Economic growth makes us all better,

No. Economic growth under capitalism is the problem. Capitalism requires infinite growth on a finite planet, and this is what got us here in the first place. So this is not a sustainable economic system.

The answers are out there, but one problem is that we - the people - expect that those in power will implement them, and they don’t.

So, we need imaginative solutions, in order for these fixes to be implemented.

I could say, I do share your anxiety about what will happen in the near future. Still, personally, I don’t like doomerism because imo it restricts our collective imagination towards solutions.

Apart from that, lets keep in mind that this is an article about amphibians specifically, not about saving the planet or humans in general.

I would like to explain my downvote.

This quote is part of a stand up comedy by George Carlin that was performed many decades ago. When I saw it on yt I really liked it.

This quote here, out of context is pure doomerism.

Thank you, I can’t stop laughing!!!

If I understand you correctly in the part you talk about labor, robotics and AI, it reminds me of what was said by capitalists when automations started being employed in factories, meaning many, many decades ago.

At the time the capitalist narrative was saying to workers stuff like “we know you work hard, but thanks to the technological advancements in automations your children will work less and have a better life”. We very well know this never happened, only the rich got richer, to the detriment of everybody else and the planet as a whole.

So, allow me to say, this approach is not new.

I was wondering if anyone here has read it as well. And what your take is.

Personally, I will not read it because:

Meet the authors

James Arbib is a technology investor and the founder of Tellus Mater, an independent philanthropic foundation dedicated to exploring the impacts of disruptive technology and its potential for solving some of the world’s most challenging problems.

Tony Seba is a world-renowned thought leader, author, speaker, educator, investor and Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

In relation to the content of the book, I wouldn’t be too surprised if these two capitalists suggest misleading technological “solutions” to a problem that is not technological in nature, but systemic. Meaning, the problem is the eternal growth of the capitalist system on a finite planet, and there is no techno-fix for that. Also, I’m pretty sure they are making baseless claims about humans and human societies to back their proposals.

Anyways, now that I said all that, may I suggest another reading? Totally free and priceless :)

What is Solarpunk?

Let’s not forget an important factor: within the span of 30 years.

I spent too many hours yesterday trying to find the relevant info without taking this into consideration.

I like better your take than the one in the video.

I totally tried and then decided to ask here.

The closest thing I managed to find was saying that 16.3% of adults worldwide have wealth of 100k to 1m, in 2023 [source: Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS, see The global wealth pyramid at p23] but this is not what the article says.

Somebody suggested the World Inequality Database but on this topic, the results come by country and/or stats.

Thank you very much but it looks like they don’t have what I am looking for. I followed several path in More Indicators and Other Indicators but everything that comes out is by country and/or percentages and at my most hopeful moment I got:

This indicator has no data for this selection. Please select another one.

Anyways, thanks again!

I know that in the article they mentions €42,980 and I appreciate carbon brief. Still, I tried to find in the study itself how they calculated it, but somehow I didn’t manage to. This is why I asked for another link.

Do you have a decent link to corroborate that?

Do you have any decent link that supports this?

I didn’t manage to spot in the study itself, how they calculate this number. If anyone has, please share this part.

I don’t think so. I have the impression that the introduction part was talking in general, mainly because it says The amount varies by location and local wage trends, and then it talks about the US, specifically.

Appart from that, in page 23 of the Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS in The global weath pyramyd 2023 it also says saomething similar, that 16.3% of adults have wealth in USD of 100k to 1m.

Did I get something wrong?

Edit: At the bottom of the investopedia article, they have the sources and since they only have references about the US, I believe I can safely say that I my assumption that the intro was talking about the entire world was wrong.

deleted by creator

The calculations in the site you linked is more of a creative accounting approach for feel good purposes. Nothing serious there imo.

Partially, I agree your conclusion, but I believe some clarifications could help on the math part, because minimum wage will never put you in the top 10% of world income.

From investopedia 2024:

How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

Individuals in the top 10% earn at least six figures annually. In some areas, those in the top 1% must make over $1 million per year, while in others, the threshold is lower.

I found the title of the vid to be quite clever, and was expecting its content to be somehow specific. For me, it wasn’t specific at all. It was one more theoretical video. Don’t get me wrong, lovely content, but definitely not practical as I would expect from its title.

Probably, I say this because I really like anarchosyndicalism’s concrete decentralised planning from small to large scale. Even tho I believe the opportunity that this model had died many decades ago, while it took it many decades to have its moment in time. Still, I consider it to be a more viable solution compared to what is theorised in this video. And I will say this again, I tend to agree with the concepts presented here.

(I didn’t mention anything about the Rojava model, which I find great, because I don’t want to get into a debate about voting in a direct democracy)

I understand and I appreciate your effort to start a discourse on topics that preoccupy so many people, me included.

Still, I am quite confused by your take, because on one hand it is too vague. On the other hand it lacks any historicity or actual context (I understand this through your use of terms like: collective, democracy, capitalism, communism etc).

So I would invite you to take a look at some resources you can find in this community’s About section. Perhaps, anarchism and social ecology, would be great starting points, but there are plenty of links, so you can just choose where you would like to start from.

Some more links you might find interesting come from the instance itself and are on the main page:

• What is Solarpunk?

• A Solarpunk Manifesto

And I totally hope you enjoy!