Yeah so what? The problem is the disproportionate accumulation of resources, goods or money. Which leads to accumulation of more of them, which lead to accumulation of power. There must be a limit on personal concentration of these. Anything above a level that is considered personal should belong to the community. Then there will be no incentive to make people capable of exploiting other people.

[–] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There would also be no incentive for anyone to produce anything beyond what they personally need, which would definitely lead to widespread food shortages. The more food that is produced at once the more efficient the labour is per crop, which is exactly why farms boomed in size after the industrial revolution and advent of farming machinery.

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They incentive would be the prosperity of the community as long as people stop seeing each other competitive. Personal gain over dead bodies is only cancer.

[–] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you think human beings should change their basic hardwired nature? Obviously humans have a tendency to care for the people closest to them over complete strangers. Humans always will come into conflicts of interest. What you're asking for is for humanity to basically act perfectly all the time.

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, they developed this mentality when surviving could also be competitive. When there was not enough food for all and somehow surviving meant that it will not be for all. Now we prefer to destroy tones of food in favor of economy because if there is extra food this means that the price go down

[–] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think there is only so much humans can change. We aren't beings of infinite moral potential and there will always be points of conflict.