You should get heaps of money getting thrown at you when you fix it forever for everyone but you don’t. And therein lies the problem. A look over open source software makes this very obvious.

I don’t know how you solve excessive waste, it’s maybe a problem of population density more than failing society. If you live on a plot of land in your own home you can exist without producing more garbage than you can process away on your own. So while yes you can’t realistically just tune down society, it’s naive. It’s not true that people can’t exist in a self sustained way as the basis for a thought experiment.

It’s not that garbage or infrastructure repair aren’t problems that need to be dealt with, they now are. Or that you never have to do anything you don’t want to do, even self sustained you have to. I’m saying that you would need to solve them upstream at the source where they are not menial but interesting like the pictures in the meme.

People are obsessed with solving problems. But you don’t solve the garbage problem by manually hauling it forever in perpetuation. That’s what you have to do when you can force people to labor for minimum wage and skim the rest.

If nobody wants to haul garbage then people would experiment and look for a solution. Like mentioned already, one solution is to enslave peopel to do it for you, yes. But it could also be a tree hugger like livestyle, not for everyone. But it could also be something we havent thought of yet. People would find solutions in their comunities, and working solutions would scale up. All wishful thinking obviously. I would love to experiment with solutions that produce less garbage, measure it, optimize etc.

The right answer is to deconstruct the argument logically and educate, of course. But I think it has to be added that the hypocrisy is intentional and is not stupidity and to understand the argument behind the facade you have to understand us politics. Which is all about manipulating the voter turnout. Imigrants will, once naturalized, vote against republicans, so they are oppressed. Same with women, high education, and so on. These are all just traits that let you select people who’d vote against you.

For example abortion, women who would consider aborition will statistically vote against republicans, so republicans rally around that and demonize abortion to make the women move away or stay away. Or as you mentioned transgender people, yes they can’t move to republican states, that’s the point!

It’s always about supressing the people who statistically vote against you. In this case poor people vote against you, so you argue that poor people should leave the state or the country to dillute or strategically shift the voting opposition.