• LemmysMum@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You can continue to exist for eternity without growing.

    Object can, life can’t. Life is the subject matter.

    A stone doesn’t grow, neither does a forest necessarily even though the trees do until they die. So each tree grows but not for eternity, and the forest doesn’t grow but exists (potentially) for eternity.

    Yes.

    Capitalism would want the tree to grow eternity.

    No. Capitalism wants to grow from the limited resources of the tree for eternity.

    Just like cancer wants to grow from the limited resources in your body for eternity.

    Just like life wants to grow from the universes limited resources until eternity.

    All inevitably unsustainable.

    • lugal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just like life wants to grow from the universes limited resources until eternity.

      That’s not the same since life stops growing at some point like I stop trying to explain simple facts to you at this point. I rather read a book than discuss with trolls. But like capitalism, I should have stopped earlier.

      • LemmysMum@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, life stops growing when the resources run out. Just like capitalism, just like cancer.

        The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, second best time is now. Go plant the seeds of a better education. Have a good life.

        • lugal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I say it one more time: capitalist models expect limitless growth. That’s the problem since there is no limitless growth. It is this discrepancy of expectation and reality that makes capitalism so destructive.

            • lugal@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              So you agree that we need an economic and social system that doesn’t? Your pedantry that life isn’t eternal is way beyond the point since for all intents and purposes, it is as good as eternal

              • LemmysMum@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So you agree that we need an economic and social system that doesn’t?

                Yes.

                Your pedantry that life isn’t eternal is way beyond the point since for all intents and purposes, it is as good as eternal

                Holy fucking shit, you got it! You got the point!

                Reductio ad absurdum

                To reduce to absurdity.

                • lugal@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you make fun of the guy changing capitalism to life? Sorry, I misread it.

                  But even then you should read a book. Many people compare capitalism to nature since Darwin and stuff. That’s not reductio ad absurdum but a naturalistic fallacy. That’s why I didn’t get your point.

                  That makes your meme a strawman since you attack something that no one said. The argument is “capitalism is natural” not “all life will end eventually”.

                  • LemmysMum@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    That makes your meme a strawman since you attack something that no one said.

                    Impossible, that’s literally exactly what I did. I edited someone else’s comment in a way that points out the shaky logic it’s built on. There is no way to be any less of a strawman.

                    That’s not reductio ad absurdum but a naturalistic fallacy.

                    No it’s not, go read.

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

                    And stop incorrectly using the word strawman. You made so much progress, don’t regress now that you’ve reached your next misunderstanding.