"Why aren't we funding this?"

Jan 27, 2026 11:01 PM

I don't care if it's communism, capitalism, socialism, or dudeism. We aren't even talking about which one best gets us to a Star-Trek utopia.

That utopia doesn't even appear to be on the table for discussion.

Fuck fighting for healthcare or SNAP. Fuck incrementalism.

The conversation of ANY political proposition should be "Does this get us closer to a state where ALL needs are met?"

Idealistic rant over.

Remember, Musk asked for a bill estimate to end world hunger, and again to fix Flint, MI water.
Once he was shown the bill/amount, he just fucked off.
This is all juat publicity to these fucks.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Unfortunately our political system isn't incentivized for long term planning or cooperation. Whether you're talking about the corporate donors or the average voter, the only thing on their mind is "okay, but what will you do for me, specifically, now?" No thought to society as a whole. No thought for general well-being. No thought for any period of time beyond the next election cycle.
And there are so many old coots that are so good at talking in that game that they don't even have to deliver. >

6 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

> Even our scant handful of progressive politicians are so busy screaming about all of the fires everyone else is refusing to put out that they can't focus on the most basic of advocacy for a properly helpful society.
There's so much perverse incentive that we're still fighting healthcare reform - let alone any tier of state sponsored health system!
"How does this get us close to Star Trek?" isn't even just not asked, it's barely allowed near the building.
It's all just grift...

6 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Too lazy to find it, but Elon once said that if someone could provide a full plan for how to end world hunger for 6 billion dollars then he would fund it. The WPF provided a detailed, transparent plan for how 6 billion could save 42 million people who would otherwise starve, specifically to Elon. He never replied, and instead "donated" ~6 billion to his own company.

6 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I think it was 6 billion to feed the world for a year. Then Elon turned around and spent 44 billion on Twitter instead. If 6 billionaires spent 1 billion each a year bam everyone in the world fed for the whole year. Hell, 12 billionaires spending half a billion. World hunger doesn't need to exist. No one needs to go hungry or starve.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yup, I had the same thought. There's enough money and science to fix the world 1000x over.

6 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Unfortunately your not thinking of those poor billionaires. How will they make passive income if they don't exploit the masses... Won't some one please think of the share holders...

6 months ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

If the US wants to do something about it, overturning this 1919 case would be a start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The wealthy are driving this boat. If they should ever start giving a shit then it would happen in short order. They won't. So here we are.

6 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

And all they care about is more wealth. For themselves. So how do we change that part of the equation?

6 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

With the power of the vote. General strikes if necessary. If we elect better people and keep them honest, then they can pass good laws to get money out of government. We have done it in the past. Unfortunately, when we do good things we tend to forget about them and let evil people undo them over time.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I disagree, voting isn't going to get us there - it's how we ended up as bad as things are.
We need to do a general strike. But the way things are right now, that's impossible for most Americans. What we're lacking in this country is community; nobody knows their neighbors. We need to connect with each other - and then find ways to help each other out. If we, collectively, can feed our communities for weeks at a time, our cash can go to other purposes; that alone will have a big impact

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The politicians are all consumed with CAPITALISM.

And the kind where THE WEALTHY WIN, and the LOSERS are OPPRESSED... financially, politically, emotionally, physically, or a combination of all four.

6 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

What’s going on right now is a choice. We aren’t angry enough.

6 months ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

The moment to seize what our world could be is now. Either we decide or the super rich pretending to be Pharaohs will decide for us. Harness your inner Mr Rogers

6 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Many humans want, *WANT!*, a hierarchy amongst everyone. They like feeling superior to otgers, and knowing who they are subservient to and must follow (and picking there team based on this). Post-scarcity eliminates this in many ways, while extreme capitalism creates this inherently.

6 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

It's an engineered failure of imagination. "Imagination" sounds like this silly little thing we hope kids have, but it's fundamental to creating a better future and our whole system is trying ot make sure we aren't able to imagine anything better.

6 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

A post scarcity society puts the lie to the Protestant work ethic.

For them, seeing someone survive without having to struggle for it would be worse than seeing them starve to death

6 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

man
this
most long term politicians were there before home computers
they can't run windows and their hardware is no longer produced.
their legacy will he holding back Progress for All in the name of money.

6 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

We are a capitalist society. It's about what I can get, not what WE can get. The irony is that it's Christians who drive it, and they don't even follow their own tenets.

6 months ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 2

That's not true at all. The word you are looking for is "neoliberal". Not "capitalist". Capitalism is not an issue IF a society is run by good morals and good values. The problem is the values promoted by neoliberalism. Look up a video by Richard J Murphy on Youtube about Mark Carney's speech and neoliberalism.

6 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Oh muslims are going full capitalist as well

6 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That's because Dominionists who want to imminentize the eschaton took over. Can't have jesus come back without an apocalypse.

6 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This is the loving understanding spiritual approach for all mankind. That's why they can not fathom it.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It boggles my mind that billion-dollar profit companies (e.g. petroleum industry) get any sort of subsidies, let alone billions in subsidies. They are dead-men standing as oil reserves dwindle, so it's time to start fading them out before the time crunch.
Cut off their funding and tax breaks.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I realize this would impact their investors & stock markets. Yep, fade them out too. It's time for it to evolve.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

When you really break it down, the idea of scarcity is, like, 99% of what makes up “profit”.

6 months ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 3

but our dividends! /s

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How else are Billionaire's supposed to show that they're better than their micro-peen?

6 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Quite literally, yes. My favorite definition of economics is "the study of the allocation of scarce resources", but it comes with the caveat that things like time and attention are ALSO scarce resources, and how people choose to allocate those follow the same rules as what people would traditionally think of as "the economy" (i.e. buying and selling stuff).

6 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

While billionaires greed is evil and needs to be destroyed, a post scarcity society is effectively impossible. Unless you have a time machine, time is still a scarce resource that we need to allocate.

6 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

1/2) And, unfortunately, the world is run by people with the intellect and emotional intelligence of fucking chimps. Chimps who want—

6 months ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 1

Humans are just apes. That's all they've ever been.

6 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2/2) —nothing more than to see their number go up and be the biggest number of all the numbers.

6 months ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

I’m with you 100%. I’m just as stymied as you are. We have the technology to live in a utopia-like society. (Acknowledging the fact that we will still have problems, just different problems than malnutrition, lack of adequate housing, etc.) Greed, people’s feelings of insecurity (bright on by our advertising culture)(which includes racism misogyny homophobia), and projected self-hatred are really holding us back.

6 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It's on mine. We have enough of every *thing* for every *body* and distribution is a solvable problem. The fact that people still starve and die because feeding them isn't good for next quarters bottom line is an actual sin.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Fully Automated Intersectional Luxury Space Communism!!!

6 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

FAILSC?

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We’re very close to the Bell riots in the Star Trek timeline.

6 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Remember always: politicians are there to make money to themselves, not to others. They do not care about making people be better, they only care about themselves. they are 100% self centered. They are not there to make things right. We should ditch all these political shit and form somethin like good guys utopia. We could make it happen with ease if we could stop killing each other in name of religion or some old fucking dickhead.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ah man, i have said this so many times in the last year at least, it's so depressing that we could, but like 27 rich guys just refuse to let it happen

6 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

You have to completely give in to our overlords then they’ll create this utopia for you

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sorry to say but it really looks like we are in a pre-scarcity society... That's the real issue...

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Kind in mind that it took WWIII and the near annihilation of humanity for Star Trek to emerge as a utopia. We are on track for that annihilation, maybe even ahead of schedule...

6 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Can't happen for as long as money buys power and influence without limit or repercussion. In other words, untill we dismantle the stock market and execute all billionaires.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This post needs more comments. I have totally thought this for years. We absolutely have the means to do this if were it not for greed. We could all be growing food, then exchanging that food to other places in exchange for resources...crap. Well I really do believe its possible, but we would still have money and an economy and people who take advantage of that system.

6 months ago | Likes 152 Dislikes 1

That's socialism and the politicians call it evil because the rich will never be satisfied.

6 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

I don't think reducing or focussing on individual greed is helpful. The problem is a society that facilitates greed instead of mutual help.

6 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Its simple, things are good for people with the power to make those changes. You dont make changes when things are good for you, you make changes when its bad.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where's the money in it/what's in it for ME.

6 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Iirc we've mathematically been able to do this since 2017 (memory fuzzy, but mid 2010s)

6 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Greed fuels capitalism. The premise? THE STRONG SURVIVE and the WEAK are either shuttered or acquired. WINNER TAKE ALL.

Yeah, that sounds fine when the playing field is mostly level. But now? It's NOT. It's lopsided so much, where less than 1% of the population owns more than 50% of everything.

Capitalism can be fruitful at the start, but poorly regulated and it excites the most unscrupulous instincts. People lose empathy and in turn develop insatiable greed.

6 months ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 2

The playing field is never level outside of theories.

6 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

That's why I said "mostly level" as it's never truly level. There's always an imbalance. But it's about degree. And right now, it's like so slanted that it's hard to stand up straight.

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Here’s also the thing: you would cement yourself in history as the people who pretty much eliminated poverty in America.

6 months ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Why not end world hunger altogether?

6 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

One step at a time. We gotta play off their selfish egos.

6 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fuck billionaire greed. But a post scarcity society is effectively impossible without time travel. Time is still a scarce resource. The Enterprise, the closest scarcity free society we've seen (star Trek) still can't be in two places at once, or run multiple warp core experiments at once. Scarcity is still a limit of society. Our current answer sucks, but it's still a question that needs answering

6 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We very much do not have the knowledge and technology to have a post scarcity society, but it could certainly all be a distributed a lot fucking fairer than it is

6 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

We actually do, but like you said, distribution is a key issue. Do we have replicators? No. But we produce significantly more food than is required, we generally have more housing than is required, we have the ability to educate everyone, and so on. Arguing we don't is like arguing universal healthcare would be too expensive based off of the current price of insurance. You're assuming that things cost as much as the profit margin.

6 months ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

The question is what is the best system for distribution of those needs. We can do it. We literally can. But it's not even on the table.

6 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

We do not. Food production is only a part of this problem. I'm not assuming anything about cost, but distribution, refrigeration, medicine, energy production, transportation; these all have issues of relative scarcity

6 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Before Elon bought Twitter for 44 billion he was told it only takes $6 billion a year to feed the world. It doesn't all have to come from him. Just get 6 billionaires to do 1 tops a year, that's easy.

6 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

They /currently/ do, you're correct. Notice I said "Create", meaning we KNOW how to rectify all of those issues, and correct the scarcity issue related to them. Notice I didn't say "We currently have post-scarcity, we're just not allowed to touch it."

6 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I'm not sure what you're saying here but let me use a recent example of something newly created we wanted the whole world to get: COVID vaccines. Even without getting into antivaxxer nonsense, which was a big problem, there were huge challenges manufacturing enough and distributing enough even disregarding cost issues. That's not post scarcity. But your larger point stands

6 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

... you don't seem to be getting I'm not saying we currently have post-scarcity. I'm saying we have the know-how to achieve it. With the covid vaccine, at the beginning, sure, it was scarce at the moment we first developed it, before we created methods to distributed. However, we had the knowhow to actually /get/ to that point. Post-scarcity doesn't mean that no problems will ever occur.

6 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2