Life has been keeping me rather busy the past few weeks, especially now that I've started making Youtube videos.
I think I'm getting better at editing and stuff. These rebuttals I do are tedious sometimes, but they're also quite a lot of fun. It's really rewarding to see something neat come together, when you've made it yourself.
If there's anything you'd like to see me do a teardown, rebuttal, response, or whatever to, let me know in the comments!
I've also noticed that I'm getting a surprisingly consistent 21 hits per day here, and I wonder if it's bots. If you're actually checking my blog every day, please let me know, and I'll try to write more often! I also notice a significant spike in views when I do post something here, so it could just be various feed aggregate systems creating those hits. I don't want to leave you all hanging for a week at a time if you want to read my words more often than that!
I may come back to doing the rebuttals and such here, but I rather like the format I can lay out on a video.
For now, let's pick up with a rebuttal in text form!
Today, I'll be addressing the same audio clip as this blog. The Pink Blog basically just quoted highlights of it, so now I'll have the fun task of listening to it also, and providing rebuttal to the stuff that will surely melt my eardrums. All the quotes are words from her.
So, in our nation, one of the things that, you know, I think we pray for, is that some of this craziness would settle down.
You know, I agree with the sentiment of that statement. I think religious fundamentalists need to settle down and address actual problems, but I have a feeling that wouldn't get them airtime on this sort of radio station.
[the previous quote] and our defiance of god would, um, that we would be deeply repentant, and humbled
Well, what of it?
so that our nation, which seems to be shaking it's fist in god's face
Just because you don't like what's going on, doesn't mean it's wrong. Appeal to nature / appeal to god fallacy
and seems to be telling him to get out of our politics, get out of our schools, out of our businesses, get out of the marketplace, get off the streets,
If it were any other god, you'd be doing exactly the same thing. You don't care about religious freedom, Anne. You only care about forcing your beliefs on other people.
you know, just, uh, it's just stunning to me,
Given your inability to form decent sentences on the fly, I'm gonna let that stand. I believe lots of things are just stunning to you.
the way we are, uh, basically abandoning god as a culture and as a nation.
No, Anne. We're telling you that we think your god isn't real. Until such a time as you provide reasonable evidence to the contrary, we will continue to think it so.
Because when we do that then we're abandoning god. The bible says god abandons us and he backs away and takes his [unintelligible] blessing, um, his hand of protection away from us, um, and he abandons us. \
Well, which one is it this? Are we abandoning god, or is he abandoning us? It can't go both ways. My cat can't abandon me if I kick it outside for the night, and I can't abandon my cat if it runs away from home.
So the hope is that when we cry out to him, in deep repentance and humility and asking him just saying god, "we're sorry," you know we're asking you to come back, would you return to us, would you once again bless us?
This run-on sentence is the worst so far. Learn to think for a few seconds, lady. Seriously though, he's god. We can follow him until the cows come home, and he can still just send everyone to hell for the lulz. You have a fallacy from ignorance, in that you can't understand that the god you describe could LITERALLY do anything, including lie to you about all this.
Also, you've not shown such a god exists, so the point is moot. However, I like to speak in context, so I'm not debunking god here, only the argument being made on this one's behalf.
Then I think there will be peace in, peace on our streets, and there would be, um, better leadership and caring about what's best for the nation.
I warned you, this was gonna be audio detritus. That's right, if YHWH existed, he certainly would've stopped the flood of Noah when the people cried out as they were drowning.
People: We repent, please don't kill us in the flood!
God: LOL ok let's make sure it's peaceful.
People: God, we're drowning!
God: LOL it's gonna be peaceful for the next 40 days.
Yet some people still believe the god of the bible is going to forgive anyone, if he's real (spoiler alert: he does not appear to be.)
I've had enough of this audio. I don't need to hear the rest. This stuff is tripe, and I'm done with it.
Tune in later for more neat things! Also check out my youtube channel, video at the top, and subscribe if you like my style!
If you're not aware, I've started putting my creativity to use on Youtube.
Here's a recent video I made.
Come join me there as I have a lot of fun. I've not been doing as much blogging because I'm really enjoying making videos. I do hope to start writing again, but for now please stay tuned to my Youtube channel for more of the same kinds of things I was doing here.
The basic premise of this argument can be found in the first part of point four, which reads as such:
4. The complexity of genetic controlat this level astounds researchers
The author then extrapolates in point five, as follows:
5. The level of coordination of such genetic complexity is almost beyond human comprehension and clearly the product of incredible bioengineering.
Importantly, the operative word here is 'almost.' It's not beyond our comprehension, otherwise the previous three points which preceded it would not be there. Literally, if we couldn't understand it, we certainly couldn't write about it.
If you don't believe me, just try this simple experiment for yourself. Take a piece of paper, and perhaps a pencil. Start writing about something that's literally incomprehensible. Not merely something which astounds you, but that you literally cannot comprehend. It's quite impossible to think of something you can't think of, now isn't it?
6. Such complex bioengineering can/could be done only by a superhuman person all men call God.
This is such a waffle of a sentence, but let's try to keep it simple. Basically, the argument is that it's so complex that it can't be designed, therefore something designed it. It's so incomprehensible that it can still be comprehended by the author to make this point. It escapes human understanding, but somehow this guy understands it well enough to know that. Need I continue?
7. God exists.
That doesn't follow from the last point. Literally, there are hundreds of other options which could (and at least one that does) explain it, which are devoid of any god, including his. This point is tired, and maybe I'll start skipping it.
Also, if all men call it god, does that mean that anyone who doesn't call his imaginary friend 'god' isn't man? I digress. Let's move to the next argument which doesn't argue anything.
27: The Argument from the DNA's Molecular Motor
Based upon the phrasing of this one, I'm guessing that the author doesn't understand what those last two words mean. Maybe this one will have a coherent point that isn't just copypasta.
Unfortunately, the first three points are. Which brings us to this set. Please note that all red text is my annotations, not part of the original text of the argument.
5. Even viruses,[as though that's all that matters] which are not even alive by the scientific definition of being able to reproduce independently [which includes things like fire, salt crystals, quartz crystals, and lots of things],show incredible design [no, they don't].
6. If [and you've shown no evidence that it's the case] design is what we observe [we do not], then there must be a designer.
Well, sure. Similarly, if we do not observe design, then the corollary is that there must not be one? Ergo, having noticed no design (in the sense he means it), we can conclude, by his own logic, that no god is observed. Next point.
I found some raccoon prints on a log by the river. Embiggen to see them!
28: Basically the same thing as 27. Seriously, go check it out.
The basic premise of this argument is that, since things move, and humans created things that move, only a god can create things that move. Similarly, that everything which moves is created by god. It's a terrible argument, and I'll pick it up here. Let's try some more of that nifty red text stuff.
7. Machines found in cells are absolutely extraordinary [it's true! The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell] in their characteristics, inspiring the creativity of the most advanced researchers [also correct. scientists routinely use cellular stuff to make things nowadays]. However, the cell machines although almost identical in form but different in size are superior in efficiency to the mechanical devices that the best engineers design for everyday life [which is because cells are amazingly efficient, because they had to evolve to be that way]. 8. This indicates that the biomachines found in cells require a level of intelligent design [although it actually doesn't, because point seven clearly illustrates that we're borrowing ideas from the cells, not the other way around] f, jpg, jpeg, png, gif, pdf, zip etc… ar greater than what man has accomplished [well, arguably, if we're able to use them to our advantage, we're multiplying their abilities, but either way, this point doesn't follow].
I hope you can see the logical inconsistencies present herein. I sh26 to [{an't tarry longer, as we've more redundant posts to cover! Let me know if you like the red text stuff!
29: Argument from the genetic code-like (GCL) binary representation.
So we have more copypasta, which tells us that we've got a code that we use to represent specific sequences of nucleotides. This is in fact a code which does exist, which is a sort of shorthand for the various bits of stuff that exist in DNA, etc. We are then presented with this dubiously-worded sentence as point three:
3. The GCL binary representation and the genetic codeare both isomorphic systems. Thus, the characteristics that are true of the GCL binary representation must also be true of the genetic code.
Taken on it's own, this isn't a terrible thing. However, it's dubiousness comes full circle in point five:
5. Such a graceful symmetry, organization, and structure indicates a code that has been designed for a purpose.
Basically, it's saying that because we developed a code to explain DNA, that the DNA itself must also be such a designed code. This isn't true, and it's a category error. It's exactly the same as saying that, because we have a system for naming trees, they must have been designed to receive those names. An 'Elm' isn't simply an 'Elm' just because it's the name we gave it, but because god designed it specifically to be an 'Elm.' We did indeed invent the code which describes trees, exactly as we did with DNA. However, there's absolutely no indication that Elm trees were designed to be Elm trees just so we could give them that name, or so that they could occupy elm-shaped voids in the atmosphere where they happen to reside. This is similarly the kind of symmetry that exists in DNA, such that a tree occupies space which would otherwise be filled with air in its absence. Labeling it does not mean it was designed to be labeled, or to signify anything in the code we gave it.
30: The argument of the double function of the genetic code.
For disclosure, the article from which the information was pulled is titled "The Hidden Codes that Shaped Protein Evolution." The author is literally using an article on evolution to cherry-pick bits of information to argue against evolution. I don't have access to the full article, but I can surmise what the actual points being made are, given the information in this argument.
Point four seems to be the first bit not directly from the article, based on the writing style.
4. According to the research [which is nowhere to be found in your absent citations], natural selection constrains or eliminates change [sometimes, and other times it favors change] (purifying selection) [I'm not sure of this term in context] is not helpful for creating new organs or functions [except when it is, of course].
Our intrepid forum user shows great disdain over his inability to understand evolution, and even more to understand that evolution can exist in a designed universe. Any argument which lays its fundamental groundwork on the idea that evolution cannot exist within a designed universe is flawed, because it could. A designer could easily design such an algorithm, it's how chatbots learn things. I leave the Google search for 'Microsoft Tay' as an exercise for the viewer.
5. Thus, for Darwinists [citation needed] to explain unguided physical processes [evolution is guided by multiple things, but none of them is a designer] is already impossible [citation needed] and with this new discovery [it would be the first new thing in 30 arguments] they are even in bigger trouble [I dunno, I think the biggest trouble is the grammatical inconsistency of this argument].
As we can see, this is just a terrible projection. This is a person who doesn't understand science, who doesn't understand thatbeing wrong can be the most exciting thing in science.
6. The words: information, architecture, optimized, and function are not always and not only referring to a person with thinking feeling and willing. Other proposed agents [like the god you speak of] cannot on their own give information [can god show himself?], design [what designed god, again?], optimize [can god remove junk DNA, or cancer?] or execute [any joke here would be in bad taste] tasks. This has never been shown.
Basically, the entire premise is that a signifying gene can act in more than one way, and this could never happen in nature. We all know quite well that one thing cannot serve two purposes depending on context, in nature. Actually, that's bollocks, so let's end it there for now. Again, if you like what I'm doing here, feel free to let me know! I'm on twitter @acce245 and I'm on youtube. Look me up, check my stuff out, and if you really enjoy reading my words, follow me on patreon!
This post is one of a series dissecting the points contained herein.
If you are not aware, I do a few things on Youtube. Currently I'm working through a strange book I found at Goodwill. It's from the middle of last century, but interesting and terrible nonetheless. Give it a view, like it, dislike it, comment on it, subscribe, or whatever. Here's the most recent one. Be warned, they are lengthy, but given the point that you're reading my posts here, I'm sure that's not a terrible problem.
With that out of the way, let's continue this tearing down of the overly built-up arguments.
23: The Evidence of the Protein Origin
So we have before us, not an actual argument, but some form of evidence! I do hope it actually is.
The opening is basically pulling information from this article. There are bits of the original within his argument, presumably. The author thinks that these words somehow form sentences which detract from the idea that evolution works, while simultaneously saying that this is exactly what must have happened after god did something. It's a bad flaw of logic, wherein the presumption is that because science works, god must be making it work, even if the science directly contradicts the dogma.
Everything before point 8 is basically not supporting the claim made in point 8, which is
8. Intelligent design and its greatest intelligent designerGod was a must to create DNA, RNA, proteins etc.
In fact, this entire argument is an argument from verbosity as well, another common fallacy whereby lots of words are substituted for any real argument. Arguments from verbosity generally are when someone uses big words needlessly, or when someone gives rapid-fire point which are essentially non-sequiturs, but these are not requirements of the fallacy. In this case, it's simply an argument that is made by using such a convoluted explanation that a reply is necessarily longer and more complex.
24: The Evidence of the Urey-Miller Experiment
This is actually an interesting argument I've heard, but it's never made very well, and this is no exception.
1a. Amino Acid Synthesis (1953). When Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals, amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed: “Life has been created!” But proponents of evolution hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur.
Basically, it's a false premise. Let's have a tiny bit of background on the experiment. Basically, the important part from that is under the "Other Experiments" section:
This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[15] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[16] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[17]
The Miller experiment, in conjunction with experiments that came after, are clear evidence that all the basic parts of DNA and RNA can occur naturally in the presence of the elements which exist on earth. It's literally a lie to say that this experiment disproves evolution. Similarly, it's supposedly a sin to tell a lie. It's fascinating, then, how many people willingly believe in a god they know is going to send them to purgatory or hell for this transgression.
Now I'm going to pick apart the next half-point in steady fashion.
1b. The amino acids were totally dead,
Well, amino acids aren't the most complex things. I suppose one could say they are alive, or they are dead, but they'll never be both. They were not dead in the sense that they had been born earlier. A simple chemical process brought them about, and as long as they are the specific chain that makes a given acid, they are that acid. It's not like when an organism dies, it's more like saying that a piece of dirt, or a glass of soda, is somehow dead. These things aren't going to come to life, and they're similarly never going to die.
and the experiment only proved that a synthetic production of them
Sure, it's a synthetic production. That's the point. We're going to address a few points here. In this context, anything which is made is synthesized. It's not the greatest choice of wording. We can synthesize things, but so can nature. Rain clouds, salts, quartz crystals, oil, plate tectonics, all these thing are synthetic in the sense that they are synthesized, or given rise to by some process. I don't think this is the intent of the author, however, so I'll not tarry.
The next point is that the synthesis mimics what happens in nature. It's a bit like the neat experiment you can do at home, wherein you pressurize a bottle, and see the condensation of water that builds up in the air. Essentially, a mini-cloud machine, completely created by you. This in no way discredits the fact that clouds above us are formed by a similar process: pressure fronts and raindrop nucleus dirt, et cetera. It's not an exact representation, but it gets the point across, and demonstrates the underlying principles. This is science, plain and simple.
would result in equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids.
That's exactly right, and it's an interesting thing to think about. Until they actually start being used in more complicated processes (it's very difficult to include every single element in a test tube, after all) it's not clear that chirality would have any negative consequences when the acids are just sitting there in a literal chemical stew. Again, we're not sure why chirality tends to be right-handed in living things, but we can presume there's some interesting reason. It probably has something to do with how cells form, but we simply don't have enough science yet to make any real determination.
Here's an example of two shells which show chirality reverse of one another.
By Scanned by Tom Meijer - Nyst, P.H., 1878-1881. Conchyliologie des terrains tertiaires de la Belgique. -- Ann. Mus. r. Hist. nat. Belg., 3: 1-262 (1878), 28 pls. (1881)., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6113367
Here's an example hypothesis that I came up with one day. We know that chirality favors one type of twist. We know also that astronauts have a difficult time retaining good physiques, and plants simply do not grow well, in the absence of gravity, given the lack of a need for the same kind of strength as people walking under gravity all day. Plants seem to need gravity to have a proper stress to develop the various parts of its cells and so on.
Therefore, It's my hypothesis that chirality of DNA has something to do with gravity, and something to do with the well-being of cells that exist in creatures. I could be wrong. Perhaps it's something along the lines that radiation tends to affect negatively left-hand chirality, or that magnetic fields simply permit easier construction of constituent parts of cells. Perhaps it's some process we're not even familiar with yet, and we'll accidentally stumble on the answer in 2078.
Regardless, that's how science works. A hypothesis is put forward, all evidence is evaluated, and the most logical (and usually simplest, but not always) explanation that explains the greatest number of things wins.
Since only left-handed ones exist in animals, accidental production could never produce a living creature.
Alright, I got left and right mixed up. We've all got left-handed chirality. Although, maybe I did that on purpose, to demonstrate how to fix an error one has made. Maybe someone will learn something here. So many maybes.
Also, the assertion that it couldn't is simply incorrect. We don't know if it could or could not, we only know that it did or (in this case) did not.
2. Till nowadays
Oh, is that what you are doing? Until you learn how to use words, perhaps tilling the land is a more productive use of your time. GOOD JOB!
life could not be created in any laboratory.
Yeah, penicillin and stuff, who needs them anyway?
Therefore it must have been created by God.
Of course. How many want to bet that he ends nearly every one of these the same way? Well, trudge on I must. Naturally, he misses the point again, but this time it's much more straightforward. Let me sum it up in my own quote here.
Chirality works because evolution and chemistry work, but every single possible chemical process is not necessarily represented here on earth, therefore god must have made everything. Even those things which we claim that science explains, absent a god.
I would like to think that I could make the point more concisely, but now we've got ourselves a very large number of words, all to dissect a few points. Onward and upward, as they say.
25: The Argument of the Zip Codes within the Cells
The basic premise here is that of irreducible complexity. Let's see if we can't reduce the complexity of this argument, and I think I shall do so. Basically, as the author puts more words into his argument, it seems that I need fewer in mine.
5. All the above speaks about amazing, irreducible complexity and intelligent design of one of the simplest cells, the yeast.
Neatly, we can skip directly to point five, since points 1-4 are just a rip of someone else's words again. Although,the author is missing the point here, and let's jump back to a line from those first four.
Proteins are the workhorses of the cell, but to get the most work out of them, they need to be in the right place.
This is correct. It's almost as though proteins can indeed exist independent of cells, like amino acids (which our intrepid author dared to prove actually happen in literally the penultimate argument). It's not irreducibly complex, and now I'm quite sure that the author knows not what 'irreducible complexity' actually means.
6. How this complex system evolved was not explained.
That's correct. It's discussing how it functions, not how it came to function. This is what makes me think he honestly just doesn't understand the words he's using.
This complexity found in the simple cell of yeast is one more example out of innumerable complex systems that are necessary for the existence of the cell.
Yeast isn't the simplest cell, to be certain, but it's one of the simplest. It's also interesting that a creationist is using yeast as an example of creation. To be clear, yeast reproduce asexually, either through mitosis or budding. If a god did create humans, it certainly would not have needed to make us sexual creatures. To be certain, things like yeast and bananas and most asexual things do not evolve at nearly the speed of sexual things, which for this purpose I'm also including nonsexual things which swap dna (like bacteria, for example, which typically don't have a sex either in the typical sense).
I only bring up that point because it clearly contradicts points 7 & 8.
7. The irreducible complex systems are evidence of an intelligent design that could have been made only by a super intelligent person all men call God. 8. God is a must, He exists.
As you can see, this post has gone on quite long enough, so tune in here next time to hear some more unraveling.
This is a post in a series of rebuttals to this website.
Sorry it's been a while. Life has been busy. I'm gonna omnibus this one, so hang on tight. We'll move a bit faster here.
13: The Argument of Amino Acids
This one is so poorly constructed I feel it's a waste to spend more than one sentence here.
Point 6 is cherry picking.
14: Proof by Self-Replicating RNA
Point two is simply wrong. I mean, how do these people think RNA is formed, exactly? Without RNA somehow?
15: Argument of Cellular Complexity
I'm done typing out the terribly-worded headings, so I'll fix them.
It's basically the same bad argument he made for the past several points.
16: DNA Evidence by Molecular Machines
Again, we see further arguments from ignorance. Point six is made without describing why a god is necessary, and points one through five don't establish anything about the development of the process.
17: I don't even care what this title is.
Reverse point 10 and 11. God exists therefore something must have created him. So much special pleading.
18: The Argument of Holy Crap, DNA tends to act like DNA argument.
I really do want to stay on topic. This list just keeps getting worse. I can't imagine how bad 125 is going to be if this keeps up.
Point 9 demonstrates his misunderstanding of how genetics work. You can work out the rest.
19: The argument of the cloned title.
Oops, I accidentally read this one for the last one because they've both the same name. Oh well. Same problem, just on point 6. Also, stupid stuff in the preceding premises.
20: The Argument of misappropriation of terms.
Basically, the fellow takes words out of context in every point, and presumes his option must therefore be the only correct one, despite the fact that our intrepid author hasn't offered one actual hypothesis.
21: The Proof by Evolutionary Storytelling
Although, unfortunately, we don't get any here. It's an argument from verbosity, and it also seems that the author doesn't understand how words work.
7. In serious scientific circles unsupported storytelling was never accepted as an evidence for truth.
That's right. You can't just make crap up and pretend you're correct. Come on, man, have you no intellectual integrity at all? The cognitive dissonance hurts.
22: The Argument of Protein Something or other
Literally, in point two, he says that evolution happened. Then he says in point three that evolution doesn't happen. I'm not sure what else to say on this one.
I'm gonna stop there for today. All you wonderful people be good!
Sorry I've been away for a few days, I've just been busy. However, a friend of mine recently posted something on facebook that got me to thinking, and I thought I'd spill some words here now.
The basic premises of socialism aren't so bad. In fact, when people think of how great America used to be, it was largely because of a special kind of socialism that worked. For this thought experiment, I want to focus on telephones, solar panels, and cars.
For a bit of preface, Bell Labs is important here. If you're not familiar with them, I'd suggest reading up a bit. The important bit to remember here is that they were amazingly innovative, essentially creating and effectively implementing the transistor. This allowed for a wide range of products which would come to change the way America functioned since.
It wasn't so long ago (through the 1960s) that telephone services were largely run through Bell Telephone, a subsidy of the United States Government (not so different in this respect from the postal service). This led to a unique situation, one that we've largely moved away from today. During this period in time, the phone company would own the equipment in your house, including the telephone. Today this probably seems odd, given how everyone likes to have their own cell phone. However, it did solve one problem, and that was the ability of the phone company to provide service to essentially anyone. If the phone malfunctioned, it was simply replaced. Again, this is a bit of an oversimplification, but bear with me.
Let's move forward another ten years or so. NASA was a similar subsidiary, responsible for countless innovations, but most notably for this illustration: the solar cell. The thing most people know as a silicon chip, usually blue, which can be placed in the sun and generate electricity. Let's imagine for a second what might have happened if we had adopted a similar approach.
Power companies were similarly a type of subsidiary for a very long time as well, even until much more recent deregulation in the early part of this century. Imagine for a moment if the power company had been installing solar panels on the roof of most of the houses to which it supplied power, and had set up infrastructure conducive to allowing feeding that energy back into the grid. We could have had a power grid which would have been much less prone to outages, and therefore more reliable. This would have given the same sort of push to create innovation like we see in the current communications market, also. Now, as it stands, we will have to play nearly fifty years of catching up just to come close. This scenario even allows for the replacement of faulty equipment at no 'cost' to the end user: the costs would be divided among the base of users exactly as the cost for a new phone would have been.
Now, let's move to the realm of automobiles. The employees of a car manufacturer (who are typically unionized in the same fashion as the employees of those other industries) would be similar subsidiary employees of the government. Instead of worrying about what you'd do when your car breaks down, you simply take it to the nearest Car Service shop, and it's fixed in much the same way. This could have allowed for much better infrastructure also, as it would have given much more incentive to the government (and subsidiary car companies) to develop the best automobiles in their own self-interest. A car which gets only 200,000 miles would no longer be seen as practical, nor a car that was not as efficient as reasonably possible.
We're actually moving toward a world where the car scenario is becoming more plausible. Self-driving cars are fast approaching, and electric vehicle technology is only improving. Imagine, if instead of owning a car, the car could drive itself. No longer would the car you drive to work have to sit most of the time. It could be functional, and provide transport for countless individuals. Similarly, since the car would be owned in much the same way as the phone in the previous example, if it breaks it's simply fixed or replaced. This keeps the people who perform those functions in a job, and even grants greater incentives to make those jobs better.
Nothing in this scenario limits your own ability to go out and buy something better. It does, however, provide much more opportunity for people who might not reach the same kind of earning threshold as yourself. Like it or not, the number of physical labor jobs in the past century has decreased massively, and it's not likely to increase simply because someone might want it to. One hundred years ago, it took around 50% of the population to produce enough food to feed the population. Now, it takes less than one percent. Automotive assembly lines require far fewer people than in the past, and so on. Computer manufacturers and software developers no longer need the same kind of human labor they once did - you can even compile simple programs from your phone if you were determined enough, which would have taken years of man-hours in the past.
Again, I'm not saying capitalism is bad, or that it can't work. I'm simply saying that, in perhaps another hundred years, 'capital' won't necessarily be a thing. When's the last time you actually had to use cash to buy something? When money is digital, it's just a fancy way to count the time you've worked. There's absolutely no reason this couldn't continue. Be a productive member of society, log your hours on your bankcard (as you probably already do), and you get the things you want and need to survive and thrive. Your consumption of other folks' service keeps them working, and their consumption keeps you working. The problem with modern capitalism is that less and less of the capital is actually going back into the pool. This kind of socialism also solves that problem, by creating a logical demand for workers in whatever fields are being demanded.
I realize this might be a bit out in left field for some of you, but I guarantee that socialism isn't evil, and that capitalism isn't either, in their purest forms. Think back one hundred years, and I'm sure people would swear we'd still be doing things basically the same way as we had been. Think back ten years, however, and I bet you can't even imagine using the same phone today as you had then.
