This is funny and I agree with the message, but the logic doesn’t work. If you apply it to anything other than gay marriage, it’s clear why: homophobes oppose gay marriage on (allegedly) moral grounds; telling someone to simply not engage in (what they see as) immoral behaviour rather than opposing those who perform said behaviour falls apart if you substitute anything generally regarded as immoral, such as stealing or murder. “If you don’t like it, don’t do it,” is fun to say to fellow allies, but a genuine homophobe can just reply, “well if you don’t like assault, don’t assault someone” as they attack you. I think a better argument would note the fact that any marriage only concerns those getting married, and doesn’t harm anyone. “If you oppose gay marriage, mind your own damn business”.

That is happening entirely in your head, not reality

You’re not describing a country with a equitable economic system.

You sure about that? Or is that something that happened in your own head?

It absolutely would be brilliant

I know they’re made with cheap labour, that’s exactly what I talked about. Well if you weren’t saying socialism couldn’t make them, then whatever. Sorry I misunderstood. But I do think a well planned transition to a worldwide socialist economy could maintain our way of life, and introduce everyone else to it (should they desire)

Didn’t i just explain to you my thought process? I’m not putting words in your mouth, it just seemed that’s what you were getting at. Otherwise the smartphone reference seems totally random

You implied that westerners would be much worse off without capitalism, and specifically referred to smartphones, seemed clear to me

And what causes fewer younger people?

Couples not having children.

What causes couples not to have children?

Well, beyond simply not wanting them: economic insecurity. A more equitable economic system would remove that barrier.

This assumes that said smartphones can only feasibly be created the way they currently are, and no other way. Can you genuinely not imagine minerals being mined, electronics assembled, by well paid workers?

Thats not to say the current absurd rate would still be sustainable in such conditions, but i don’t think you can definitively say that losing capitalism would inevitably mean a decrease in living standards. A well managed transition to socialism could maintain much of our luxuries.

You’re forgetting another portion of the calculation: amount of resources, and resource generation rate.

Take food for example. We have, and create, far more food than is needed. If that rate continues, we can theoretically keep pumping out people until the birth rates and food generation rates converge.

The actual problem, as it stands currently, is not the amount of resources, or how quickly we can create them: the problem is how they are distributed.

There is a MASSIVE middle ground between overconsumption and excess consumerism, and actual poverty.

Pretending that any amount of scaling back consumption inevitably leads to mass poverty is intellectually dishonest, or just genuinely stupid.

Which are you?

Spend all but a reasonable portion on materially, directly improving the world

Then retire on a million

Are characters only allowed to be perfectly moral, or something?

Winry is kinda sexualised, but only mildly, and not often

Actual democracy and collective decision making solves that