9 ms·

Also, do the 10% believe that they are a static group deserving of persistent participation in the "working class" - or is this a competitive and fluid group in

Also, do the 10% believe that they are a static group deserving of persistent participation in the "working class" - or is this a competitive and fluid group in which the children of the 90% may move into/out of as their skills/ability apply? Which is to ask - is it worth maintaining a 90% at all or should we 'solve that problem'?

philipkglass 9y ago
When even a small percentage of the rich oppose an extermination program for the bottom 90%, it turns a plan for tidy mass murder into chaotic war with dangerous risks to even the richest. That's why I don't put much weight on the "rich exterminate the unneeded poor" scenario, as outlined in Peter Frase's "B" scenario from Four Futures.
- vkou 9y ago
  The more likely outcome of a true post-scarcity society is the 90% will be house servants for the 10%.
  - marcus_holmes 9y ago
    This has always proved to be unstable. It will always result in revolution. The 90% will demand an equal share. The sad bit is that the revolutions seem to destroy the robots, not share the wealth. The 90% elect a different 10%, who then build more robots. See Animal Farm for details. The 10% have to share the pie, at least enough to prevent revolution.
    - bmomb 9y ago
      The revolution aspect will still be relevant when we consider autonomous war machines? What power the 90% have when its opposed to drones, or some other hi-tech weapon?
      - marcus_holmes 9y ago
        It worked for Gandhi fighting (or rather, not fighting) the British. Superior weaponry doesn't necessarily lead to victory in this kind of conflict.
        explainplease 9y ago
        If you haven't already, I highly recommend playing the Paperclips game that was posted recently. When your enemies are merely numbers on a screen, what does it matter who or what they are? Your machines are tasked to eliminate them, and if your machines are better than their machines--or, in this case, if the enemy don't have any machines--you win, and they disappear. Then you task your machines to clean up the mess, and in a short time, it's as if your enemies never existed. We hope that there would be enough good people among the wealthy and powerful to avoid such a scenario--but would there? Do we know that for certain? I don't think we do. Look at how the wealthy and powerful already exploit people on both small and large scales, from Hollywood execs satisfying their sexual desires one victim at a time, to corporate execs exploiting cheap overseas labor that, to them, are merely numbers on a screen, helping them increase margins. It all boils down to the same problem in the end, that of evil, and it's not going away, merely taking different forms throughout the ages.
        marcus_holmes 9y ago
        that Paperclips game cost me half a day of my life... I don't know whether to thank you or curse you ;)
        explainplease 9y ago
        Ditto, my friend. :) But I will never think about some things the same way again. It was a memorable experience, indeed.
        Qwertious 9y ago
        Gandhi fighting worked because the Indians outnumbered the british by more than 10:1, and if they did fight, they easily could have won. What's changed since then is that an extreme minority can kill far more people. For instance, automated drones.
lsiebert 9y ago
I think you are assuming equal opportunity for the children of the wealthy vs the children of the poor. It doesn't take any particular smarts to live off of family money though. Investment income doesn't require work to support oneself, properly diversified it will continue to grow. Income from jobs however, does require work. Study after study indicates that wealth provides opportunities, and that most people don't move up to become wealthy but are born that way. So basically society systematically advantages people who have wealthy parents, over people who work hard. Bill Gates father was relatively wealthy. Imagine how many bill gates there are who are poor. If Elon Musk hadn't had his father's money for his first company, there might not be a paypal or tesla. So the question is how many potential bill gates and elon musks are there who's parents couldn't risk supporting them, who settle for doing something less innovative and interesting because they need to pay the bills or support family members?
- fastball 9y ago
  But where did the wealthy parents come from? You're setting up a chicken and egg problem for yourself. Wealth had to start somewhere, as I doubt you'd argue that it was handed down to certain families by a deity. Heritage is important. A person does not just have more opportunity because of the wealth of an ancestor - they exist because of that ancestor. Does everyone not deserve to have whatever their ancestors chose to give them? The only argument that can be made is if you can show that someone's ancestors only had wealth because they unjustly stole it from others. But that's a tall order.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    If you go down the history, most wealth was stolen from people violently and from then on anybody born into these aristocratic families would continue benefiting from the wealth. A lot of new wealth has been created by people born into poor / middle class families in last 1-2 centuries for sure, especially 20th century. But there are still families today that are wealthy and their wealth have been with them for 400-500 or more years. And in those cases it's very likely the original wealth was stolen. It could be that original wealth was gathered during robber baron times by exploiting workers or it could be even older, being passed from generation to generation since medieval times. Which means the original aristocracy probably gained this wealth in a violent conquest.
pasquinelli 9y ago
"Also, do the 10% believe that they are a static group deserving of persistent participation in the 'working class'" yes. i seriously question the need for the "top" 10%. whatever spread of percentile that maps to the right sort of people would do.

philipkglass 9y ago

When even a small percentage of the rich oppose an extermination program for the bottom 90%, it turns a plan for tidy mass murder into chaotic war with dangerous risks to even the richest. That's why I don't put much weight on the "rich exterminate the unneeded poor" scenario, as outlined in Peter Frase's "B" scenario from Four Futures.

vkou 9y ago
The more likely outcome of a true post-scarcity society is the 90% will be house servants for the 10%.
- marcus_holmes 9y ago
  This has always proved to be unstable. It will always result in revolution. The 90% will demand an equal share. The sad bit is that the revolutions seem to destroy the robots, not share the wealth. The 90% elect a different 10%, who then build more robots. See Animal Farm for details. The 10% have to share the pie, at least enough to prevent revolution.
  - bmomb 9y ago
    The revolution aspect will still be relevant when we consider autonomous war machines? What power the 90% have when its opposed to drones, or some other hi-tech weapon?
    - marcus_holmes 9y ago
      It worked for Gandhi fighting (or rather, not fighting) the British. Superior weaponry doesn't necessarily lead to victory in this kind of conflict.
      - explainplease 9y ago
        If you haven't already, I highly recommend playing the Paperclips game that was posted recently. When your enemies are merely numbers on a screen, what does it matter who or what they are? Your machines are tasked to eliminate them, and if your machines are better than their machines--or, in this case, if the enemy don't have any machines--you win, and they disappear. Then you task your machines to clean up the mess, and in a short time, it's as if your enemies never existed. We hope that there would be enough good people among the wealthy and powerful to avoid such a scenario--but would there? Do we know that for certain? I don't think we do. Look at how the wealthy and powerful already exploit people on both small and large scales, from Hollywood execs satisfying their sexual desires one victim at a time, to corporate execs exploiting cheap overseas labor that, to them, are merely numbers on a screen, helping them increase margins. It all boils down to the same problem in the end, that of evil, and it's not going away, merely taking different forms throughout the ages.
        marcus_holmes 9y ago
        that Paperclips game cost me half a day of my life... I don't know whether to thank you or curse you ;)
        explainplease 9y ago
        Ditto, my friend. :) But I will never think about some things the same way again. It was a memorable experience, indeed.
      - Qwertious 9y ago
        Gandhi fighting worked because the Indians outnumbered the british by more than 10:1, and if they did fight, they easily could have won. What's changed since then is that an extreme minority can kill far more people. For instance, automated drones.

lsiebert 9y ago

I think you are assuming equal opportunity for the children of the wealthy vs the children of the poor. It doesn't take any particular smarts to live off of family money though. Investment income doesn't require work to support oneself, properly diversified it will continue to grow. Income from jobs however, does require work. Study after study indicates that wealth provides opportunities, and that most people don't move up to become wealthy but are born that way. So basically society systematically advantages people who have wealthy parents, over people who work hard. Bill Gates father was relatively wealthy. Imagine how many bill gates there are who are poor. If Elon Musk hadn't had his father's money for his first company, there might not be a paypal or tesla. So the question is how many potential bill gates and elon musks are there who's parents couldn't risk supporting them, who settle for doing something less innovative and interesting because they need to pay the bills or support family members?

fastball 9y ago
But where did the wealthy parents come from? You're setting up a chicken and egg problem for yourself. Wealth had to start somewhere, as I doubt you'd argue that it was handed down to certain families by a deity. Heritage is important. A person does not just have more opportunity because of the wealth of an ancestor - they exist because of that ancestor. Does everyone not deserve to have whatever their ancestors chose to give them? The only argument that can be made is if you can show that someone's ancestors only had wealth because they unjustly stole it from others. But that's a tall order.
- richardknop 9y ago
  If you go down the history, most wealth was stolen from people violently and from then on anybody born into these aristocratic families would continue benefiting from the wealth. A lot of new wealth has been created by people born into poor / middle class families in last 1-2 centuries for sure, especially 20th century. But there are still families today that are wealthy and their wealth have been with them for 400-500 or more years. And in those cases it's very likely the original wealth was stolen. It could be that original wealth was gathered during robber baron times by exploiting workers or it could be even older, being passed from generation to generation since medieval times. Which means the original aristocracy probably gained this wealth in a violent conquest.

pasquinelli 9y ago

"Also, do the 10% believe that they are a static group deserving of persistent participation in the 'working class'" yes. i seriously question the need for the "top" 10%. whatever spread of percentile that maps to the right sort of people would do.