← Back to context

Comment by YackerLose

1 day ago

Somehow, I don't think the people with all the money, gunmen and (soon) robots will be OK with the world you envision.

True. Expecting the super rich to be concerned a lot about the poor - especially when they aren't useful as employees, is quite a stretch.

  • Their wealth is more contingent on our consumption than employment status. If that goes, then you're looking at a zero-sum society where no new wealth is generated.

    Ultimately people will remain enterprising status-seekers. Rich people can already sit around with their wealth doing fuck-all excepting consuming, and they don't.

    • > Their wealth is more contingent on our consumption than employment status.

      Is it? Or is it dependent on the consumption of someone much greater than you.

      For example: I was reading something the other day about dining experiences in Las Vegas. Really though, the video was about how recently Vegas has abandoned the traditional middle class patrons in favor of providing experiences to a smaller, but much wealthier clientele. This seems to be a trend across many industries. In some cases your consumption is even a cost center to be eliminated in favor of a more successful customer base.

      1 reply →

In a post-scarcity society, having a meagre policy to keep people alive and not-unruly is cheap. It's also getting way ahead of ourselves, since it's nowhere in sight. Software hiring was up this year.

  • Not really. The planet is crowded, currently with mostly productive members of society.

    For the ultra rich psychos who run the show, do you really think they want poor people hanging around? When we can be wiped out in a few months?

    Consider the pure greed Donald Trump is displaying. Now imagine that the 1000 most powerful people are the same, except they are smart enough to at least not rub it in peoples faces on live television.

    They hate you, and want you dead.

    • Motivated reasoning. You want to believe it.

      > do you really think they want poor people hanging around?

      Which by your rationale would include everyone who isn't rich (and tautologically would mean "no one is rich anymore"). They do not care whether we're hanging around, the same way they do not care now whether poor people exist. It has no bearing. All that does is whether they remain rich and powerful, and last I checked, that's relative. Being the only one left on the planet won't make you feel rich, and there being poors on a piece of land won't have any bearing on you.

      > When we can be wiped out in a few months?

      Lol

      Also, on the population front, growth is poised to completely stall in less than 100 years. The fertility rate is terrible in developed countries, and falling quickly in developing ones as they get richer

      2 replies →

Indeed. Far more likely, a more economic human is engineered.

Oryx and Crake, I think, was the first time I encountered that idea.

“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all.” —- John Maynard Keynes

What does the data and observations tell us so far, in this context?

  • The real blame lies at the door of the folks who created a lot of things who were incredibly naive that others wouldnt come in to profit from it.

    • That’s certainly a component, but I think the biggest issue is that people have this religious fervor that capitalism is the only way to structure a socioeconomic system, even when the data shows it is exceptionally bad at ensuring a good quality of life for the majority of citizens.

      It’s changing in the US with Democratic Socialists over performing, and with high support for them with the under 35 cohort, the question is if this momentum can be sustained for years through various election cycles (as ~2M 55+ voters age out every year, and ~3M voters turn 18 and age into the electorate every year).

      “Progress occurs one funeral at a time.” — Max Planck