this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
1550 points (96.3% liked)
memes
10261 readers
3230 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What’s the other option?
We just need to have some bell riots and WW3 and then bam star trek
Don't forget to add a little bit of post-atomic horror!
Are you telling me you can't even imagine a better world?
It's easy if you try.
Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too
Can you simply imagine things into existence?
You can act them into existence, but you'll never even start if you can't imagine anything better, even if that's just "we should improve society somewhat."
Not a dystopian nightmare?
Your nightmare is someone else's dream.
My nightmare is a libertarian's wet dream?
No idea. Never met a libertarian.
No realistic society can satisfy everyone, because when it comes to individual desires, "we the people" falls apart.
How about a society that isn't predicated on the exploitation of others?
Some societies are objectively more pleasant to humans than others, otherwise we wouldn't strive at all
Any society needs resources. In order for a society to grow or maintain itself, their consumption of resources must not exceed the production of it. Should we pursue a society that doesn't depend on the heavy exploitation of resources, it would mean to severely limit the reproduction of its population within the society's means of sustaining them. Our planet does not have the capability to sustain our current 8 billion population.
Many of us will die and after that many would be restricted in their rights for procreation.
As such, while those societies might be pleasant for some humans, the ones it needs to get rid of to achieve its desired status won't be too happy with it needing them gone.
I think it's doable. Sure we won't have so much cheap crap in the north, but no one needs to starve.
It might be. Depends on the people really. Hopefully there will be a good example to follow.
People all over the world have agency.
Moving on from class society