3 ms·

I don't think revolt is an inevitable outcome for a number of reasons. I actually think it's very unlikely. First, the warfare would be very asymmetric, with m

by exelius 12y ago

I don't think revolt is an inevitable outcome for a number of reasons. I actually think it's very unlikely. First, the warfare would be very asymmetric, with much of the war fighting capability automated through the very robotics that empower the capital class economically. Go ahead and ask the Taliban / ISIS what happens when you try to fight a modern military force in 2015 with weapons from 1970. If you don't have the money, you can't afford the newest weapons. If you don't have the newest weapons, you'll be fighting an asymmetric war from the weak position. Second, it is in the best interests of the capital class to keep the underclasses happy. You see this tactic in a lot of developing countries like Mexico or India - the government subsidizes energy, food, etc. for the poor; meanwhile the rich run roughshod over the economy. So while people may dislike the lack of upward mobility, they are also dependent on the system (which is largely funded by the capital class), so there's very little will to change. If you give people just enough that they fear losing it, they will continue to vote for you.

jerf 12y ago
"I don't think revolt is an inevitable outcome for a number of reasons." Sorry, I wasn't clear. My comment was a reply, and was taking the parent as a given. If a very small cabal of capital owners tries to enslave the whole of humanity, then it won't be stable because humanity will revolt. And it is unlikely to come to that, for the reasons you state. Interestingly, "large swathes of humanity enslaved" is actually a thing that has happened in the past, but in the past, the slaves were what we'd consider radically poor, and the enslaving states were not high-skill affairs. I also disagree that merely keeping people happy-ish will suffice. We do have, as someone else says, "bread and circuses" today, but there's still a lot of people bitching about "income inequality", pushing for ever more wealth transfers to them, and hinting at if not outright threatening violence any time there's any suggestion that those will be taken away. I see no evidence there's a level of wealth that satisfies people in the longterm, and the capital owners can never be wealthy enough to satisfy humanity in the long term. You'd have to re-engineer humanity to have some concept of "enough" built into them. Eventually the capital owners will be forced to reckon with something. If nothing else, eventually the remaining people who are still doing some sort of work are simply going to go on strike. Humans are rarely happy with the amount of wealth they have, and historically speaking, it seems giving them more makes that problem worse, not better.

by exelius 12y ago

jerf 12y ago

"I don't think revolt is an inevitable outcome for a number of reasons." Sorry, I wasn't clear. My comment was a reply, and was taking the parent as a given. If a very small cabal of capital owners tries to enslave the whole of humanity, then it won't be stable because humanity will revolt. And it is unlikely to come to that, for the reasons you state. Interestingly, "large swathes of humanity enslaved" is actually a thing that has happened in the past, but in the past, the slaves were what we'd consider radically poor, and the enslaving states were not high-skill affairs. I also disagree that merely keeping people happy-ish will suffice. We do have, as someone else says, "bread and circuses" today, but there's still a lot of people bitching about "income inequality", pushing for ever more wealth transfers to them, and hinting at if not outright threatening violence any time there's any suggestion that those will be taken away. I see no evidence there's a level of wealth that satisfies people in the longterm, and the capital owners can never be wealthy enough to satisfy humanity in the long term. You'd have to re-engineer humanity to have some concept of "enough" built into them. Eventually the capital owners will be forced to reckon with something. If nothing else, eventually the remaining people who are still doing some sort of work are simply going to go on strike. Humans are rarely happy with the amount of wealth they have, and historically speaking, it seems giving them more makes that problem worse, not better.