3 ms·
But why wouldn't the rest of society kick them out before that point? Like at some point, there's going to be a lot of political pressure to fix things, especia
by CM30 1mo ago
But why wouldn't the rest of society kick them out before that point? Like at some point, there's going to be a lot of political pressure to fix things, especially if the majority of the population is going hungry or struggling to find work.
Feels like at some point, some 'rogue' political figure will win election by saying the elites need to be overthrown, and the latter's influence will burn to the ground. If even a percentage of the world's countries are still democracies by that point, then any sort of 'leave the population to suffer while we live in luxury' plan will fail.
- ozozozd 1mo agoI keep questioning this as well. Also, what protects their wealth is the justice system and the enforcement mechanisms, which are run by ordinary people. There is no invisible force that will prevent the “peasants” from attacking the wealthy if the police also loses belief in the system and just starts looking the other way. Or just suddenly becomes _less competent_.
- m4rtink 1mo agoYou don't even need a democracy for this - the moment people go hungry beacause of you, they will do something about it.
- voakbasda 1mo agoBread and circuses. The only thing sustaining our civilization at the moment.
- suburban_strike 1mo agoThe moment people go hungry because of you, they will eat each other long before they think to challenge their oppressors. Those selling you the romance of revolution are ones sabotaging your food supply. They're sadists, and taunting you with false hope.
- account42 1mo agoWhy do you think countries are creating more and more ways to quickly squash dissent. If people can't organize because their messages are being monitored and public protests will get you immediately imprisoned then the resistance will come too late.
- Timon3 1mo agoHow many years remain where the population actually still has any way to kick them out? Once military robots are sufficiently advanced, we've lost. We'll be fully at their mercy. Optimistically speaking, that's maybe 5-10 years out?
- voakbasda 1mo agoAre there any robots that can withstand a 50 caliber rifle slug? Don’t rule out ‘muricans just yet!
- Timon3 1mo agoUnfortunately, even if a unified resistance formed by all gun-owning Americans were to march against them, it would buy the labor class a few months at most. Once enough capacity has been established (either production or troops) our only possible recourse would be to hijack/destroy their control, and that's unlikely to be possible if e.g. communication & compute originate from satellites.
- voakbasda 1mo agoI am increasingly disappointed by how sci-fi dystopias are moving from implausibility to inevitabilities.
- CM30 1mo agoBut that assumes the population can't vote for someone else who will kick them out. As far as I know, there are no plans to stop third parties from being created, independents from running for political roles, or people voting for whoever they want to vote for. If a large percentage of the population is going hungry or can't find jobs, then they'll vote for people that (at least say) they'll change that. If any of those people actually do that, then billionaires are toast, their assets could be seized and the laws could be rewritten so things like a universal basic income are implemented. It doesn't matter how many resources someone has, they're not overthrowing the government, replacing democracy with a dictatorship or doing anything of the sort, especially not worldwide.