Capitalism as practiced today is responsible for the scale of degradation we see. Unbridled profit-seeking at the expense of the environment cannot continue forever so the article makes a good point, but the solution isn't as clear.

Hiss at lefties all you like but none of you have addressed the crux of the problem. It isn't a question of marxism or socialism or capitalism or any particular ism, it's how we preserve what we have.

In any case, for those who haven't noticed, unregulated capitalism has proven itself vulnerable to excess and manipulation. Perhaps "Why today's brand of capitalism is not an answer" is a better title for the article.

Please don't save us, Ms. Ross:

If with capitalism we will not have the means to survive,
with socialism we will not have a reason to.

The issue with the planet's demise is materialism, or greed, and both capitalism and socialism are materialistic doctrines.

Now there is nothing wrong with this - greed is part of human nature, and human nature is part of nature. There are consequences of course, which is how we learn and evolve, among them rendering this planet uninhabitable, but there is nothing to worry about - nature will repair itself, and in the absence of the overbearing human race and its social-structures, new life will regenerate and new forms of life will emerge.

Being frugal out of coercion is not worth living.
Being wasteful as if there is no tomorrow - then indeed there is no tomorrow.
We need to learn to be frugal out of choice.

Once we are rich in spirit, we do not need material substitutes.

But, unlike the naive-idealistic approach, taking away the wealth of the poor in spirit, does not produce richness of spirit - instead, it produces people who are poor in both wealth and spirit.

Here we go again. Every time somebody criticises Capitalism, somebody else drags out the old Socialism bogey-man as some sort of justification.

The USSR dismantled itself because of rampant internal corruption (more billionaires per capita than any other country in the world – almost overnight), rising oil and grain prices and the notion that it’s future was to be part of a European Union – not because of some holy revelation that Capitalism was the way to go.
China however, is doing rather nicely at the moment – economically speaking - and may be one of the things that will “save” Capitalism from its own excesses in the short term.

Both systems are rely on monetarism which in turn relies on eternal and growing debt and both are inevitably dead-ends. Both systems rely of self-interest and the exercise of power and influence. Remember it was the Capitalist financial system that, for it’s own purposes, funded the Boshevik revolution and helped Mao take over in China, not to mention deliberately financing the rise of Hitler and most other dictatorships during the last century.

By definition, Capitalism must destroy that which makes itself possible. When there are no more resources or new markets left to exploit, it has nowhere left to go. It creates as much inequality as it claims to eliminate.

Now, to get out of the current debt crisis, the Banks are creating yet more debt to save themselves. How long can that cycle go on?

The only people who believe in never-ending growth in any system are economists and madmen and one of the biggest problems people have is their inability to grasp the concept and implications of exponential growth.

At the current rate of population growth for example, the world’s population at the end of this century will be 100 billion!

How will Capitalism (or any other current system) cope with that, economically or socially?

I don’t know what the next system will be but it sure won’t be free-market Capitalism and it probably won’t be very friendly to the individual.

Well, I think the names of the activities say it all.

Socialisism and Capitalism are both "isms". The last time I checked my dictionary, an ism is a doctrine (read: an opinion or arbitrary way of doing things) having the connotation of somehow being skewed, incomplete/piecemeal or fleeting in nature.

So, at best, an ism is only an approximate best way forward.

Liz says:

"These goods that are produced, however, do not belong to the workers who have made them"

DUH...of course not Liz, because it wasn't THEIR money which paid for the:

-The land on which they are made
-The building/factory/office where they are made
-Raw Materials used to make them.
-The Capital equipment used in making them.
-The struggle to gain a foothold in a dog eat dog competitive world.

THEY didn't sacrifice their
-accumulated retirement savings..
-Long service leave...
-Every other cent they could lay their hands on to get a business going...

but I know "I" DID!

Many business exist because of a gamble of one person or a few partners who stood to lose EVerything.. as some do.

There is no division of labor as you state..there are:

Brave souls who have some self confidence and scrape together the wherewithall to make a product or provide a service, and then, offer employment to others who might desire to have an income along the pathway of building that business.

The only thing an employer owed his employees other than a fair wage for a job well done, is in my view..some kind of incentive to be more productive (bonus) and... some kind of reward for time served (Long Service leave)

Of course....IF the 'workers' as you describe them are willing to invest ALL of their own capital in the business, then they might legitimately expect a better return as shareholders.

Other than that.. come out of cloud cuckoo land and the mirage of socialist utopia which will never exist....and get with the real world.

*Capitalism divides society into two main classes, the ruling class (for example, factory owners, bankers, employers) and the working class.*

We have of course seen what the other option lands up being,
ie Govt officials with their snouts in the trough and peasants
doing what they are told, or else. I'd prefer to take a chance
with my freedom, thank you very much.

The thread title is of course mistaken, it should have been titled
"Why religion is not the answer". For we know that an ever increasing
population is the real problem, which nobody wants to address.

As Muslims and Catholics try to outbreed each other and hundreds of
millions of women in the third world are denied family planning,
no matter how sustainably we live in Australia, it won't friggin matter.

Adding 70 million a year to the global population, is not going
to make things more sustainable, or solutions any easier.

Capitalism has one amazing feature which indeed could cause it to
save our chances to live on the planet in the longer term. It
empowers individuals with talent and ability to help themselves and
come up with innovative solutions to complex and seemingly
unsolvable problems.

I have yet to see where any other system of Govt can achieve the
same. No wonder that most inventions, new ideas and progress come
from the West and not from North Korea or Cuba.

In short, give all women the right to family planning and let
people innovate to their abilities, then we perhaps have a future.
Anything else and we are doomed to failure.