change. I googled it and found that capitalist states pay fucking billions into fossil fuels.