Assuming that in the future most jobs will be replaced by artificial intelligence or other advanced systems, is it (in your opinion) highly likely that the powerful figures of this world would want to commit genocide against a large part of the world’s population, or would we be dealing with true philanthropists?
Yes. Eiliminating SNAP and healthcare benefits for the lower caste populations is a good slow first step.
You don’t need to actively kill people off unless you’re in a rush. Just let climate change render parts of the world uninhabitable while enforcing strict border control, and make sure your population don’t have access to decent healthcare and vaccinations so that prevmtable diseases reduce the local numbers.
Maybe I’m remembering wrong, but wasn’t that something that german eugenics guy said in the Epstien emails? About how making it too expensive to have children was a “kinder” form of population control?
The chances of a true philanthropist beating out the psychopaths currently at the top of the chain, is basically nil. They will always fight dirtier.
You need to ensure a government can exert power over the largest organisations in its country. If that ever becomes an issue, the organisation might start behaving as a de facto government of its own and start treating the actual government as a vassal.
Basically we need to kick corporatist politicians out of our governments before they finish rolling out the red carpet for the end of democracy, and start chopping up and/or nationalising these proto-megacorps. If only a few control the tools that put us all out of work, we’re not getting anything close to utopia.
If we’re talking about the US, then yes. 100%. It’s already underway.
We have eliminated a lot of jobs, and we do have large unemployment, and we do have a lot of bullshit jobs where nothing really gets done.
WW3 is also looking disturbingly feasible.
I’m not sure its a coincidence.
I yearn for a bullshit job where nothing really gets done. I’m just so tired.
They are already eliminating part of the population, picking you off one by one. Although it is necessary to reduce population in general, nobody is being honest about it. You are ALL too stupid to bother with at this point.
Although it is necessary to reduce population in general
is it?
there’s perhaps too many people to live as wastefully as we do, oughtn’t we reduce the waste then?
There are absolutely too many people on the planet. It’s not about waste (although that’s part of it) as much as there are limited resources to feed everyone and make all their toys. Now it is possible to feed everyone for some time but we will be doing it while the natural world disappears. Some care, some don’t.
there are too many people, to live the way we are. and the way we are living is shameful. what insanity would prioritise Many Not Existing so A Few can keep living a shameful life?
population distribution is anti-correlated with carbon footprint: “Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%”
it’s not about population, it’s so A HANDFUL of overly-privileged people can continue to waste energy on eg. nice frosty transparent dialog boxes serving them slop advertising on their smartphone as they sit on the toilet - so that MANY MANY other people end up either not existing or starving just so they can enjoy the privilege <insert applause>
I just want to add that I do recognize waste as a problem and something I personally tackle every day and try to influence others to pay attention to. There are many things that need to be done on a much larger scale but without education it would never get support. One of my favourites would be to mandate product warranties.
Blaming the 1% is popular right now but not relevant to the impact population has on our world. Mineral extraction, land clearing for food production and the raping of our oceans is not being done for the 1%.
