Please tell me does this make any sense? i can not sleep, is capitalism inherently designed to be invasive?

Cant we just start a normal thread here instead of posting images of other threads? I could barely read it

Capitalism doesn't come about until the early modern period in Europe around around 1602 when the Dutch East India Company was established. Nevertheless capitalism is built upon the presupposition of constant growth and expansion.

I don't see where capitalism came into this at all.

also is capitalism good for scientific progress?

I am going to say no. If it were then why do organisations only do R&D in countries that give tax breaks for R&D
I’d say certain types yes, others no. Anything that cannot be use to make money isn’t going to get much investment from private capital. I think this is why a strong university system is important.
Depends if it can make money. If it's computer science for example, absolutely. The USSR was decades behind the west in that aspect. In terms of climate change science (and efforts related towards it, like green energy), no.

That's why the government is important, to give grants and give monetary incentives to scientists and companies to advance interests and the human race. Otherwise corporations would inadvertently poison us all and cook the planet (research on toxicity of substances and climate change respectively)

Communism hampers non-government affiliated research (like companies). If there's zero incentive to improve methods, manufacturing or research no one will. There were even negative incentives, you were given less resources for production if you became more efficient, increasing stress, work and there's less slack. Accordingly most consumer products were less advanced and worse overall.

Economics is dictated by three aspects. Land, labour and capital. The first two are self explainable but the last is more nebulous. Capital is usually related to production, something that can generate value/wealth/goods. An example is machinery in a factory, tractors for farmers and even money itself as it can be invested in stocks. Land also has the potential to be capital, oil, fertile soil and natural resources.

Back then most economic output depended on land, labour and natural capital, all of which can be attained via imperialism. However in the modern era countries are much less dependent on such metrics. Technology has filled up labour shortages, education increases output of individuals and are much less land intensive. Not to mention today a country can import all of its domestic needs.

This is why Japan, south Korea and Taiwan are NOT dirt poor. They have little land, labour or natural capital, but invested in lots of capital, producing more wealth and eventually becoming developed economies.

TLDR. No, you do not need imperialism to grow a capitalist economy

Economy is what people make of it. This is why so-called economic "structures" fail.