Capitalistic Profits and Artificiality

But is there any future in this?

. . . why do capitalists like things that are artificial-looking?

I do not reckon the big money is especially interested in preservation of Nature. They do not revere nature, they like the artificial. You make your money from abbreviations of nature. Capitalists are usually associated with alterations of nature, and may also engage in the protection of it, considering time and space limit. Mostly, those doing business are engaged in free-wheeling “market” capitalism. Preserving nature, on the other hand, has limited profit opportunities. They would rather alter most of it, and then set up a few Nature parks. They find profits in altering it. A millionaire definitely has to earn profits, but this means usually going against nature, so perhaps Nature and profits are different.

To make profits you need to have a specific item you are selling. There is a huge range but these are all of them specific items, while nature is the whole: all of it. There is no way for a company to make money from the whole world. Rather, one person has to transact with another person. And this is done, and this is done continuously and there is always more money to be made. And that is what we mean by “capitalism.” But what company mainly cares about nature as a whole? None of them do, because they cannot make money that way — you cannot sell the whole of nature and no one to sell it to—Bezos can’t buy it. You don’t get any money from the whole thing — you have to set up a relationship between seller and buyers. A capitalist sells one part of nature to another part of nature. So if you are the kind of capitalist who only values money, you would not get that by preserving nature. Maybe by destroying it. And if you cannot make money off of a thing, why get involved? Still, they could preserve parts of nature. And that is nice, but not really what they do for a living.

So, what we find is that, from the very beginning of the industrial revolution money is made only by altering nature and only to a lesser degree would persons devote time and effort to protecting it, for example by supporting the national park system.

There is no money in the natural parks; and the park system is rarely in the news.

To make money, one is more likely to destroy or modify nature. This allows certain demons to take over. They erroneously calling themselves “human,” but I would not think they are humanists!

We only make money when the world is altered. That is a general rule in capitalism. I don’t know the way out of this dilemma. There is a general preference for the artificial.

---

And now, our fine managers have convinced some (I hope not many) adolescents to have gender surgery, another sort of altering of nature, right???? And this is a major story today — “influencers” who influence men to feel that they need a vagina.

Are you going to listen when they advise you to have expensive surgery on yourself? That will never work and which you never needed? It just sounds to me like a joke. Some persons claim they will finally be happy this way, but it is very clearly a thing that only happens in a very, very highly unnatural, altered world.

It sounds more like a fad that will wear off in its appeal.

Now you know you cannot change back, don’t you? Don’t you?!!!