How is capitalism literally 'genocidal' at this point?

[RadioRaheem84]

I started a thread in the science forum asking about how capitalism at this stage is not a progressive force anymore. In this thread I want to ask just how capitalism has become an overall bulwark against human progress? Lowtech explained it in such a clean way before that requires another glance. I hope he joins the discussion. I need to know so I can write a blog piece down.

Any thoughts?

[Let's Get Free]

I, for one, deny that capitalism was ever a progressive force. Capitalism was born parasitic, in disrepute, of the rapes, massacres, occupations, genocides, colonialism and every despicable act humans are capable of inflicting on others.
Capitalism was not responsible for some great, otherwise unimaginable leap in production, which—despite its contradictions—resulted in progress and enlightenment.
What capitalism did was to rip the vast majority of humanity out of the productive process—in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Australia and what has come to be known as the Americas.

Certainly, capitalism was not progressive for the Awaraks, Apaches, Comanches and all other Indigenous peoples that Europeans massacred in the Americas.

It was not progressive at the Berlin Conference, which divided up Africa for the benefit of Europe.

It was not progressive when Leopold II, the Belgian King, murdered millions of Africans in the Congo.

[RadioRaheem84]

But in that uprooting also came about advances which crushed tribal or feudal traditions, no?

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'd say it fails to be progressive in today's society since domestic resources seem to be more and more exhausted. Capitalists are forced to move jobs overseas through imperialist invasions. We see this by many countries, not just the US. Of course people are forced to work for essentially nothing so starve, hence a genocide. Plus there's those killed while resisting imperialism.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Capitalism ≠ Imperialism

Capitalism = Progressive

Monopoly Capitalism = Reactionary

[LOLseph Stalin]

Capitalism ≠ Imperialism

Capitalism = Progressive

Monopoly Capitalism = Reactionary

Imperialism is a capitalistic tool though.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Capitalism ≠ Imperialism

Capitalism = Progressive

Monopoly Capitalism = Reactionary

Since capitalism or "free enterprise" leads to monopoly and imperialism is really just a consequence of monopoly capital seeking new revenues for profit, I think these distinctions are kind of arbitrary.

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism was progressive - historically progressive that is, which doesn't mean the same thing as personally pleasant - when it was revolutionising feudal society. But just as feudal society produced a bourgeoisie that instituted a new society, capitalist society has produced a proletariat that will institute a new society.

Marx argued (and I'm not just saying 'Marx said it so it must be true', but I do believe that this is true) that economic systems go through revolutionary and reactionary phases - there comes a time when the economic system, though once it was progressive, becomes a barrier to further progress.

"...At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution..." (1859 Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)

I'd argue that this has happened for capitalism, that it has (long since) become a barrier to further human progress, that capitalism is long since obsolete, decadent, reactionary etc - there is no more feudalism left to vanquish (in those places where there are feudal survivals they have long since made peace with the bourgeoisie), the world market has been established, capitalist relations cover the globe and have done for a century or more (and in this situation 'imperialism' isn't a policy it's an inescapable dynamic).

[tuwix]

I started a thread in the science forum asking about how capitalism at this stage is not a progressive force anymore. In this thread I want to ask just how capitalism has become an overall bulwark against human progress? Lowtech explained it in such a clean way before that requires another glance. I hope he joins the discussion. I need to know so I can write a blog piece down.

Any thoughts?

Famine in capitalism is just the best example of genocide.

[zoot_allures]

But in that uprooting also came about advances which crushed tribal or feudal traditions, no?
Which is perhaps like arguing that witch-burning brought about advances by destroying whatever contagious diseases the victims happened to be carrying.

[Thug Lessons]

I don't know that Marx ever used the term "progressive" to describe capitalism, but in the Communist Manifesto he explicitly described its historical role as "revolutionary". That's because he lived in an age of bourgeois revolutions that were in the process of destroying the old feudal order of Crown and Church and replacing it with a new order with the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity, not to mention implementing an incredible new economic system that provided unprecedented levels of productivity and wealth, (however unequally distributed). This is what Marx meant when he described capitalism as revolutionary, not just some abstract notion of human progress, but radical and abrupt transitions (for the better) from structures that had stood for centuries.

So is this revolution continuing? Well, on the political front, there's at least some progress, (I'd say Egypt is better off without Mubarak despite all its problems), but to a large extent it's stagnated. The old feudal order is dead and gone, and at the very best the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity is expanding at a snail's pace, while more realistically we're probably backsliding. Economically, 'growth' continues, but capitalism has to a large extent become the status quo. There's no longer an economic revolution going on, simply a consolidation of a dominant but aging system. You can see this in the rhetoric of bourgeois politicians - it's always about protecting (or at best expanding) the middle class, keeping what we have, never a promise of a new age of prosperity (at least outside of China). The revolutionary age of capitalism is long over, and if peak oil, climate change and the declining rate of profit prove to be as disastrous as advertised we're actually witnessing its decline.

Of course, the responsibility falls to the left if they want to convince anybody that they have a better alternative.

[RadioRaheem84]

But how can we be so sure that the next stage didn't already happen in the revolutions of the early twentieth century; russia, albania, yugoslavia, cuba, china, etc?

If we saw the rapid revolutionary nature of the liberal revolutions ushering in liberty and capitalism, how do we know that what was experienced next in the Russian Revolution and then the USSR wasn't just the same result? Another next step phase than ended up being regressive in the end? How can we say that that wasn't what socialism would look like given the social and material conditions they faced?

[Kindness]

But how can we be so sure that the next stage didn't already happen in the revolutions of the early twentieth century; russia, albania, yugoslavia, cuba, china, etc?

If we saw the rapid revolutionary nature of the liberal revolutions ushering in liberty and capitalism, how do we know that what was experienced next in the Russian Revolution and then the USSR wasn't just the same result? Another next step phase than ended up being regressive in the end? How can we say that that wasn't what socialism would look like given the social and material conditions they faced?

I believe the Russian Revolution was different simply because its stated goal was socialism, while the same couldn't be said for the other revolution.

[MarxArchist]

Marx called capitalism progressive because of its ability to industrialize and fight superstition via Enlightenment Values whilst also bringing bourgeois democracy to otherwise backwards regions.

Economically it's still struggling to remain progressive. Most of us think capitalism is in decay and the various governments/banks are acting as doctors on an operating table applying defibrillators where needed. I don't see much else they can do to save capitalism besides 'creative destruction' (mostly war) but at this point it would be eating itself. We're in a phase of "zombie capitalism" or "cannibal capitalism". Western nations are mostly distribution/consumption centers (service sector) and Asian, South American and African nations are sources of production and resources. As workers in the "superexploited" nations organize and begin to win demands the rate of profit will fall even further in western nations and capitalists will not be able to do much other than attempt to impose or re-impose even more harsher work place conditions both globally and domestically. Austerity is already happening now but not to the point, at least in America, that will spark a revolution.

Basically I don't think capitalism is progressive unless a person wants to frame the "westernization" of the middle east as a progressive thing. Economically it's on the operating table. if people think it can go on forever I'd like to hear some theories on how that could be achieved by capitalists (while still providing some level of livable conditions and I know, it's not doing so now for multitudes of millions of people, me included).

Human progress needs to be defined. I mean, capitalism could morph into fascism and one could argue, if say, the fascistic world put a human colony on Mars that would be human progress but....err. At this point I think capitalism is being used, to an extent, to curb global population in certain regions and it's also at the point where technological/medical/social progress is hampered or distorted by profit. I think capitalism has served it's purpose. Environmentally and socially it's now a backwards system and economically it's running out of places to devour (sources of new profit).

[RadioRaheem84]

I believe the Russian Revolution was different simply because its stated goal was socialism, while the same couldn't be said for the other revolution.

OK but the material conditions that the USSR dealt with and the subsequent state socialism?

[RedMaterialist]

It was not progressive when Leopold II, the Belgian King, murdered millions of Africans in the Congo.

Marx was aware of the incredible brutality of capitalist development, yet he still described it as revolutionary:

"The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?"

[RadioRaheem84]

Marx was aware of the incredible brutality of capitalist development, yet he still described it as revolutionary:

"The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?"

Side topic; Isn't Marx's prose elegant? How he can make a critique of capitalism read like literature is amazing.

[Blake's Baby]

But how can we be so sure that the next stage didn't already happen in the revolutions of the early twentieth century; russia, albania, yugoslavia, cuba, china, etc?

If we saw the rapid revolutionary nature of the liberal revolutions ushering in liberty and capitalism, how do we know that what was experienced next in the Russian Revolution and then the USSR wasn't just the same result? Another next step phase than ended up being regressive in the end? How can we say that that wasn't what socialism would look like given the social and material conditions they faced?

I don't understand the question.

What was 'progressive' about capitalism was that it overturned feudal relations. Capitalist relations haven't been overturned, therefore there was no revolution. An attempt maybe, but no revolution. So, we can't even begin to speculate as to what socialism 'would look like' in the end, any more than you could extrapolate the modern capitalist state from the Peasant War in 16th-century Germany or the Peasant's Revolt in 14th-century England (failed attempts to resist the degredation of the system that in some aspects pointed the way forward).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Capitalism was progressive - historically progressive that is, which doesn't mean the same thing as personally pleasant - when it was revolutionising feudal society. But just as feudal society produced a bourgeoisie that instituted a new society, capitalist society has produced a proletariat that will institute a new society.

Marx argued (and I'm not just saying 'Marx said it so it must be true', but I do believe that this is true) that economic systems go through revolutionary and reactionary phases - there comes a time when the economic system, though once it was progressive, becomes a barrier to further progress.

"...At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution..." (1859 Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)

I'd argue that this has happened for capitalism, that it has (long since) become a barrier to further human progress, that capitalism is long since obsolete, decadent, reactionary etc - there is no more feudalism left to vanquish (in those places where there are feudal survivals they have long since made peace with the bourgeoisie), the world market has been established, capitalist relations cover the globe and have done for a century or more (and in this situation 'imperialism' isn't a policy it's an inescapable dynamic).

Very well put and I think that Marx quote gets at the question perfectly. Capitalism was historically progressive while it was reorganizing and "rationalizing" production - this is progressive in the sense that it freed people from scraping by on the land, however the "relations of production" mean that even though now we can produce enough food and free large percentages of people to do other kinds of labor, the potential unleashed by this change is restricted by that same system of capitalism and the need of the elietes to make sure that we are now tied to wage-labor rather than the land.

Also, to second what others have said, this "historical progressiveness" doesn't mean "progress" in the way we might think of it today, maybe "historical advance" might be clearer. Capitalism is historically progressive at the same time as it "came into the world dripping with blood" of the Americas and Africa and Asia, the uprooting of European peasants, forced labor for the poor of Europe and for captured Africans and Asians.

[Libertarian101]

I, for one, deny that capitalism was ever a progressive force. Capitalism was born parasitic, in disrepute, of the rapes, massacres, occupations, genocides, colonialism and every despicable act humans are capable of inflicting on others.
Capitalism was not responsible for some great, otherwise unimaginable leap in production, which—despite its contradictions—resulted in progress and enlightenment.
What capitalism did was to rip the vast majority of humanity out of the productive process—in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Australia and what has come to be known as the Americas.

Certainly, capitalism was not progressive for the Awaraks, Apaches, Comanches and all other Indigenous peoples that Europeans massacred in the Americas.

It was not progressive at the Berlin Conference, which divided up Africa for the benefit of Europe.

It was not progressive when Leopold II, the Belgian King, murdered millions of Africans in the Congo.




Look, i understand the frustration with the capitalist system, but one must understand that just as communism has dlikely never been implemented properly- or in the way many of you would like to see it implemented- the same thing applies for capitalism. As someone who is fiscally conservative (but extremely socially liberal, or left) it pains me to see the version of capitalism that is plaguing the united states-- the CRONY capitalism, where, government and business are not mutually exclusive and may as well join and all be referred to by the same name because the revolving door is revolving ever-so-much.

The capitalism that I like is one that does not lead way to imperialism, I think we can all agree on that. The capitalistic, imperialistic forces that Che Guevara spoke about at the UN following the revolution are forces any true capitalist would disagree with. Someone who agrees with that is not a capitalist, but a sadist. I just wished people would stop judging the idea based on its mutated, twisted form upon implementation and start judging it based on its true potential and ideas. Many of you guys would say the EXACT same thing in regards to how people demonize communism. Though I do not believe in communism, I DO believe that its implementations and attempts have not been true to what many people believe communism to be.......

[Libertarian101]

Capitalism was progressive - historically progressive that is, which doesn't mean the same thing as personally pleasant - when it was revolutionising feudal society. But just as feudal society produced a bourgeoisie that instituted a new society, capitalist society has produced a proletariat that will institute a new society.

Marx argued (and I'm not just saying 'Marx said it so it must be true', but I do believe that this is true) that economic systems go through revolutionary and reactionary phases - there comes a time when the economic system, though once it was progressive, becomes a barrier to further progress.

"...At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution..." (1859 Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)

I'd argue that this has happened for capitalism, that it has (long since) become a barrier to further human progress, that capitalism is long since obsolete, decadent, reactionary etc - there is no more feudalism left to vanquish (in those places where there are feudal survivals they have long since made peace with the bourgeoisie), the world market has been established, capitalist relations cover the globe and have done for a century or more (and in this situation 'imperialism' isn't a policy it's an inescapable dynamic).


Perhaps what has turned INTO capitalism has become a "barrier to further progress". I, a capitalist,- as I have said in my last post- acknowledge to the most extreme extent that what capitalism has turned into is evil. The cronies are uncontainable at the moment because government benefits too much. the problem with capitalism is that when government gets to big, the chances of cronyism within government gets higher, and, thus, the chances of business cronies taking advantage of this gets higher as well. However, I would argue for a libertarian-sized government, along with, most importantly, ACCOUNTABILITY. The capitalist system can only work if the citizens hold officials accountable. Bill Clinton, Nixon, Kennedy, Obama- they should all have been impeached! Why, must might ask. One may say what they did wasnt that bad, and that may be true. the point is that no matter how big or small, if they know they will be scrutinized for conscious slip-ups, the slip-ups will become less frequent and will eventually be eradicated. this is the problem with capitalism and this is why it has BECOME a barrier to further progress.. but i do not think this HAS to be its fate. social and fiscal reform is necessary.

[Blake's Baby]

'Crony' capitalism is the inevitable result of 'non-crony' capitalism.

Capitalism at its basis is characterised by the generalisation of two things:
1 - wage labour: 'work' is extracted from the working class through the use of wage labour, that is, paying people for their labour less than the value of that work (so, it is an exploitative sytem);
2 - commodity production: social goods are produced in order to raise profit not to fulfill real needs (so it is an inefficient system).

Once you have those the form that the state takes (interventionist or more laissez-faire) is pretty much just a matter of policy, it's not systemic at all.

[jackcallidus]

In addressing the O.P., I would say that all economic models, not just capitalism, but all economic models that are "productive" and "coercive" in nature, as being genocidal. It would be anthropocentric and egotistical to think that the conversion of the living into the dead for the purposes of generating and sustaining wealth, prosperity, and control is anything but genocidal. But that is more of a general answer.

Specifically speaking, capitalists cut trees down for the production of paper and other goods. That is genocide.

Wherever you live, there used to be a landbase there. It is now concrete and bricks. The land base WAS alive, and now it is dead and converted into what the capitalists call useful.

So, there is that. If you were talking about human genocide only, I could point to many instances of capitalist genocide such as the profiteering of the Food Industry, which sells us poisonous and toxic food, water, air, and tobacco.

Then there is famine. I am struggling to see the confusion.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Capitalism is stopping my progress of getting a new dishwasher, fixing my printer, fixing the roof, paying electricity, paying gas, paying fuel, paying internet, getting a new cooker, fixing headphones, getting a new camera, getting more memory cards for my camera, getting an actal office chair on which to sit while on the computer, getting a new graphics card, getting an actual desk, getting an actual bed (inestead of matress on the ground where I sleep now), getting books for school, fixing my toilet, having an actual bathtub (instead of just that shower thing), getting a new jacket, getting new ink cartriges for my (broken) printer, buying seeds to plant pretty flowers, fixing up the backyard, getting a sofa, etc.

So as you can see capitalism is quite limiting.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Capitalism is stopping my progress of getting a new dishwasher, fixing my printer, fixing the roof, paying electricity, paying gas, paying fuel, paying internet, getting a new cooker, fixing headphones, getting a new camera, getting more memory cards for my camera, getting an actal office chair on which to sit while on the computer, getting a new graphics card, getting an actual desk, getting an actual bed (inestead of matress on the ground where I sleep now), getting books for school, fixing my toilet, having an actual bathtub (instead of just that shower thing), getting a new jacket, getting new ink cartriges for my (broken) printer, buying seeds to plant pretty flowers, fixing up the backyard, getting a sofa, etc.

So as you can see capitalism is quite limiting.

"But who would make the dishwasher?" :laugh:

[marxleninstalinmao]

Capitalism has caused all the poverty, unemployment and hunger in the world, and consequently all the deaths therein. Therefore, it is genocidal. Questions? ;)


I started a thread in the science forum asking about how capitalism at this stage is not a progressive force anymore. In this thread I want to ask just how capitalism has become an overall bulwark against human progress? Lowtech explained it in such a clean way before that requires another glance. I hope he joins the discussion. I need to know so I can write a blog piece down.

Any thoughts?

[marxleninstalinmao]

It was, however, progressive at the times of the bourgeois revolutions, when the alternative was feudalism...


I, for one, deny that capitalism was ever a progressive force. Capitalism was born parasitic, in disrepute, of the rapes, massacres, occupations, genocides, colonialism and every despicable act humans are capable of inflicting on others.
Capitalism was not responsible for some great, otherwise unimaginable leap in production, which—despite its contradictions—resulted in progress and enlightenment.
What capitalism did was to rip the vast majority of humanity out of the productive process—in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Australia and what has come to be known as the Americas.

Certainly, capitalism was not progressive for the Awaraks, Apaches, Comanches and all other Indigenous peoples that Europeans massacred in the Americas.

It was not progressive at the Berlin Conference, which divided up Africa for the benefit of Europe.

It was not progressive when Leopold II, the Belgian King, murdered millions of Africans in the Congo.

[Questionable]

Perhaps what has turned INTO capitalism has become a "barrier to further progress". I, a capitalist,- as I have said in my last post- acknowledge to the most extreme extent that what capitalism has turned into is evil. The cronies are uncontainable at the moment because government benefits too much. the problem with capitalism is that when government gets to big, the chances of cronyism within government gets higher, and, thus, the chances of business cronies taking advantage of this gets higher as well. However, I would argue for a libertarian-sized government, along with, most importantly, ACCOUNTABILITY. The capitalist system can only work if the citizens hold officials accountable. Bill Clinton, Nixon, Kennedy, Obama- they should all have been impeached! Why, must might ask. One may say what they did wasnt that bad, and that may be true. the point is that no matter how big or small, if they know they will be scrutinized for conscious slip-ups, the slip-ups will become less frequent and will eventually be eradicated. this is the problem with capitalism and this is why it has BECOME a barrier to further progress.. but i do not think this HAS to be its fate. social and fiscal reform is necessary.

Then why, might I ask, were crises of capitalism unfolding long before the US federal government achieved its current level of strength, all the way back into the late 1700s?

[Ocean Seal]

I started a thread in the science forum asking about how capitalism at this stage is not a progressive force anymore. In this thread I want to ask just how capitalism has become an overall bulwark against human progress? Lowtech explained it in such a clean way before that requires another glance. I hope he joins the discussion. I need to know so I can write a blog piece down.

Any thoughts?
No, capitalism is not genocidal, its kills people indiscriminately.

[Romanophile]

No, capitalism is not genocidal, its kills people indiscriminately.

Including rich people ?

[DasFapital]

Including rich people ?

it killed saddam didn't it?

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, but Saddam was killed for not going along with international capital. Most rich people in positions of power are killed for literally being class traitors or charting their own course. It would be akin to killing Oskar Schindler for interfering with the final solution.

[Lowtech]

Look, i understand the frustration with the capitalist system, but one must understand that just as communism has dlikely never been implemented properly- or in the way many of you would like to see it implemented- the same thing applies for capitalism. this is utterly false. capitalism was never drafted as a solution, formulation or a plan. nor was it ever meant to be a socio-economic system designed to meet the needs of a civilization nor has it tried to do so. it serves only the few. to pretend it is anything else is simply to perpetuate indoctrination. the plutocratic class simply let it known that they were the rulers, they would not allow their system's supremacy to be contended. along the way they decided to placate us and make us believe it was for our own good.
As someone who is fiscally conservative (but extremely socially liberal, or left) it pains me to see the version of capitalism that is plaguing the united states-- the CRONY capitalism, where, government and business are not mutually exclusive and may as well join and all be referred to by the same name because the revolving door is revolving ever-so-much.again, the contention that it isn't capitalism that's bad, but the government with their silent black helicopters. the government is seen as different from a business/corporation while in reality it is structurally the same. in fact, the only things a government may have over a business is that governments may appear to have special provisions protecting rights of citizens while a business makes no secret of their exploitative agenda.
The capitalism that I like is one that does not lead way to imperialism, I think we can all agree on that. ... I just wished people would stop judging the idea based on its mutated, twisted form upon implementation and start judging it based on its true potential and ideas.capitalism can never be a legitimate economic system because it not only tolerates economic subjugation, it advocates it. mathematically, it allows for the few to derive economic value from an exploited working class majority. the only potential there for is for complete self destruction as a civilization, social degeneration and irreparable damage of natural resources.
Many of you guys would say the EXACT same thing in regards to how people demonize communism. Though I do not believe in communism, I DO believe that its implementations and attempts have not been true to what many people believe communism to be.......people demonize communism out of being completely unaware of economics and deeply seeded propaganda, not because its "not been properly implemented." we understand capitalism to be economically invalid based on mathematically observable principles. propaganda and verifiable mathematics are vastly different things.

people lived in societies much closer to communism for most of the 26 million years of our existence as a species. then the advent of market and currency based systems allowed for economic subjugation. capitalism is simply the modern form of an exploitative system first pioneered by ancient civilizations like the ancient roman empire.

[Lowtech]

In this thread I want to ask just how capitalism has become an overall bulwark against human progress?advocates of capitalism would contend that a competitive environment "weeds out" inefficiencies. whats left out is that there are two parts to the concept of efficiency: efficiency of something. efficiency of a profit system is not magically the same as logistical efficiency of meeting the needs of a civilization.

the bow and arrow was invented and refined in the absence of market systems and plutocratic domination. and while under capitalism, it hasn't improved much, even with modern materials and manufacturing methods.

capitalism has never brought any human progress at all. social, scientific and technological growth is stunted.

humans are born inquisitive and willing to improve upon tools and skills as an instinctual need to survive and improve our conditions. this is in no way bolstered or enhanced by economic subjugation; rather, the plutocratic class exploits this inherent vitality.

like the concept of Ubuntu (the philosophy, not spyware OS) hardwired into our DNA.

untapped potential of technology is another observation confirming this...

a smartphone, with the proper sensors, could do the majority of what doctors do: diagnosis. there are more iPhones being produced daily than people being born. this means an electronic "doctor" could be placed in the home of everyone on earth.

there are competitions to develop these technologies, however they only appear to be for the benefit of everyone, because these competitions do not mean that over night these technologies will be available, to quote a memorable film:

"and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now
[bangs on the table] you're selling it, you wanna sell it."

these technologies will be marketed and sold at a profit. this slows its distribution and need is ultimately left unmet for years, centuries. nothing is designed and created for the good of humanity, rather as the means to enslave it.