• HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone
    ·
    1 day ago

    100%

    I dont actually care about the continued propogation of the species all that much, and I'm cooked either way so... lets crab bucket it up.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I don't think this question is particularly interesting or productive, either you accept total extinction or you accept eco-fascism as a valid viewpoint in the context of this question. There's nothing to be learned from, and it sets the user up to align with eco-fascism based on a false dichotomy to begin with.

  • robotElder2 [he/him, it/its]
    ·
    1 day ago

    99% death is the current plan of the one percent. MAD worked. To deter them we should comit now to total human extinction in that event. Jeff Bezos does not get kill us all and live out his days in a new Zeeland bunker.

  • keepcarrot [she/her]
    ·
    2 days ago

    Me posing the question "Would you prefer global communism or nuclear war?" to try to get answer I want through false dichotomy, only to be disappointed in the results.

  • culpritus [any]
    ·
    2 days ago

    The fact that there is not a choice to just end the 1% makes this very fry

      • culpritus [any]
        ·
        2 days ago

        hitler-detector jeezus this thing just started beeping like crazy

          • culpritus [any]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            The 1% at the top have chosen to maintain the current system for generations. They also have chosen to strangle any attempts to change the system whenever possible via immense violence.

              • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]
                ·
                1 day ago

                I really don't think you understand the scale of the ultra wealthy - the top 1% own almost half of the world's wealth. Yes, the next 1% are much different, as they don't own almost half of the entire world's money.

              • Zoift [he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Do you think the kind of circumstances that would lead to the 1% being ended would be conducive to another slotting itself in without problem?

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is just a question on whether one were rich or not lol.

    But anyway, both option tend to end with everyone dead or at least only 0.001% surviving if we're talking about Thanos snap situation. The 1% cannot run any facility on their own(electricity, plumbing, health, etc), and tend not to be a survivor expert. Infighting will happen soon, and tribes will form. If it happens in winter, the one from cold country will all die out if they don't all have doomsday vault, leaving those from the warmer climate to face the element. In the end, they will realise the billions and millions of moneys they accumulated is worthless if there's no way to use it.

  • Quintus@lemmy.ml
    ·
    2 days ago

    There's only one answer. What's the point of this question? The only people that would want total wipe out are the ones that say stuff like "Humanity is a cancer on the world I shall go and do a clean-up!".

  • psyklax@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    ·
    2 days ago

    These scenarios are identical in my opinion. They'll likely dwindle and die in a short time anyway. The wealthy are not particularly well suited to rebuilding society, nor are they at a disadvantage, they are just average people who (used to) have wealth.

    Actually, little side thought occurs to me here, they can't access their wealth unless it was stored physically, and even then, only if our concept of currency hasn't changed. In my version of this scenario, I'm assuming the 1% still have useful currency, banks still work, etc.

    So we got a bunch of more or less equally rich people, who may have access to resources, but their laborers and security forces are Thanos-snapped away.

    Hmm..

    My guess is that the ones who have weapons will establish a sort of warlord apocalypse scenario. Wouldn't be much different from any other random selection of 1% of the population. The resources you hold and the skills you know matter even more when society disappears. It will start with 1%, the sudden shock of not having most other people to provide for each other will quickly halve that. The fighting over resources will kill a bit more. Eventually there will be an environmental disaster like a drought, and that's it for humanity.

    • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      These scenarios are identical in my opinion. They'll likely dwindle and die in a short time anyway. The wealthy are not particularly well suited to rebuilding society

      No they won't lol

      As for "rebuilding society", they'd eventually get there after some generations. Nothing humans built or invented was particularly difficult to do, it was inequality/lack of resources/lack of necessity holding people back at every step

      • psyklax@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        ·
        1 day ago

        If they survive multiple generations, then they survive. I give that a less than 50% chance ("unlikely"). Selecting for the wealthiest 1% is selecting for 1) elderly 2) psychopathic 3) men. Only 10% of the population of the richest 1% is female, and I would assume they are also older than the average person. I'm putting a lot of weight on the psychology of the wealthy and the state that we've "collectively" (it was them) put this planet into.

        • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          obviously they'd bring their kids along they'll figure something out, or their kids will kill each other down the line and make a new line of humans

          I see your argument a lot from liberals, no offense, and it's just big cope--the insanely rich are the best equipped to survive cataclysm, and will definitely have advance knowledge of it before it happens (at least past a certain threshold of importance)

          Like if you just gave me a goat and a few potatoes I'd survive an apocalypse provided the temps and rainfall weren't too fucked, and also provided there was noone else around me. That's why they're buying up New Zealand, or all this rural land in the middle of nowhere. They will survive.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Keep the species alive.

    70m rich people to run humanity.. they won't be rich anymore, it's all relative. Probably the first problem is going to be to organize self sufficient communities, search and rescue the isolated pockets of survivors.

    Many rich people tend to live near each other, but not too near, so some communities will be able to get started quickly.

    Basics of life, food, shelter, security, health. Probably a fair few doctors in the survivor group, so health is covered.

    Probably many can fly airplanes. A few might even be able the maintain their planes.

    Adventuring is an extremely rich person's hobby, so there will be basic survival skills in the group.

    Food, like in many zombie scenarios, will last a few years before it becomes critical.

    In this scenario, we're probably looking at a lot of learn skills in this group, because of their previous amount of leisure time, some of them have accrued lots of knowledge. That they can now apply. For those who have no basic skills, they will be forced to learn. Maybe not all 70 million will thrive, but enough. Society will continue. Humans will continue.

    As far as the survivors are concerned, they're no longer rich, they're in a labor poor environment, and they have to provide for themselves. So society will effectively reset.