but what's the point of being socialist from that point of view if the rest of the world isn't socialist?
there are different types of socialism, I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure Sweden and Spain are, relativity, good with environmental factors. That said it's been a whilst since I looked into it.
Depends upon the responsibility of said capitalists.
Is any development or consumption sustainable in the long run? No. Eventually all the "non-renewable" resources we have will become too scarce, and they will go sooner if they are over-used. Capitalism does have regulations preventing scarcity, but at the same time, growth rates can be problematic. The world can use up huge amounts of resources with little regard for the long-term, and then face shortages when they are least expected. I think that has to change. To a large degree, we can develop more efficient and less wasteful solutions, but at the moment, resources are finite. The only way to guarantee their supply is to expand into space.
Regulations tend to offset the worst of overconsumption, and protect the environment which could otherwise be abused for short-term gain. In the same way, the most "efficient" and profitable solution isn't always the best in the long-term. Capitalist free markets have a good way of making surpluses and making many individuals wealthier, but at the same time, aren't always the best at providing for the future, as people need produce here and now, and the value of currency declines over time, pushing people to develop right away. One thing that Socialist economies do best is equally distribute wealth and equip nations well for the future. They build infrastructure with the long-term in mind.
There are better economic systems than just plain old capitalist or socialist ones. They both have their shortcomings.
How do we establish a better way of sustaining economies and providing for the future? Perhaps we need to tier the economy and develop wealth in a different way. I'm not a firm believer that predominantly market or statist forces are the best way forward. Instead, we need a balance and combination of the two, according to their merits. In growth markets, enterprise is brilliant at expanding infrastructure. In mature markets, the government is often forced to intervene to stop economic decline. Where diseconomies of scale apply, it may be better to have the government in charge of certain industries to provide goods which would otherwise be unprofitable/impractical to provide, but are essential. In the same way, private industry can innovate and grow in ways that public industry cannot. The incentive of profit and wealth creation pushes people to develop new technologies, ideas, and production methods, which would otherwise be undesired by the public sector. If you want more growth and innovation, you want business to run an industry. If you want to prioritise stability and the long-term, you want the government to run an industry. There should be a harmony between the two, somehow.
Anything which lives uses up resources
[In proportion, Fairly?]
don't blame capitalism.
Dont Blame Us
The want for a good standard of living is what causes the problem, capitalism actually ensures that
[For A Few. Even Western Countries Have Large Poor Populations]
in order to obtain that standard of living,
[It is systematic]
the least amount of resources are wasted