4 ms·

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 dangerou

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.

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.