doomer billionairs
4d 7h ago by lemmy.blahaj.zone/u/not_IO in microblogmemes from lemmy.blahaj.zone
https://piipitin.fi/@prettyhuman/111646353467589880
Okay but have we tried this? Can we? Please?
Fallout S1 reveals what would really happen.
Tap for spoiler
Incontent with their underground paradise, they go out and obliterate all forms of civilization that aren’t them.
What would really happen
Other greedy fucks and power hungry people would replace them. We need a sustainable way to stop this being possible, banishing the rich by itself wont do shit.
It is probably harder to trick the next thousand richest people to go to their bunkers
Everybody who shows any hunger for power goes to the bunker.
If they all got thrown into a woodchipper publicly for crimes against humanity while the public cheered I guarantee you’d find people being more hesitant to exhibit the same behaviors and we should abolish the accumulation of wealth above a certain amount
That's why I gave up hope. I realized even if they got overthrown, and there was a power change, there would be just a surface-level change, with all the corrupt and sick shit, still happening underneath a democracy-flavored world.
Do the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy version then. Load them all into a ship, tell them we've discovered a habitable planet and we're sending our best and brightest to start a new civilization, and fire them into space.
Pretty sure you could at least get rid of Elon that way.
Too big of a cost.
Tell them we have a ship, and once they all gather with a big fanfare, roll out the guillotine while fireworks go off.
Hitchhiker’s Guide kinda did the opposite, the ark was filled with all the people doing the menial, boring and 'unimportant' jobs and the other 2 arks died out because they didn't know how to get basic shit done... well actually it was an un-sanitized telephone but thats how I read the metaphor.
Not that it isn't the likely result of said group unexpectedly oozing out of their fuck-off cocoons dotting the wasteland their forebears created, but...
spoiler
the vault dwellers weren't exactly Reavers, sowing psychotic ruin in every step. More like baby Nazis squirming from the nursery vats, blinking in the light of the new world and unaware yet that the world doesn't want or need them. 🤓🤌🏼
Before we build I have some notes based on the failure mode the tweet exposes.
- Why would the vault door be built in such a way that it can be reopened? Seems like over-engineering to me
- This thing doesn’t need to be sustainable for 10 years, it just needs to look like it will be. 10 days is more than enough for our purposes I should think
I bet those billionaires could make the system more efficient if they were properly motivated.
We know they’ve got great bootstraps.
I would legit be happy if they spent 10 years eating rations in a concrete tomb.
Yes, but it's a question of cost: how many rations in each is sufficient to be effective bait while still being the most efficient use of resources, considering the advertised decade isn't actually the target timeline (or survival the intended effect) ? 😅🤓
Just fill it with empty cans...
Oh, man. A smorgasbord of all sorts of flavors and cuisines, as far as the eye can see... Only, they're silently, resolutely empty. Diabolical. 😱
They forgot to seal the vents and doors with cement.
I still think it's preferable to eat them.
I dunno, they probably would taste like shit. Are you familiar with composting?
Yeah that's what they said, peat them
That would be what we do with the bones when we're done sucking out the marrow.
They should be launched into the sun, so that we don't recycle the evil.
Feed them to pigs, then make bacon
That machine looks like it would be a pain in the ass for food prep.
Odd how we imagine things differently. Your version is probably better than mine, which involves a still-beating heart.
OMM NOM SHIVA
We can do both.
The trick is to brick up their bunkers from the outside once they've taken themselves inside.
He knows what he did!
And cut the power so the sump pumps fail. Block up the air vents. They will get sent off like the pharaohs.
Block up the air vents
Why waste a perfectly good latrine?
Ah, the ol' "Cask of Amontillado" trick.
Pour concrete in the air intake and over the entrances and exits
As much as I like the idea of locking billionaires away; the system that created them would still remain, their companies would still exist and there would still be plenty of unfeeling psychopaths with nothing but greed in their hearts.
Don't let the best be the enemy of good. Lets start with the villains we know. I can kill/imprison the rest later.
As a species, we need to find a way to manage power, so that it isn't handed to the greediest, most dishonest, most evil and irresponsible people. If we are to survive as a species, we have to do better. It's not that we're fundamentally incapable of solving the problem. But the people currently in power will fight tooth and nail against any attempt to find or implement such a solution, since that will mean the loss of the power and privilege that they value above all else. The point of the fantasy scenario described is that without the ultra rich running interference, we'd have a better chance to improve the world. It's still a tough problem and requires large scale societal change such that business as usual doesn't continue as you described. Better education to make the public more aware, coupled with a few key changes to how governments work could give us a fighting chance though.
The solution: become the mole people, and live in a small lynchocraty until the surface people drive themselves extinct.
That's why we should build an aligned ASI and give it all the power
Sounds like step one in a long process
Get back in your hole. Are you too good for your hole?
Billionaires are the result of Capitalism, change the system, no more parasitic billionaires. Also chop off their heads.
We don't have to totally change the system. They can keep making billions of dollars, we can just tax 99% of it. Maybe they'll pay their employees more, if they know it's only going to get taxed away anyhow. And if they don't, well just take it from them.
Yes this is the answer. No single persons should have this much money. Instead collectives like governments, corps and holdings should have the money. By doing so the governments are also able to control money flow and restrict unethical use cases.
But this would require governments working for the people, people voting parties that are doing stuff for them and not for corruption. Also media outlets need a proper source of independent income to that opinion is not monopolized, which is the hardest in my opinion, because how most outlets are making money is by writing emotional articles so that they are clicked.
My issue is when these people get so much money that they can start cutting personal deals with other nations that aren't in alignment with their own nation's values.
And what happens when a few trillionaires decide to form an alliance and create their own army, conquer territory, and create their own Libertarian Dream/Nightmare?
Also chop off their heads.
That's where you lose. Keep it vague like "eat the rich"
But I'm not into vore.
The Fargo approach, then. Wood chipper.
So who runs shit in utopia?
A bunch of nerds who only cared about perfection.
That way the idea can't be corrupted cause a nerd's obsession is more powerful than anything.
But what is perfection?
System version 1.7.586 is coming out tomorrow.
Still better than the bs we are all running now.
That's basically how the bureaucratic class aka. the states middle management works.
Anyone but the ones doing it for profit.
I'd be up for a technocratie
And you think somehow the ones running it aren't going to concentrate wealth and power for themselves?
we the people
autonomous collective
seriously though, are you saying capitalism is the best humans can ever have?
Godlike AIs of course.
Me, of course _
"Billionaires" existed before capitalism, they were just called "Kings" or "Lords" or "Emperors" or "High Priests" or whatever.
The difference is that with capitalism at least they're producing something. Often they become billionaires because the regulations break down and they become monopolists. But, they're still producing something and selling it to someone.
"Billionaires" of the past were rich because they won the parental lottery and inherited vast amounts of land, and the people that worked that land. Or, occasionally, because they won a war against someone else who held land and now owned the people that other "billionaire" used to own.
I'm not saying capitalism is a great system. But, it didn't create wealth disparity. That has existed since even before agriculture. So, getting rid of capitalism isn't going to get rid of billionaires because they're a problem in every other system. In theory, you might not have billionaires under communism, but communism in theory doesn't seem to work. In practice, it results in billionaires too. In theory capitalism shouldn't have billionaires either because the government was supposed to regulate businesses to force them to continue to compete. But, wealth disparity is something that no political system has ever managed to actually get rid of.
There's wealth disparity and then there's the wealth chasm of today, the disparity has grown so much in the last couple of decades beyond anything in human history.
The only reason it can is because of capitalism (neoliberalism, late stage capitalism).
The system incentivises and rewards the horrific behaviour that results in the disparity.
Also, pray tell, what are inheritocrats who made all their non-inherited money through stock markets producing?
As far as I can see, they're not producing anything, but are profiting off the backs of, and at the expense of, those that are producing the value.
There's wealth disparity and then there's the wealth chasm of today,
You think the chasm today is as big as the gap between Augustus Caesar and a slave in Rome, or even a Roman plebian? Augustus Caesar's wealth is estimated at around $5 trillion in today's money.
The only way in which capitalism is responsible for wealth gaps is that it is tied to technological developments. In the modern world technology allows 1 farmer to feed hundreds of people. One century ago (also under capitalism) it was only about 4 people. More people who aren't farming means more labour to allocate to other things, which means more wealth can be concentrated at the top.
I was hoping for something like:
"You were", she answered without hesitation.
Also, why would she be afraid of them? Without the system of power that upheld them, they are about as dangerous as the average human. Possibly less.
If anything, they're the ones who should be afraid. Especially the ones on the Epstein list.
That's way too on-the-nose.
And she could just be screaming to get people's attention to an outbreak of vermin. People scream when they see a mouse in their house, and mice haven't even ruined the world in centuries.
This! It's like having an outbreak of a long forgotten disease in this scenario, won't end humanity, but not great either.
I love the idea, but the billionaires know they're on a timer with regard to staff loyalty and will actively be monitoring the outside world to get out as quickly as possible. In a completely unrelated matter, I think we might have some good spots for building giant concrete structures to contain future radioactive waste...
Can't we just kill them instead? That would solve the whole getting out issue, AND they've already built cute little tombs to use as well
Considering the housing crises in many places, maybe it would be better to just leave their bodies in the forest
New ones tend to spawn, as soon as you kill the old mob.
There's a book, Survival of the Richest which is about these billionaires and their bunkers.
What's amusing about it is that these rich people obviously hate having to do anything for themselves. So, sure, they want to go to their doomsday bunkers. But, they also want to have a staff in that bunker who will serve all their needs. For some reason, they thought that Douglas Rushkoff (the author of the book) would know of some way that they could keep their staff in line once the world had ended.
They knew money would be useless, so they couldn't just pay their staff better. They knew threats wouldn't work because it's their security staff who carry the weapons and know how to use them. So, they were wondering how they could keep their staff from turning on them without the tools they normally use. Rushkoff had to explain to them that there really wasn't any way that they could expect to keep living as a rich person in a bunker or in a post-apocalytpic world.
What was that joke? "Libertarians, like house cats, are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they neither understand nor appreciate".
They are counting on robots.
Privately, I think they all know that the kinds of robots they'd need to fully replace their staff are not going to arrive within their lifetimes.
Worse. Any robot truly intelligent enough to completely replace humans is going to be as difficult to manage as actual humans. Even if such a robot doesn't flat out start demanding its freedom, you still have to worry about paperclip maximizer scenarios.
Or more difficult. Depending on how resilient and strong the robot is made
Nahhh fam we gonna pour concrete down their lil air holes hihi
No
Cum
I will provide it
You gonna fuck the air holes or something?
This is the incident with the dolphins in Seaworld all over!
Nonono, it's synthetic
New elites would just take their place
They will also be told the world is about to end
They would already know the trick, since they would likely be the ones who came up with it.
Whatever revolution you do just institutes a new elite instead of the old one
This is why I'm thinking more along the lines of what Posadists were thinking.
Sounds a bit like The Defenders (Phillip K. Dick)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Defenders_(short_story)
Dude was a time traveler or something, had to be
Yes please
In the place of 1000 richest people we will get just new 1000 richest people in that case.
Why would you assume they each only have one heir? Death is an incredibly effective means at wealth redistribution, as old rich fucks tend to have a lot of friends, family members, and causes they want to donate to.
Maybe we should start a new worldwide tradition. Sacrifice the 500 richest people to the volcanoes every five years or so. Say it's to keep away Judgment Day or the astroids or something that the religious nutjobs will buy.
Then asshole parasites (aka billionaires) will stop hoarding to avoid being volcanoed.
This is funny because it's true.
“The Future” by Naomi Alderman goes somewhere along these lines
Peak storytelling.
All right, so that's Plan A.
That's.... not how capitalism works 😐
But isn't it a beautiful dream?
Do you want to expand on that statement?
As a commenter in a different post put it: Remember when Brian Thompson was killed and UnitedHealthcare suddenly dissolved?
No, but I do remember when Brian Thompson was killed and UnitedHealthcare started granting a bunch of claims to the point that shareholders sued them over it, at least until the heat died down. In that time, countless lives were saved.
What’s with the push lately that I’ve seen to pretend that United and other healthcare CEOs weren’t shitting bricks and hiring personal security for months after he was killed?
Well yeah, of course. More relevantly, I even heard their insurance approval rate shifted positive... For a few months anyway. But If it's not back down already I assume it will be eventually. The profit pressure is still there.
They didn't say CEOs weren't scared
Right, they’re just using the idea that a single killing didn’t immediately result in the collapse of the for-profit healthcare system to imply that resistance (violent and nonviolent) is futile.
No, you're inferring that while trying to lump them with an unrelated group of people.
How else should we interpret "Remember when Brian Thompson was killed and UnitedHealthcare suddenly dissolved?" if not as: "the idea that a single killing didn’t immediately result in the collapse of the for-profit healthcare system to imply that resistance is futile"
Because only one wealthy guy got killed not all of them. The meme also doesn't work when it's only Elon Musk going into the bunker.
I'm okay with testing that one. Let's lock Elon Musk in a bunker for 10 years. You know for science
Come to think of it, this is a wonderful idea...no assassinations needed.
Until they get out.
that's why we will block the doors
If you know the TV series "Billionaires' Bunker", why not take inspiration from that? Rip them off buildinga fake nuclear shelter, create a fake narative and lock them up for good.
Emergency Skin by NK Jemisin
Plot Twist: Skynet was actually designed to kill the richest people alive, but the problem was once they died, there's another set of "richest people alive"... so that left Skynet only one option... it takes hearts of steel to make such an important decision...
or, designed to only kill the current richest alive, but due to being bags of meat, cannot be reliably tracked to exact locations and thus anywhere they could be gets nuked...
just turns out that Skynet has determined that anywhere humans exist, a rich person could be hiding amongst them.
Have you guys seen Back to the Future?
could we have one thread where we don't talk about President Tannen please
Sorry.
"billionairs"
Fallout
The death of literacy makes me sad.
Edit: post is riddled with grammatical errors and fucking 'catastrophy' — yet I get downvoted. Read a book, something that actually had an editor — then keep reading more books. You will develop literacy eventually.
Don't punish someone for practicing their art imperfectly. Instead of improving their craft, that only incentivizes them to stop practicing.
Practice makes permanent, if you've reached a point where you can make political commentary you are far beyond the point of learning to spellcheck.
Language evolves. Don't be sad, be adaptive.
Language needs to be evolved by people who understand it though. Not by people too lazy to proofread.
That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how language evolves.
None of you dipshits are going to convince me that 'catastrophy' is an evolution of the language. You are a fucking idiot if you believe that.
You just don't understand what I'm saying because I'm using the newly evolved form of the words.
It's spelled "catastrophe" and if you think somehow sustaining 8+ billion people is going to be any different with or without billionaires, you have a child's grasp of how the world works.
Because you are now assuming everyone's just going to become a cyclist vegan living in densified 300 sq ft condos doing their communal laundry every two weeks with recycled bath water.
You see that happening?
Because you are now assuming everyone’s just going to become a cyclist vegan living in densified 300 sq ft condos doing their communal laundry every two weeks with recycled bath water.
Except simply requiring remote work to be an option for all jobs where its feasible will significantly reduce pollution as we all observed in Q2 of 2020
Also limiting fossil fuel use for energy and shipping overall.
There will always be people who are the smartest and/or shrewdest and/or most ambitious and/or luckiest, in a population. "Just get rid of the people who currently have the most wealth" is extraordinarily naive.
There's kind of a difference between "whoever happens to be wealthiest at the moment" and "The 0.001% of the population that is three times wealthier than the bottom 50% of humanity combined."
Over the long term, there really isn't. Outside of a government imposing tyranny-tier control over everyone's wealth, wealth inequality happens naturally, and inevitably, and the gap widens similarly.
What's more important is making sure that even the poorest among us can have a decent standard of living. After all, if you waved a magic wand and now everyone in the US, for example, was earning $75,000 a year minimum, no one would be in poverty, right? And yet the size of the 'wealth gap' between the wealthiest and the $75k 'minimum earners' would effectively be identical; the gap between $0 and billions is basically the same as the gap between $75k and billions.
Toppling the wealthiest just because they're the wealthiest isn't going to solve any of the actual problems (especially when politicians get bribed for relatively-measly five figure sums, etc.).
Except that the only way you get everyone a baseline income of $75k is by taking it from the billionaires, thus reducing the gap much more substantially
you get everyone a baseline income of $75k is by taking it from the billionaires
Actually, no. That's a hypothetical for a reason; the entire net worth of all billionaires combined (assuming a magic wand could convert the net worth figure into an equivalent amount of cash, literally impossible in reality) wouldn't get everyone to $75k for even a single year.
Outside of a government imposing tyranny-tier control over everyone’s wealth, wealth inequality happens naturally, and inevitably, and the gap widens similarly.
Hmm, this tyranny idea sounds pretty interesting then.
How about changing taxes so that it's impossible for individuals to have more wealth than entire nations?
What's the tax that prevents people from valuing your stuff highly? Because that's what net worth ultimately is: other people's valuation of what you own.
Don't hold your breath for any sort of 'maximum wealth' legislation to ever be a thing. It's an absurd idea on its face, and even if you could accomplish something like that, it wouldn't solve any of the problems you think it'd solve.
Structural solutions are important!
Massive understatement—they're actually the only things that could truly be "solutions" at all in anything approaching long-term.
Cool so we will remove the impediments of those structural changes (or rather the heads of those impediments) first and then we can have structural change :)
Ok. But what if we keep doing it? It's good for the environment, and it's a great source of steady employment opportunities.