2 ms·

You've ignored the real question yet again. One more time: "But how does this prevent non-rich humans from producing goods for other non-rich humans?" Is it re

You've ignored the real question yet again. One more time: "But how does this prevent non-rich humans from producing goods for other non-rich humans?" Is it really your belief that after the rich go galt, the non-rich have no possible way to survive except by robbing them? That's a surprisingly Randian view.

chongli 11y ago
It's simple, really. Picture an apple orchard, as it operates today. Hundreds or even thousands of migrant labourers employed to tend the orchard and pick the apples at harvest time. Now imagine small aerial drones which have been developed to harvest the apples automatically and bring them to the warehouse. Extrapolate this idea across a vast array of industries and you begin to see a pattern: huge numbers of jobs which have been replaced by automation. Where will all of these people go? Who will they work for? Now imagine a time much further into the future. Unemployment has skyrocketed. Millions of people are starving and they can't afford the apples they used to pick for a living. So what? They decide to "invade" the orchard and steal the apples for themselves! Ahh, but drones come to the rescue again! Machine-gun wielding aerial drones patrol the orchard day and night, efficiently defending the property from any and all would-be thieves. How does this prevent the former apple-pickers from growing their own apples? On whose land do you expect them to grow?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  They can grow apples on other land. The world is hardly overpopulated and the rich don't own anything close to every parcel of land. Heck, the rich have no reason to even waste drones defending their surplus landholdings, just as most owners of large tracts of land don't typically defend it against deer. As long as the non-rich don't interfere with the drones harvesting apples for consumption by the rich, why would the rich care what they do? Further, you seem to think the rich own most land. They may own most parcels of currently valuable land (e.g. Manhattan) weighted by land value, but that's not remotely the same thing. There are large amounts of land in the world which are currently laying fallow because there is no current use for them. E.g., Detroit is more or less abandoned (but well suited for industry), as are large amounts of flyover country which were formerly used for farming.

chongli 11y ago

It's simple, really. Picture an apple orchard, as it operates today. Hundreds or even thousands of migrant labourers employed to tend the orchard and pick the apples at harvest time. Now imagine small aerial drones which have been developed to harvest the apples automatically and bring them to the warehouse. Extrapolate this idea across a vast array of industries and you begin to see a pattern: huge numbers of jobs which have been replaced by automation. Where will all of these people go? Who will they work for? Now imagine a time much further into the future. Unemployment has skyrocketed. Millions of people are starving and they can't afford the apples they used to pick for a living. So what? They decide to "invade" the orchard and steal the apples for themselves! Ahh, but drones come to the rescue again! Machine-gun wielding aerial drones patrol the orchard day and night, efficiently defending the property from any and all would-be thieves. How does this prevent the former apple-pickers from growing their own apples? On whose land do you expect them to grow?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
They can grow apples on other land. The world is hardly overpopulated and the rich don't own anything close to every parcel of land. Heck, the rich have no reason to even waste drones defending their surplus landholdings, just as most owners of large tracts of land don't typically defend it against deer. As long as the non-rich don't interfere with the drones harvesting apples for consumption by the rich, why would the rich care what they do? Further, you seem to think the rich own most land. They may own most parcels of currently valuable land (e.g. Manhattan) weighted by land value, but that's not remotely the same thing. There are large amounts of land in the world which are currently laying fallow because there is no current use for them. E.g., Detroit is more or less abandoned (but well suited for industry), as are large amounts of flyover country which were formerly used for farming.