• infinite_ass@leminal.spaceOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    We’d do a different economy and society then. Not democratic capitalism of course. Something with total centralized control.

    Our present system is vastly inefficient. 99% of our energy is spent in competition and friction. If we got properly organized, supplying the population with everything it needs would be trivial. Doubly so with heavy automation.

    • papalonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think a big flaw in your thinking is that you aren’t considering that we still have all the people currently living to take into consideration. We wouldn’t be instantly reduced to a tiny population that is easy to restructure and organize, there’s still like 8b people on the planet, and none of the ones in charge are going to just say, “oh, well I guess none of this matters anymore, let’s focus on sustainability”.

      It would take a couple years for us to see a significant decrease in population, and all the while, those currently in power would remain in power. We wouldn’t suddenly drop to a few thousand like minded individuals, all ready to work together to rebuild. We’d be a declining population that is scared and clueless how to save itself, making mistake after mistake.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I agree with your point of inefficiency, but your estimation is way off. You are very lucky if you can triple efficiency with centralized control.

      A 95% loss in workforce would catapult us back to the stone age where 50% of the population has the sole purpose of generating food.