All you've explained is the fact that in certain exchanges in the marketplace the cost/benefits of the exchange are not always internalized by the participating individuals in that interaction. In the case of pollution someone else is voluntarily selling their car to someone who is voluntarily buying it for a set amount of money they agreed upon, leaving each respective party better off. This is what economists call negative externalities and even many of not most pro-capitalist economists concede that sometimes a decent way of managing these things are through government regulation, cap and trade in the case of pollution, or increased private property rights. Fundamentally the problem in this situation is that the individual behavior by the two transacting individuals, while typically in voluntary interactions leads to better outcomes for the group as they take upon the costs of the exchange, in this extreme case externalize these costs to others who did not consent to those costs being imposed upon them. At its core, it is a problem of the tragedy of the commons, where individual rationality does not lead to group rationality, and people use up resources from the whole group inefficiently and leave less for others. The tragedy of the commons is incidentally one of a strongest arguments against socialism.
I have found ur channel by coincidence .. and I really like ur content .. I agree with most of ur points of view .. I had this feeling of wishing to meet u in person to just say absolutely nothing and enjoy the silence with a like minded human being .. 🌹
Sustainability and renewable energy sources, co2 emissions and the environment is an issue not just for capitalist, but socialist countries as well - just to a different degree. The main solution to is likely to come from technology - in other words, technological innovation - the very kind of thing which Capitalism is good for. As for social hierarchy - there's two clear defenses of Capitalism - the first is that leadership is likely to be preferable to no leadership in the sense that making decisions requires someone to be in charge - this is easier with one or a smaller group of people than it is with 100+ workers all arguing amongst themselves over what they think is best. You need the most qualified people to be making the decisions - such decisions are not always going to be the most popular. Secondly, the typical proposed alternative to Modern Capitalism - worker co ops - immediately faces the problem of Who owns what? What reason would an investor choose to invest - if they could even do such a thing at all? And of course, are we meant to believe that all projects would be collaborative? What if one person comes up with an idea to start a business and carries out this idea - should they NOT be expected to earn more - after having invested so much money, as well their energy and their time? Should such a person reasonably be expected to say "Ah hang on now, Susan who come into the business 6 months later and has a different direction she wants us to go in... I should go 50-50 with her."?
Does TMT tie in with our seeming inability to make the sort of collective short-term changes and reductions in wealth and consumption needed for long-term sustainability?
Kropotkin2000 yes, there are studies showing a relationship between death anxiety and materialism. Also, since self-esteem is the fundamental death anxiety barrier, if more money contributes to more self-esteem, then people are reluctant to give it up. Even if it means destroying the ecosystem.
Can you then make an argument that population increase in poor countries along with population decrease in richer countries produces a better balance when considering carbon footprint, than for instance population increase in richer countries and decrease in poorer countries? Assuming the population growth model presented by Hans Rosling.
The global footprint network has calculations of that type, where they measure footprint in relation to resources and impact in the immediate environment. Large poor populations may become wealthier, generating enormous footprint. Thus it's better to reduce population everywhere. Just as it is better to reduce concentrations of wealth.
