5 ms·

I don't think so. It'd be more cost-effective to let us all starve.

• toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Hence, socialist safety nets. Because the alternative is.... unpleasant for capital/automation owners. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
  • chopin 11y ago
    This problem could be solved with robots as well. Why not having farming robots alongside with ones which protect them and the products of their labor from the greedy hands of the have-nots? It could be that robots able to kill will overturn the balance to the ones who can afford them even if they are a few. Who would dare to stop them?
    • toomuchtodo 11y ago
      If you have nothing to lose as a have-not, your options for action are extensive. Even the smallest nation-states can afford and manufacture nuclear weapons now (ie North Korea). I don't foresee this capability getting more expensive or more difficult as time goes on, only cheaper and easier.
• mywittyname 11y ago
  Then we'd just steal the food and he'd get nothing.
  • chopin 11y ago
    Robots could protect the food as well...