I don't think it's capitalism, but rather technology, that has changed things so much. And technology is an extension of the growth of human knowledge through science, which ultimately is simply an expression of human intelligence -- this is what intelligence does. Blaming a political or economic philosophy is missing the point.
Furthermore, we really don't have a choice about this. If the knowledge exists to make certain technologies possible, someone will invent it, and they, and their society, will reap the near-term economic benefits of having developed it. If you decide that you're not going to do that because it would (or might) be bad for the world in some way, then the benefits will be someone else's, but the technology will still exist.
I don't think there's an example in history of a society that failed to develop some technology that was possible at the time, and continued to be successful in the long term unless they were simply isolated from the rest of the world -- and eventually that just makes the problem worse, because isolation may last for centuries or millennia but it won't last forever.
Now, of course, as we know now, technology often has nasty side-effects that can cause serious problems in the long term. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Anthropogenic climate change and microplastic pollution are only two examples. The thing is, though, abandoning technology, or refusing to develop it, is not a viable solution. The big problem is that there may not be a viable solution.
Isn't it capitalism the system that let's technology flourish for good or bad. Intelligence (R&D) => technology => capital (funding) & industry (plants, businesses, jobs) =>societal change (use) => increased & more diverse intelligence (R&D) => new or improved technology => societal change => intelligence..... What system does it better?
I don't think the political/economic system matters that much. It's not as if communism or feudalism are anti-technological. Communist countries want new technology too, they're just less efficient about creating it because of crazy levels of government red tape and corruption, and centralized control of funding slows down innovation.
The richer, more free, and more individualistic a society is, the more innovative it is likely to be. I think those factors are more relevant than capitalism.
I don't think it's capitalism, but rather technology, that has changed things so much. And technology is an extension of the growth of human knowledge through science, which ultimately is simply an expression of human intelligence -- this is what intelligence does. Blaming a political or economic philosophy is missing the point.
Furthermore, we really don't have a choice about this. If the knowledge exists to make certain technologies possible, someone will invent it, and they, and their society, will reap the near-term economic benefits of having developed it. If you decide that you're not going to do that because it would (or might) be bad for the world in some way, then the benefits will be someone else's, but the technology will still exist.
I don't think there's an example in history of a society that failed to develop some technology that was possible at the time, and continued to be successful in the long term unless they were simply isolated from the rest of the world -- and eventually that just makes the problem worse, because isolation may last for centuries or millennia but it won't last forever.
Now, of course, as we know now, technology often has nasty side-effects that can cause serious problems in the long term. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Anthropogenic climate change and microplastic pollution are only two examples. The thing is, though, abandoning technology, or refusing to develop it, is not a viable solution. The big problem is that there may not be a viable solution.
Isn't it capitalism the system that let's technology flourish for good or bad. Intelligence (R&D) => technology => capital (funding) & industry (plants, businesses, jobs) =>societal change (use) => increased & more diverse intelligence (R&D) => new or improved technology => societal change => intelligence..... What system does it better?
I don't think the political/economic system matters that much. It's not as if communism or feudalism are anti-technological. Communist countries want new technology too, they're just less efficient about creating it because of crazy levels of government red tape and corruption, and centralized control of funding slows down innovation.
The richer, more free, and more individualistic a society is, the more innovative it is likely to be. I think those factors are more relevant than capitalism.
I used capitalism when I probably should have used capitalistic. And Is couldn't think of a better term