Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

12 comments

  • Those things will destroy none of those, though.

    • The oil industry will still be needed for lubrication and synthetics.
    • The insurance industry, well, for insuring everything beyond.
    • The weapon industry, because, as russia taught us again, if a nation gives up too many of their weapons (like Ukraine gave up their nukes for security assurances by russia, for example), neighbouring nations may attack them.
      1. Both can be done more sustainably
      2. Insurance is only needed under a capitalist society where healthcare is not considered a basic human right
      3. There is a difference between producing weapons for defense and producing weapons for profit

      • Concerning insurance, it is my opinion that any system that conceives of insurance as a solution to societal ills is a bad system. The existence of insurance actually increases inequity. (I'm agreeing with you, but this has been on my mind a lot lately since the events in NYC.)

      • The difficulty with 3 is that to some extent you have to maintain constant production of weapons and munitions. Failing to do so means in the event of conflict there will be a serious lag between the need for more weapons and munitions and their availability. Retooling and re-training producers takes time.

        Balancing that is walking a knifes edge no matter how you slice it. Ideally weapons would never be needed, but when they are it's uncertain how many will be needed, what type, etc...

        Regardless of underlying economic system the production lines need to be ready to go but not take up to many resources. It's to an extent inevitable to overproduce during peaceful times.

        • Yes but theres a fine line between producing weapons for defense and mass producing weapons for foreign dictatorships to fuel their genocides

12 comments