Does material and technological progress measure societal progress?

>>532883
The problem is they want to advance society by inventing more technologically advanced materials even though the physical life they live is finite.

What goal do they have spending millions of dollars?

People are dying of hunger but they are trying to send people to Mars.

If they believed they only lived once, then why are they trying to make all these "advancements" rather than benefit the survival of all beings?

>>532903
>People are dying of hunger but they are trying to send people to Mars.

>People are dying of hunger because technological advances in medicine and agriculture allowed for the overpopulation of marginal lands.

If they believed they only lived once, then why are they trying to make all these "advancements" rather than benefit the survival of all beings?

Because the people in charge think that once they develop advanced enough technology they will transcend humanity and become Gods.

>>532883
Does material and technological progress measure societal progress?

I would say there is a correlation between technical progress and social progress. Advancements in technology preceded many social advances but not all.

>the only differences between them revolve around who owns the means of production

Not at all, Marxists believe the rights of society should be championed over the rights of the individual.

>Are both capitalism and communism unsustainable in a finite world?

I would say neither would be exist if resources were infinite. Really why bother with any system beyond the most basic if there is no need to make the best of the resources you have.

>>532930
Yeah but EVERYBODY who has ever tried to be immortal physically failed and died.

They believe they could become immortal but don't believe in afterlife / every recognize it as a legitimate topic. They think money means something

>>532883
>Does material and technological progress measure societal progress?
Not entirely but overwhelmingly, you can quibble over the philosophical details but you can only ask such questions because you have the leisure time to sit and read for hours with a full belly in a heated home.

>Are both capitalism and communism unsustainable in a finite world?
yes

The system can adapt to an economy that has stopped growing or is growing very slowly. There is little stopping it from doing so besides temporary inefficiencies like bubbles during the transition process and there are many examples of this, Japan's stagnant economy, mature companies that have maxed out their market, the long stretches of near zero growth in the 18th century and mercantile city states before then.

It is simple mathematics. A conservative estimate of adjusted annualized returns on the stock market is about ~5%. You can either reinvest this and double your money in 14.2 years, or you can spend the 5% returns on luxuries and start enjoying the extra income. If annualized returns declined to 1% it would take 69.7 years to double your money, you might even be tempted to sell your shares to spend the money on luxuries. As annualized returns decline, more and more people will spend on luxuries instead of reinvesting their money and the system can easily cater to that.

>>532946
EVERYBODY up to now was living at a lower technological level.

I'm not saying you're wrong but this isn't a good argument.

Only moral societies are truly advanced.

>>533387
What constitutes a "moral" society? Sounds pretty spooky tbqh.

>>532883
Of course they are good things, but they are obviously not the whole of societal progress, since people can still act/think in certain ways.

>>533423
Is there any evidence that humanity has evolved socially beyond where we were 10,000+ years ago? It seems more likely that we've just learned to tolerate each other more since we all have access to amazing new technologies. If the technology and material prosperity disappear (like an EMP type situation) what's stopping us from just reverting back to our primate instincts and lizard brains?

>>532883
>Does material and technological progress measure societal progress?

No

>>532883
>If not then why do both capitalists and Marxists dogmatically believe this to be true?

Marxists believe that the relations of production hold back the forces of production when the contradictions of those relations grow, much as the economic system grows in reproducing those contradictions.

The Marxist measures historical change through the changes in the social relations between people just as much as in the changes in the capacities of the forces of production.

Change, not progress.

>>533322
Doesn't matter how much technology we have. Physical life is not lasting

But marxists who don't believe in afterlife are more likely to believe technology will make then immortal

Just because we can improve cars doesn't mean it makes us happy, we still have to fill up the car with gas which will always cause stress at some point

>>532883
>they just want to be the ones running the show.

By "they" they mean EVERYONE.

>>533658

Christ's light

Technological progress does not inherently breed societal progress, but lack of technological progress will impede societal advances. Lack of machinery will create societies with a higher emphasis on physical strength and resistance, rather than intelligence. If you spend eight hours per day running after your next meal, that's eight hours you didn't spend thinking about concepts such as equality, designing a fair system, etc...