Capitalism is superior

Unfortunately, his proposition is based on a false premise and furthermore a system that will likely be limited to our era and technology. The false premise of the supremacy of capitalism is that we live in a world of unlimited resources. We obviously do not. Capitalism has everything revolving around valueless and relative supply of faith-backed paper money. In reality, the only true and relevant gauge of worth and value is in the amount of resources you hold. Paper money, and therefore our economy, is in no way tied to our limited resources here on earth. While capitalism is good in many aspects, it fails to uphold pro's superiority claim (above all other possible systems) because it fails to take into account our most important accounting figure - earth's resources. "A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life. " (1) Twisting a famous quote just right, you can come up with, "the capitalist will sell you the rope by which he hangs himself". By this I mean capitalism, while a nice medium by which to exchange goods and services, is blind to the larger picture of overall resources. Take oil, for instance. It is possibly the one most important thing keeping the world economy going, yet we are far out pacing the supply with growing demand. (2) Now, this isn't horribly disastrous given that we can replace oil with another viable energy source. Given time, we may be able to. Unfortunately, capitalism does not take note of such obstacles as resource limitations. This could lead to, as many fear, a post-peak oil economic crash, rising prices worldwide, and many wars over the remaining oil. The world has yet to fight over such a valuable and vital resource as oil currently is, the outcome could be truly devastating to the future of mankind. What is worse is that most current estimates are based on current levels of production. For many years, only the west and a few other areas, such as Japan, have been fully modernized and consuming at high levels. Now, we have a much larger resource problem looming with a few billion Chinese and Indians stepping into western-style modernity. Throw on top of that, that much of future world growth will also come from other currently less industrialized areas, such as Africa and other areas of Asia. Unfortunately, I must wrap this up quickly due to the clock running out on me. There are certainly other areas we could get into, such as the problem of worldwide hunger, despite there being enough food on earth for 2,700 calories a day per person! (3) Lastly, capitalism is largely based on and works because most of humanity works for money. Though only speculation, most assume in the near future there will be very few jobs that will require human input, some estimate 3-5% of jobs. The rest will be done by computers and robots, which are much more efficient, work for no pay, never take a sick day, and can work 24-7-365, for the most part. Once 95% of humanity no longer works for a paycheck, the concept of bartering with money and the entire exchange system currently in place will likely become obsolete. Pro has let me argue that capitalism is superior to any other system. Since capitalism fails to be based on and take into account natural resources, it is ultimately lacking in long-term viability. Therefore, it cannot be the most supreme system possible. A system, such as a resource-based economy, capable of such things, would be superior for our long-term survival. Thank you. 1 - . http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 - . http://www.worldhunger.org...