The other thing that bothers me is the assumption that capitalism has generated all the wealth of the last 300 years. That isn't fundamentally true, there was capitalism before then. It was changes in science & mathematics and the new technology that those disciplines enabled that fundamentally changed the world. Ancient societies of all kinds had businesses and engaged in trade. I guess my point is "Have a little respect?" or "Give credit where credit is due?" Without even basic invention, like the wheel, economics isn't going to get very far.
Guess who's back?
I came back here, and then when I saw this post, I thought "Naah, this guy can't be serious." But it looks like you are. So let me give you a brief rundown in basic economic history... that I would expect any self-respecting futurist to know.
Capitalism was effectively invented by the Dutch in the 16th Century/late 15th century, but it was also present in 16th century England in a basic form known as "agrarian capitalism."
Ancient Egypt was not Capitalist, China was not capitalist, none of the Fertile Crescent societies were capitalist, feudal Europe was not capitalist. The closest you get to capitalism in the Ancient World is Ancient Greece, and, in part, Ancient Rome, although in the former state intervention was so heavy one may as well discount it as being capitalist in any way. Let me repeat that once more so it really sinks in: capitalism was invented in the 16th Century. Yes, it's development was not the only factor in the advancement of technology, but it was the great enabler. Without capitalism, technological advancement would be a mere fraction of what it has been. Yes, the rediscovery of ancient works via their translation back from Arabic into Latin played a major role, but I'm not going to go into the dynamics of how exactly capitalism played into this, because it would be a 10K word essay. Another major reason for the advacement of technology was that Europe was divided into so many independent kingdoms. But without capitalism, the pace of development would be many orders of magnitude slower. A major factor of technology is also application. As mentioned here, ancient Rome had rudimentary steam engines that could be made to do useful work, but it dosen't just matter what the technology is, it matters how it is applied and distributed. This is a massive strength of capitalism - invention is put into use by some actor if not another. The USSR invented many things, fracking, MRI scanners, tonnes of things - but it never reaped the benefits of them. Do you know why? Because there were no entrepreneurs who went "aah, I could use this to profit!" - no, fracking and MRI scanners were only developed in the capitalist world, as were many other inventions of the USSR. Same with satallites - USSR had the first satallite in space, yes, but it was the entrepreneuring capitalists that first used them for commercial communications. In short, it's not just the inventions - it's how they are distributed and applied. Capitalist is excellent at this, whilst Communism is extremely...uneffecicient, to say the least. Another very important thing is efficiency. In capitalism, the efficiency of things increases expotentially, in Communism, efficiency stagnates. Efficiency is extremely important, for obvious reasons. For instance, if it takes 10 barrels of oil to get 1 barrel with good old USSR fracking, it makes no sense. And yet, with perfected Capitalist fracking, the effeciency is increased many orders of magnitude, where a barrel of oil can be obtained with a mere tenth of a barrel. You will now say - "but Communism can do this too!" Here's my answer - never in history has Communism brought about increases in efficiency that even come close to what we have in the capitalist system. There are reasons for why this happens, but your mind is obviously not able to understand economics, Unity.
If you dispute my arguments, please, oh please, do give me any ancient society that practiced capitalism.
And you know what? You won't be able to do this, because Capitalism did not exist in the ancient world.
Technology has advanced directly due to Capitalism, which, in its present form, was only perfected in the 18th century.
You may of course give me the examples of Kaefeng in early 2nd Millenia China as an example of development of early forms of industrialisation in the ancient world, but this is a false argument, because the system under which this city was advancing was, in essence, early capitalist. And the industrial revolution would have begun there were it not for the fact the Mongols torched the city.
Communism and Socialsm both stifle growth.
You claim to be a Futurist, Unity, and yet your mind is uneducated and barren, and you don't know what some would consider basic history. Oh yes, I well remember our little argument about evolution, where you posted a video about a dude screaming how things are "easy for him," and wished me good luck, apparently unable to further argue your case.
EDIT: Even Karl Marx describes the pre-16th century system as "feudalist." This is a gross simplification, but apparently you have not even read Marx. Perhaps his books are too taxing on your poor, poor mind, Unity? Not surprising that you spend most of your time on unproductive, dead-end ventures.
Don't expect me to continue argue with you, because you are not capable of argument. Not here for 3 months, and 1 visit is apparently enough to remind me of the reason I left.