you know one reason, you even wrote about it, but you dismiss it as if it were some form of made-up conspiracy rather than a real one, even while acknowledging that the incentives to prevent alternatives are not only there, you are an active participant in it. they also started before we achieved abundance, and they have been largely kept out of abundance through unjust force.

we're not going to converge on this specific point, are we? or on your fixation that the alternative to a fundamentally broken system must be spotless before it can be even tried, or your dismissal of the unsustainability, so essential and fundamental to the system that, if we fixed it, it would no longer be capitalism. why do you insist on something broken as if it was viable, as if we should be happy with it and stop seeking alternatives to enable us to keep on inhabiting this planet?