People don't like to live in a dirty world. What makes you think there isn't a market for cleaning it?

Yes. People are not equal, naturally.

There is. Recycling is a huge market tbh

plus, theres also the fact that as people become more wealthy, they start worrying more and more about the environment. this would suggest that we should be encouraging capitalism to bring the entire world up to continue making people to become aware of the environment.

There is (probably) a place for everyone, no matter how useless, in a capitalistic society, however.

Which is how I am holding out hope!

people taking the initiative to clean horse shit from the streets is a great example @Fitzydog

and they made money from it

People arepaid for services if they are valued, yes

and cleanliness is valued

Nobody want to live in polution. If you can fix it for a fee, most would want to pay that fee. Some will not but enough will.

The issue is gov is inefficient

although there are places where the garbage piles up like in India, but i dont know enough about their situation to understand why

And tend to have political biases ergo paris accord which would effectively change nothing

But if there's economic growth in the third world, it cannot reach the level of the first world. Even mainstream centrist sources like CNN report this, but de-growth theorists report the same thing.

Environmental climate change has a 99% certainty rate among scientists that it is caused by industrialization.

Communism is a bad system, probably much, much worse than capitalism. However, a sustainable system, one based on worker co-ops, could be much better. I would highly recommend reading Bertrand Russell's Proposed Roads to Freedom. The most beautiful thing about a worker commune, de-growth society, which is based on community co-operation, instead of wage labor and profit, would be that much less work would be required. If you had a society, in which production was meant to sustain, not simply to grow, you wouldn't have so many people with unnecessary jobs, simply producing to earn the right to live.

This could lead to an explosion in creativity, intellectual pursuites, and Einstein on every corner, as they say. The beautiful part about it is, we may not have an option to to turn towards this goal, and achieve it. There are people who can explain why this society, as opposed to the beurocratic state run socialist societies, would lead to a much higher quality of existence, likely much better than I can.

First, disregard CNN

I regard claims on the validity of their arguments, not their sources.

I have yet to see evidence that this claim is untrue.

Syndicalism is just another flavor of communism/socialism. Its just who holds the power

Disregarding sources simply out of political bias is the method of the communist who defends North Korea.

They make horrible arguments

The latest one, gamer culture is a Russian invention, etc.

They are nuts

Also syndicalism, communism and socialism has no use for the arts or innovation. As the arguement goes something like how many farmers will it take to cure cancer. Or some such

I can argue aga8nst that Floki

Cnn is a horrid source because THEY disregard sources due to bias

You need to have biologists and doctors to keep the workforce healthy, and ensure production of food. You cannot avoid that.

there will always be poor countries. that is a feature of any system. even in the US, there are poor people. we can develop these countries, and get them close to our level, and they may even exceed our standard of living. in 1000 years, the Congo could be the most developed nation on earth if they work hard enough.

in regards to the environment again, I do believe that there is a factor it plays in environmental change, however it is not the only factor. climate change and the environment is a very complex issue with many variables in addition to industries. yes, humans do play a role, but how big of a role? how much of a role does the sun play? or volcanoes? or chickens? there are oodles of things that we have to account for to determine what is changing our world.

Also, Ender, I would disagree that people are not naturally equal, given the is/ought divide of Hume. We can say that reason is a slave to the passions. What one prefers, is automatically separate from what something is, simply because that is how it exists. If we are to say that the universe will experience heat death in a few trillion years due to entropy, this is true regardless of if we want it to be true. In the same way, a person's intelligence, or their condition, is only preferable relevant to an individual's emotional preference. That is why I always say that IQ is a meaningless measure of worth, because how a person acts could be preferable, or not preferable.

And no that 99% is a false idea based on the false claim of 80% scientists agree with manmade climate change, the report that lumped near all climate change reports together

If one is to follow a truly objective analysis of human beings, using the logic of Hume, one cannot say that any person is inherently, objectively more valuable than another.

I've written a paper on this recently.

No no 2 people are inherently equal

You have not refuted Hume.

You cannot just state a claim

Okay, preferrable or not preferrable. You would prefer to have the man who has a biology degree making kedication rather than a sociologist. They are not equal in that regard, but both have worth as human beings.

Intelligence caps, behaviour inclinations, physical charactoristics, ect.

Preference is only relative to the individual. There is no inherent, objective morality in nature.

Only way for 2 humans to naturally equal is for us to be cyborgs built exactly the same

You have not refuted Hume.

His basis is that 2 people are born exactly the same.