4 ms·

> If the rich need less and less educated, healthy and well fed workers, then more and more people will get treated like shit Maybe. I think it's a matter of c

> If the rich need less and less educated, healthy and well fed workers, then more and more people will get treated like shit Maybe. I think it's a matter of culture. Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? I'm no history buff but my hunch is that mistreatment of people largely came from a fear that if I don't engage in cruelty to maximize power, my opponents will and given that they're cruel, they'll be cruel to me when they come to take over. So we end up with this zero sum game of squeezing people, animals, resources and the planet in an arms race because everyone's afraid to lose. In the past - you couldn't be sure if someone else was building up an army, so you had to build up an army. But now that we have satellites and we can largely track everything - we can actually agree to not engage in this zero sum dynamic. There will be a shift from treating people as means to an end of power accumulation and containment, to treating people as something you just inherently like and would like to see prosper. It'll be a shift away from this deeply corrosive idea of never ending competition and growth. When people's basic needs are met and no one is grouping up to take other people's goodies - why should regular people compete with one another? They shouldn't and they won't. People who want to do good work will do so and improving the lives of people worldwide will be its own reward. Private islands, bunkers and yachts will become incomprehensible because there'll be no serf class to service any of it. We'll go back to if you want to be well liked and respected - you have to be a good person. I look forward to it :)

rwmj 2y ago
You've never met a rich person who mistreats their maid but dotes on their puppy?
- alexashka 2y ago
  You've refuted my entire argument. I am that stupid and you are that smart :)
sophacles 2y ago
> Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? Because very few regular people will be their pets. These are the people who do everything in their power to pay their employees less. They treat their non-pets horribly... see feed lots and amazon warehouses. They actively campaign against programs which treat anyone well, particularly those who they aren't extracting wealth from. They whine and moan and cry about rules that protect people from getting sick and injured because helping those people would prevent them from earning a bit more profit. They may spend a pile of money on surgery for their bunny, but if you want them to behave nicely to someone else's pet, or even someone else... well that's where they draw the line. I guess you are hoping to be one of those pets... but what makes you think you're qualified for that, and why would you be willing to sacrifice all of your friends and family to the fate of feral dogs for the chance to be a pet?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- alexashka 2y ago
  We're talking past one another. I'm not suggesting that a few people become rich people's pets. I'm saying it isn't inherent in human nature to mistreat other conscious beings. If people were normally cruel to their pets, then I'd say yeah, this species just seems to enjoy cruelty and it is what it is. But we aren't cruel to pets, so the cruelty to workers does not stem from human nature, but other factors. I gave one theory as to what causes the cruelty and that I'm somewhat optimistic that it'll run its course in due time. Anyhoo :)
  - cutemonster 2y ago
    > isn't inherent in human nature to mistreat other conscious beings. Killer ape theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_ape_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_ape_theory
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    >I'm saying it isn't inherent in human nature to mistreat other conscious beings. I suspect (but not sure) it may be more inherent than is generally believed. Then again simple physical pain is easy to gauge and relate to, but passing some law is an academic process where one can distance oneself from the ill effects on the adherents of the law. Then there are more variations - people will be tribalistic, they will be kind to their own kind/family even sacrificing, but murderous to some one of another tribe. All in all the average human is bundle of contradictions if you were to analyze simplistically, though it will make good sense when viewed through the lens of evolutionary biology.
criley2 2y ago
A few thousand rich people don't need 8 billion pets. "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" (Georgia Guidestones, a monument describing someone's ideal future that is surrounded by conspiracy) Will you be one of the 500 million pets? Or one of the 7.5 billion leftovers? Sure would be a shame if billions become unnecessary and then a pandemic 100X worse than covid got lableaked.
Loughla 2y ago
History just flies in the face of what you've said. We've done monarchies and serfdoms in the past. If the king is good, life is good. But you better hope they're good forever because if the king is bad, it's really bad. Also, I would rather die than be someone's pet. Why should I have to rely on the charity and good humor of a ruler? Pardon my language but Fuck that entirely.

rwmj 2y ago

You've never met a rich person who mistreats their maid but dotes on their puppy?

alexashka 2y ago
You've refuted my entire argument. I am that stupid and you are that smart :)

sophacles 2y ago

> Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? Because very few regular people will be their pets. These are the people who do everything in their power to pay their employees less. They treat their non-pets horribly... see feed lots and amazon warehouses. They actively campaign against programs which treat anyone well, particularly those who they aren't extracting wealth from. They whine and moan and cry about rules that protect people from getting sick and injured because helping those people would prevent them from earning a bit more profit. They may spend a pile of money on surgery for their bunny, but if you want them to behave nicely to someone else's pet, or even someone else... well that's where they draw the line. I guess you are hoping to be one of those pets... but what makes you think you're qualified for that, and why would you be willing to sacrifice all of your friends and family to the fate of feral dogs for the chance to be a pet?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
alexashka 2y ago
We're talking past one another. I'm not suggesting that a few people become rich people's pets. I'm saying it isn't inherent in human nature to mistreat other conscious beings. If people were normally cruel to their pets, then I'd say yeah, this species just seems to enjoy cruelty and it is what it is. But we aren't cruel to pets, so the cruelty to workers does not stem from human nature, but other factors. I gave one theory as to what causes the cruelty and that I'm somewhat optimistic that it'll run its course in due time. Anyhoo :)
- cutemonster 2y ago
  > isn't inherent in human nature to mistreat other conscious beings. Killer ape theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_ape_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_ape_theory
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >I'm saying it isn't inherent in human nature to mistreat other conscious beings. I suspect (but not sure) it may be more inherent than is generally believed. Then again simple physical pain is easy to gauge and relate to, but passing some law is an academic process where one can distance oneself from the ill effects on the adherents of the law. Then there are more variations - people will be tribalistic, they will be kind to their own kind/family even sacrificing, but murderous to some one of another tribe. All in all the average human is bundle of contradictions if you were to analyze simplistically, though it will make good sense when viewed through the lens of evolutionary biology.

criley2 2y ago

A few thousand rich people don't need 8 billion pets. "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" (Georgia Guidestones, a monument describing someone's ideal future that is surrounded by conspiracy) Will you be one of the 500 million pets? Or one of the 7.5 billion leftovers? Sure would be a shame if billions become unnecessary and then a pandemic 100X worse than covid got lableaked.

Loughla 2y ago

History just flies in the face of what you've said. We've done monarchies and serfdoms in the past. If the king is good, life is good. But you better hope they're good forever because if the king is bad, it's really bad. Also, I would rather die than be someone's pet. Why should I have to rely on the charity and good humor of a ruler? Pardon my language but Fuck that entirely.