[timthelion]

That's true. It is a good question. And its the question we should be asking. We should be trying to debug this problem, rather than pretending that it is a non-problem.

I personally don't see my own anti-capitalistic views as being a matter of politics or political direction. I see the problems posed as being similar to aging or the need to find better forms of transportation. No one argues that aging is good. Everyone agrees that the outcome of aging is bad, people get slower, less inteligent, suffer and die. That is bad... I see the current outcome of American globalist capitalism to be similar. Obviously, the outcome sucks. Most people are unhealthy, unhappy, there are advertizements everywhere, we are destroying the earth, and living in smelly toxic concrete filled cities. I'm not a communist, or a socialist, or a progressive, I'm an engineer who is baffled by a huge problem that I don't know how to solve. I am totally baffled by the huge number of people who seem to question whether these problems are real. Its like if this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13419352 was full of people writing that "well you can point to some problems with aging, but really, we're all better off getting old and dying". My response would be similar, it would be like WTF? I don't have a solution to American corporate globalism and the problems it causes, I don't have a solution to aging either, but I want a solution to both.

[leereeves]

I'm not pretending it's a non-problem.

It's a much much bigger problem: human nature leads us to make bad choices, willingly.

But short of a miracle pill or a totalitarian regime that forces us all to live healthy lives, I don't see a solution.

[timthelion]

You are also not the OP who I origionally responded to. thisnotmyacc wrote "By almost every and any measure, we are all better off than 30, 40 or 50 years ago - Chinese, Americans, Indians, Europeans, almost everyone." And that is pretending we have a non-problem and that our society is functional.

Edit:

I think that it is worse than just a problem with human nature. As I wrote, previously, I think it is economically non-possible for Americans to choose to go back to growing local food. %100 land is owned, and most owners are not selling, the price of land is high, and most Americans cannot afford to buy that land. Perhaps charging large farms land rent (aka, only charging land rent to large corporations) would help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism but I'm not sure if I believe that democracy is capable of implementing any sort of reform non-corruptly.

[leereeves]

I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about being self-sufficient small farmers; I'm just talking about eating healthy and exercising.

People could certainly choose to do that if they wanted to.

[timthelion]

I don't think that they could. Because in order to be able to buy fresh food, you need a suply of fresh food, and where is that fresh food going to come from, if not from small time farmers? And if it is impossible for a large number of people to become small time farmers, then if more people choose to eat fresh, the price of fresh food will only rise to the point where they no longer have the choice to do so.

[leereeves]

If enough people wanted fresh food, more would be grown.