I don't, I feel like moron / stupid just doesn't cut it for idiots like this. I honestly don't know of an adjective the fully encapsulates the stupidty, childishness, and naivite of a regular person aligning with the super rich.
The media is pushing “answer a few questions, or spin a wheel, and get rich”, and “sing in your car, then get famous on Idol” and getting huge ratings. Same way we got this fucking President. Corporate brainwashing.
If we decide money no longer matters it'd be petty easy to eliminate them all. If we continue to let money run our lives then it'll continue to be pretty easy for the people with money to keep all their power.
If we decide money no longer matters it’d be petty easy to eliminate them all
Okay, but then where will I get my passive income? I worked 40 years in the shit and rusty needles mine to build up a big enough nest egg to get passive income. Now I'm too full of staff infections and lacerated limbs and shit lung to work anymore.
I can't afford not to make the next guy work himself to death in the shit rust needle mine.
No one needs to work in a shit rust needle mine. Without money you would have community helping & taking care of you based on your needs & listening to your ideas. You would take as much as you need but as little as you can to live happily & work to contribute back.
I mean... money does matter. It matters to the individual because it is how they pay their bills, and it matters to all of humanity because it is how we are able to take coordinated action despite the lack of any central organizer.
Taking money out of the picture would also take bills out of the picture. And humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now, the only difference is it would be harder for individuals to be the sole coordinator. Money, and who has it, is our current central organizer and will continue to burn the planet if we fail to take away its power.
Not that huge of a claim, especially when now is so chaotic and dysfunctional. Here's a nonexhaustive list of moneyless economies (obviously with varying degrees of feasibility)
The huge claim is the present tense, "has the ability". It's not a huge claim to say that humanity has the potential to one day transcend money, but that wasn't the claim. Humanity has a long road before that's possible, it does not presently have the ability to continue to function if we just snapped our fingers tomorrow and eliminated money.
An "ability" is not a vague notion bolstered by historical curiosities. An "ability" involves a detailed, immediately actionable plan that can be implemented in the modern economic landscape without destroying crucial productivity.
Resources have to be allocated. People need to accept the resource allocation method in order to contribute their labor to do things that must be done. Money is an imperfect solution. Eliminating money leads to reinventing it (e.g. "energy credits"), reverting to less efficient models (e.g. barter), developing a central planning body that replaces wealth corruption with administrative corruption, or widespread social loafing where nothing gets done.
Without an actual plan of implementation that gains the trust of the workers, there is no "ability", merely aspiration.
I disagree with a few points you bring up, but beyond those, it sounds like your biggest problem with my statement is in the semantics. I don't find that to be very useful when obviously the logistics of such a system are complicated enough to warrant a whole doctorate degree. Comments on social media between strangers with no verifiable education isn't really the place to harp on precise wording and definitions. I think it's possible for humanity to coordinate without money. Is that better? Or do you still disagree?
Semantics are how we communicate ideas. If you change the semantic content, you change the idea.
I think it's possible for humanity to coordinate without money.
Depends on what you mean by possible. At some point in the remote future? Sure, I agree. At the present time? I disagree. We're not there yet, and you can't just snap your fingers and change the fundamental beliefs, and logistics administration, of 8 billion people overnight. Best case scenario that's a multi-generational endeavor.
We can get there one day, we can't outlaw money tomorrow.
And humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money
Please provide a non-authoritatian answer that has scaled and has produced advanced technology like modern medical devices and telecommunications devices.
While you're correct that there are no examples of such a society*, that isn't because money is crucial to development. It's because the time of technological breakthroughs happened in a global capitalist economy. Just because that's the way history played out doesn't mean that was the only way it could've. Money didn't invent those things, people did. They had the time and resources to make that stuff happen. And yes, they got those resources via a moneyed economy, but that doesn't mean those same people couldn't have gotten the same time and resources had they existed within say a library economy.
::: spoiler *
Not exactly a perfect society (what is) but the Incas developed cutting edge technology for the time within a moneyless society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_technology
:::
I apologize for not being clear in what I was asking for. I didnt mean that I wanted an example of a society that, say, developed MRI technology outside the capitalist framework. I simply wanted an example of a society which could produce and use an MRI without the use of money or authoritatian force. They can have access to all the underlying science and technological know-how. But they need to get someone to mine the iron ore that will be smelted to be turned into streel which will become a tool which will be used in the manufacture of an MRI machine... without paying them.
Problem being - no one wants to mine iron ore. There are limits on how much prestige a society can distribute, and little will go to iron ore miners. The actual benefit of the labor is so far removed that the likelihood for personal gratitude from a beneficiary is vanishingly small - for example, someone who has a torn meniscus diagnosed with an MRI is unlikely to send the iron ore miner a personal thank you card. Of course, we could pay our miner in clothes and food and housing - but then we've just reinvented money but less efficient. Seeing no personal benefit to breaking his back every day in a dark hole, out miner would want to find something else to do with his time, resilting in no iron ore, and thus, no MRIs.
I would again point to the Incas as a decent example. Though I kind of want to pick at your use of "money or authoritarian forces".
Money is currently used as an authoritarian force. It's given those with money restrictive control over our daily lives. Look at all the censorship by those who control the major websites and payment processors on the internet. Look at the who lobbied the creation of infrastructure that forces most every person in the states to own and maintain a car. Look at how they're working on dismantling our public education system. Our police and military exist to protect those with money. This is how capitalism works. Despite some lofty ideas of peace liberty and democracy for all, when the system is based around money everything else will get compromised.
I read up on the Inca. Interesting. But I'm still doubtful they could build an MRI - I want a modern example.
And I'm certainly no fan of the current system - it sounds like you're describing America, and yes, America is a bit of a shit show at the moment. But we should also remember that Sweden's strong social safety nets, Finland's excellent education system, and the Netherlands' transportation infrastructure all exist in societies which use money.
Meanwhile, I don't think eliminating money would really solve the problems you are looking to solve. Power-hungry people will seek power regardless of the system they find themselves in. If they don't become capitalists, they become high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians.
An individual with a net worth of “just” $1b can afford to spend upwards of $50m per year on privacy and security, all while continuing to live a lavish lifestyle of excess and see their net worth continue to grow.
That’s more than the annual US household income being spent on a daily basis.
Now consider that the top 10 billionaires have more than 140x that amount.
Yes, they are made of flesh & blood, and are susceptible to all of the same maladies as you or I — but especially post Luigi, they are shoring up their defences to the point that even a motivated individual would have just as much chance of becoming a billionaire as they are to getting to one.
I would hope to be proven wrong, and to see a true working class uprising against them in my lifetime - but alas, I think they are too effective at keeping us arguing against ourselves to ever pose a serious risk to their hegemony.
my uncle knows im looking for work and hella enthused was like why dont you just work for ice they have a great signing bonus, like bro im gonna send you to el salvador first if I somehow decide thats what I want to do with my life
Its not that. Its the fact that these people hsve entire services dedicated to protecting their lifestyle and security.
And the public security is also geared to disproportionately protect them as well.
Short answer. The elite have private security of their own. And they are allied with rich politicians who control the police and military. They've got a shitload of guns at their disposal.
Yet they can still be taken out by a 3D printed gun on a nice morning walk to the office.
You're not wrong, but if Luigi taught us anything its that they're not as impermeable as they like to appear. It just might take a few martyrs on our end.
Why you think they're tossing so much money to develope ai and humanoid robots?
When shit will hit the fan they want their own private army to watch their ass, but at the same time they don't want highly trained human mercenary inside their golden castel getting strange ideas.
Is it, though? Because if the billionaires had all that money but only themselves and their billionaire friends on team billionaire, how powerful would they actually be (in comparison to, say, now) if they didn't have any non billionaires on their side?
I think they're this powerful right now because there are a lot of non-billionaires who are dumb enough to do whatever they're told by them even if it's not in their own best interest (or the rest of the world's) at all.
I think they’re this powerful right now because there are a lot of non-billionaires who are dumb enough to do whatever they’re told by them even if it’s not in their own best interest (or the rest of the world’s) at all.
And they always will be. The thing about one's own best interest is that it's self-interest, always at least parochial, if not outright selfish (as in the US). If the people comprising a billionaire's private security force can obtain a better standard of living, more power, more perks, for themselves and their families than they could by cooperating with the rest of the proles in a (let's be honest) speculative venture, even if it did pay off? Well, some people will take the billionaire's offer, at least enough people to comprise a private security force.
If the people were all invested in taking out the billionaires, then the people would win, hands down.
But if, as in the current situation, the people have higher priorities, in which 50% do not find billionaires to be an existential threat, and at least 300 million think they are simply temporarily embarrassed billionaires themselves, then the billionaires win, that is, until the Earth inevitably cannot support them any longer.
It's not the billionaires but the antisocial, amoral whores who will sell their souls for money and do their bidding that are the problem (police, army, etc.), and those who would quietly acquiesce. And of those there are way too many in some societies for change to be easy/possible.
All evidence points to a regime change (in the physics sense, not the political) being the necessary condition for things to go from our current state to something new.
We currently have people paying poorer people a very small amount of their own net worth to protect the wealthy person's status and position. This is similar to how kings and queens paid the army and policing forces to control the peasants.
Before the French Revolution I am sure it seemed impossible that the peasants would revolt, but the years leading up to the revolution things were getting worse and worse for the average peasant. There is a tipping point where the average person does not think the current system is delivering on the promise that of you do what you are told you can have a good life. I think we are approaching that point now.
If the rich try to hire someone and underpay them for security, stiff contractors for services, flaunt laws and generally behave obnoxiously at some point people will have had enough. Whether that ends with guillotine action or people just divesting from those systems depends on how much freedom people think they have.
If people thought they could go and homestead, live off the land, and get by without the massive companies these billionaires own then they would have that outlet and choose that peaceful option. The fact that we have taxation creates a pressure to pay in currency which demands earning in that currency. Same with paying rent, you have to earn money simply to live. No amount of growing all of your food gets rid of your financial obligations, so there is no out from the system. If that system is unreasonable it begins to feel less like participation and more like coercive control. Wage slavery is not the same as slavery, but both involve coercion and require the legal system to support them. Both lead to revolutions. Both lead to violence.
I guess the billionaires have to decide if they really want to paint that big a target on their backs by flaunting their wealth. At this point I think they feel untouchable.
Mostly all agreed, but the populace isn't starving, not even close. I'm not arguing that we're not suffering, only that we're nowhere near suffering enough for a revolt. But damned do I like what you've written!
Just a quick point, you aren't starving. Plenty of people are not getting their basic needs met. There are tonnes of people who are unhoused, lots of people, especially kids, experiencing food insecurity, and a huge number of women specifically are living in abusive situations because they do not have the means to live outside those situations. Starving is failing to meet one need, but there are plenty of other needs that lead to death if not met. People die from cold and heat purely because of cost. Those deaths are no less tragic because it was cold rather than a lack of calories.
The biggest ruse in American history is the modern billionaire convincing the working class Americans that the immigrants, homeless, people of color, and LGBT+ people are the real enemy and the reason you're unhappy. Capitalism is the only functioning system of government, don't pay attention to the fact that almost every other developed country has universal healthcare.
The billionaires spend a small fraction to some idiots to betray their fellow non-billionaires. It's probably about a million people versus the masses.
Unfortunately that is not how the figures really are. Way too many of those 8 billions will willingly simp and fight the rest of us in the name of those billionaires.
3000 billionaires because you can't convince everybody to ditch school. You can't change people. Pharaoh, Hammurabi. Those are thousands of years of genetic obedience.
I don't know if I like assuming that obedience is a genetically heritable trait. I've heard racists use this assumption to argue that racially Chinese people are more likely to be sneaky servile backstabbers because that's what their genetics are selected for due to their political past.
Controversial statement incoming: I also don't want to preemptively rule out the possibility of obedience, or anything else, being genetically heritable - even if it could lead to these uncomfortable conclusions. I think scientific studies should be done about such things to answer the questions of whether these personality traits are heritable, come what may of that knowledge. But to my relief, from the studies I've seen, personality traits heritability is on very shaky ground in most cases.
The billionaires are winning now and the reasons are obvious.
The 8 billion are unable to think clearly, identify problems and organize. The billionaires are focused on their goals and super influential. They're able to buy loyality of the key less fortunate people and enforce loyality of others. They can also buy media to influence thinking of the masses.
If it was just about numbers, the billionaires would lose. But it's not.
IF billionaires were removed from the picture, what would be the result?
There would be investment assets in various holding entities that would then be what, up for grabs? Sold off? Put in probate? Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless. How would that affect the market and the regular person’s investments?
Multiple BoD positions and CEO positions opening up. How would those be compensated? Just make more people rich?
Material possessions originally worth absurd sums now up for grabs to nobody who could realistically afford to use or maintain them (yachts, palatial homes, etc). Manufacturers of luxury goods would vanish (stupidly expensive watches, clothes, cars).
How would you prevent some other greedy, power-hungry f_cks from taking up the reins and putting us right back where we started? There is no point in civilization’s history where greedy f_cks haven’t existed, so how do you prevent their grubby fingers from tipping the scales right back in favor of piling all the money and power in their corner?
What are the unintended consequences?
(This is NOT an argument implying we should keep billionaires, just asking realistically and pragmatically what the result would be should they no longer exist)
The implication that they would all be killed or completely stripped of assets is the problem you’re trying to solve, however, that doesn’t have to be the action taken. Perhaps instead, the 8 billion people of the world decide to enact a society that insists that such accumulation of wealth is obscene and should be curtailed. Perhaps systems could be introduced to make the wealthy more accurately contribute to the society they profit off.
Billionaires become billionaires through exploitation. Exploitation of workers, financial systems, and political power for personal gain. Make them pay for all these things.
Pay for education of the people they use to build their companies. Pay for the healthcare of the entire population, which they degrade with their business practices. Pay for the infrastructure that enables them to do business. The roads, the safety nets, the national parks, the air quality, the water supply, the land they use. Make them pay to replace and repair, fully, any damage their business causes. Polute the stream, pay to fix it. Dig the ground for ore, repair the ground so it can be used again. Make them replace what they take from society for little or no cost because their goods are only affordable because they do not reflect the true cost of production. Make their businesses pay for all these things, and the cost of production will rise to include the true cost of production. At the moment, the shortfall is paid for by we, the people, which enables them to become billionaires. Exploitation.
We don’t have to kill anyone, or strip anyone of all their assets in some revolutionary action. We just have to make them pay the true cost of their exploitation.
Tax the rich. Use those taxes to repay their exploitation. Increase the cost of doing business to include the cost of repairing the impact.
People can still become very wealthy. But society will also become much stronger through the use of the extra revenue to benefit all.
To make this happen will take a revolution, but it doesn’t need to include guillotines, it just needs people to become aware. Sadly, the politicians and media are also owned by the billionaires, making the final step of collective uprising extremely difficult. But humans have done it many times before in the face of adversity, perhaps it can happen again.
The same removal mechanism will need to keep new rich people from getting too rich. In general everything could stay the same in terms of assets if they are divided more equally. Even a billion dollar yacht could be divided and rented out. Who's paying for a billion dollar yacht vacation when there is no ultra rich? Divide that shit again into 500 admissions for a boat party until it doesn't make sense to upkeep.
I have no doubt the world will be fine, but the hypothetical we're discussing isn't just one or two rich bastards knocking off a year with their legal estate already taken care of in a will...we're suggesting more direct action assisting their departure en masse - which isn't going to happen without a lot of other upheaval causing all kinds of economic turmoil that we're ignoring for the sake of this argument.
Over 1 million Russians killed and how many tens of thousands in Gaza. 3000 would be quite easy compared to the innocent.
Yes markets would be in shit but so what, take their wealth and distribute it. The entire financial system is made out of thin air now, everyone will be all worried to justify why not to do it but we need to do it for our civilization to grow beyond having the Poor's do all the work for the greedy pigs.
The entire system needs to change and they won't go easy, it will be tough and bloody.
The hard part isnt the toppeling of the system, it is creating a stable new one, economicly and politicly. Think about the millions of indoctrinated people in all corners of the world that are fuled by hate towards a none existing enemy. Getting those in, will be hard. Especially if they are deep into conspiricy
If it's actually clearly and openly defined as a fight with two sides, 8 billion people. IRL billionaires are just kind of the visible tip of a giant inequality iceberg, so it's not so simple.
Billionaires win. They are winning in this world — imagine the world as an arena...
They first reach out to those primed to defect. The ones who think they are defending their own interests because, one day after much bootstrapping, they'll be rich too. That's 10% of the non-billionaire population and a large group of the young, able-bodied, entitled predominantly male population.
Another 10% opt to not fight. They'll wait and see who comes out on top or opt for pacifism — supporting those who fight without fighting themselves.
The next 20% are those who want a compromise — not having the foresight to admit they'll be screwed in the end by the shrewd and wily billionaire class.
That still leaves 4.8 billion people.
Well, another 10% of the planet is malnourished, living in extreme poverty, or are infirm and unable to fight. Take another 10% who lack the capacity to fight effectively, are children, or are exceedingly advanced in age.
We're down to 3.2 billion people.
Of those who remain, each billionaire will need to kill 1 000 000 people in order to win the day. This is achieved by a combination of attacks — nuclear, chemical, biological, conventional, and systemic. Supply lines are cut early, communication lines are jammed, and every possible similarity that could bind 3.2 billion people together is spun into a wedge to divide them. The billionaires are unified behind their purchasing power. Each victorious serves as a message to the remaining people of the fresh horrors to come.
After five or six days, there are 2700 remaining billionaires, who somehow got richer and only 1 billion fighters. Demoralized, decimated, defeated, the non-billionaires give in.
The one strategy that would — nay, could — turn the tables is to upend the tables. Make money worthless. In some minds, this is the Purge. This is the antithesis.
Instead, as a thesis: truly valuing life and living things, the fragile interdependence of ecology within an economic, social, and anthropological order would negate any power that the death-driven cult of profiteering offers. I'm not talking about sitting in a circle and singing kumbaya into eternity. I am talking about doing the work of eternity — stewardship for a planet we understand (not just its commodities) and community for all participants (not just the economically viable). We can learn from one another and grow with one another without exploiting or reinforcing one another's weaknesses.
Takers like to quote Adam Smith, Sun Tzu, or the 48 Laws of Power. The battles we do not fight will feed us. The fields we do not raze will house us. The oceans we do not destroy will connect us. The planet we treat like a home instead of a hole in the ground will support us.
I chose to believe that the working class will eventuall prevail, that people will no longer have nationalism, and work together towards a common future.
It may take years, it may take decades, perhaps even a century, but we will get there. We must get there. Life is too short, life is too miserable. We cannot give up on trying to build a better future.
Because the moment I lose that last bit of hope, I will literally kill myself. So I cannt give up on humanity. I have to have faith that there are good people out there trying to fix problems, because that's what gives me he motivation to live.
Humans have been living under absolute monarchies, communities have been destroyed by imperialism and colonialism, slavery was rampart, the concept of human rights didnt even exist. But we have come so far, humanity have come so far, a lot of the problems we faced in the past had been fixed or at leased inproved. And yes we eill face a lot more problems in the future, and eventually we will find those solutions just as we did for the past problems; we cannot give up now.
Yes, climate change will destroy so many thing, lives and livelihood, but we must find the strength to perservere. Because life is a miracle, Earth even being capable of sustaining life is a miracle.
I remember there was a kid in class that asked: "If humans mess up the Earth, why don't we just move to Mars?", the teacher who's field is related to environment (can't remember the exact subject), told the class that, humans can use up all the fossil fuels and melt all polar ice caps, and Earth would still be 100 times more habitable than Mars.
Because no matter how bad it gets, its still still the most habitable planet that we know of.
Do not give up. (I know I'm being a hypocrite since I subconsciously always tell myself to give up, but don't do that, fight those thoughts)
Right on! Humans have lived through horrors that make 2025 a cakewalk. We'll hang in, we'll survive. We're the toughest multipurpose animals this planet has ever produced, the AR-15s and Toyota Hiluxes and Swiss army knives of mammals. Not the best at any one thing, but we can do it all well enough.
Things are bad now, maybe especially for us Americans. Who among us thought we'd see fascism taking root?! Maybe I'm old and idealistic, but I didn't see Trump 2.0 coming, not again. But we'll survive, we'll live on. History is always two steps forward, one step back. We Americans are seeing the "one step back" for the first time.
I'd want to say "8 billion people", but right now 3000 billionaires lead on.
After all, they maintain their position by masterfully playing people off each other and setting things up to be on top. They have all the resources to extend their influence.
If 8 billion people could turn billionaires voices off for anything larger than a day, then yeah, 8 billion all the way, and 3000 will run out FAST.
But the latter know this, and will never let this happen. We should.
For anyone wondering, the effect describes the uncanny ability for rich people to put on red outfits and act like blind devils whilst bending the law in their favor as they bask in their own self-proclaimed peity
I was just yesterday talking to someone about how AI drones, specifically exactly AI drones, will be a pivotal piece of technology in a way I think even beyond nukes in some sense. With a decent AI drone swarm, it's not hard to imagine a SINGLE person dominating an entire population. The dictator's purest dream - none of those pesky military generals getting uppity.
Welcome to our AI Security and Defence catalogue. Shop below for your advanced security needs.
AI Micro Drone
Advanced AI driven micro drones delivering chemically induced and untraceable coranary heart attack dosage to desired target. Drone is single use and will self dispose leaving no traceable evidence of origin. The mark II model will now remain in observational positions for up to 6 months before identifying the most ideal moment of engagement with the target and their environmental conditions.
3 BTC per unit.
AI Hounds
Advanced AI driven perimeter control drones. These four legged hounds pack more than the traditional bite. 10 short range mini guided missles, flame thrower with napalm, 2 razor clamp traps, tear gas, poison gas and 360° bayonet. Fully reenforced titanium alloy shell, water proof, bullet proof, fire proof. The hound can run 40mph, jump 6 feet high and operates autonomouslly for up to 7 days without recharge.
The most successful method the wealthy have used to subvert social movements is infiltration. When a drone swarm can do that, then drone swarms will be what I worry about.
If we were all put into an arena with zero weaponry, the 8 billion. Under no circumstances would the 3000 win because the 8 billion would most likely end up murdering them, even if by accident.
Under the current world conditions, not looking good.
What kind of battle are we taking about? Violence? Then 8 billion people would win because the combined force of knowledge.
This question also really depend on strategy. You know a billion worth doesn't need to be all in cash. Before cash was a thing, we traded items.. but it's rare to trade items that are exactly worth the same, so money is a nice way to compensate that.
The billion worth can all be spent on defense, it can all be spent on pleasing the 8 billion people. It can be spent to create harmony instead of hatred.
The likelihood we would have to have commanders with armies we could do an entire war with artillery, tank, infantry and air bombardment with jets they would be dead in days.
The problem with your comment is that it is boring. It provides no insight, proposes no causitive mechanisms. Of course, we could follow up and ask you "why?", in order to understand your reasoning, and therefore have an interesting discussion. And in fact, we are so certain that what we actually care about is the reasoning behind the answer, that we may as well ask why in advance.
Almost as if we would like you to... hmm... there are two words...
The problem with your comment is that it is boring.
Your problem with my comment is that you find or boring.
It provides no insight
Your problem is that you can't find any insight.
Of course, we could follow up and ask you "why?", in order to understand your reasoning
No, because my answer would be "because".
And in fact, we are so certain that what we actually care about is the reasoning behind the answer, that we may as well ask why in advance.
First off, what are you even trying say? Secondly, who are "we"? You and every single Lemmy user? You and the rest of the world?
Almost as if we would like you to... hmm... there are two words...
Lol, let me help you out since you are seemingly in a tough position. I'll block you and you'll experience the same effect as if I "hmm... there are two words..."
It is getting ridiculous how the kids aren't satisfied with just an answer, they want us to guess what their questions may be and pre-emptively explain all of it.
They put zero effort into forming questions, and just expect everyone to give indepth answers they're not gonna read anyways.
The billionaires are already winning, with no signs of that changing.
That’s because—for many reasons—there are way too many non-billionaires on team billionaire.
I worked with a guy that proudly proclaimed that he voted for the right because they looked after the rich.
He was not rich, but he purchased lottery tickets weekly and stated he'd rather get screwed while poor than pay more tax if he, some day, became rich.
And that was the day I realised that we're fucked.
What an absolute moron.
I don't, I feel like moron / stupid just doesn't cut it for idiots like this. I honestly don't know of an adjective the fully encapsulates the stupidty, childishness, and naivite of a regular person aligning with the super rich.
Corporate brainwashed, delusional, desperate, uneducated, lazy, close-minded, coping human?
The media is pushing “answer a few questions, or spin a wheel, and get rich”, and “sing in your car, then get famous on Idol” and getting huge ratings. Same way we got this fucking President. Corporate brainwashing.
Republican?
Ah, see, what you should have done was.....stabbed him in the eye.
Just remember, when we go vote, his is worth just as much as yours.
Hey, don't look at me. I'm on team "unexpected astroid hitting the earth to end it all".
I was devastated when my candidate never showed up again and again...
They think they're on team billionaire but are willful idiots.
They will just cook the planet killing us all
With pessimism like that, we won't get far.
If we decide money no longer matters it'd be petty easy to eliminate them all. If we continue to let money run our lives then it'll continue to be pretty easy for the people with money to keep all their power.
Okay, but then where will I get my passive income? I worked 40 years in the shit and rusty needles mine to build up a big enough nest egg to get passive income. Now I'm too full of staff infections and lacerated limbs and shit lung to work anymore.
I can't afford not to make the next guy work himself to death in the shit rust needle mine.
*Staph.
His people are infected. I think he might be a billionaire in disguise.
No one needs to work in a shit rust needle mine. Without money you would have community helping & taking care of you based on your needs & listening to your ideas. You would take as much as you need but as little as you can to live happily & work to contribute back.
It doesn't take long for that system to collapse.
I mean... money does matter. It matters to the individual because it is how they pay their bills, and it matters to all of humanity because it is how we are able to take coordinated action despite the lack of any central organizer.
Taking money out of the picture would also take bills out of the picture. And humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now, the only difference is it would be harder for individuals to be the sole coordinator. Money, and who has it, is our current central organizer and will continue to burn the planet if we fail to take away its power.
That's a huge claim, you need to support that.
Not that huge of a claim, especially when now is so chaotic and dysfunctional. Here's a nonexhaustive list of moneyless economies (obviously with varying degrees of feasibility)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monetary_economy
edit: wordingThe huge claim is the present tense, "has the ability". It's not a huge claim to say that humanity has the potential to one day transcend money, but that wasn't the claim. Humanity has a long road before that's possible, it does not presently have the ability to continue to function if we just snapped our fingers tomorrow and eliminated money.
An "ability" is not a vague notion bolstered by historical curiosities. An "ability" involves a detailed, immediately actionable plan that can be implemented in the modern economic landscape without destroying crucial productivity.
Resources have to be allocated. People need to accept the resource allocation method in order to contribute their labor to do things that must be done. Money is an imperfect solution. Eliminating money leads to reinventing it (e.g. "energy credits"), reverting to less efficient models (e.g. barter), developing a central planning body that replaces wealth corruption with administrative corruption, or widespread social loafing where nothing gets done.
Without an actual plan of implementation that gains the trust of the workers, there is no "ability", merely aspiration.
I disagree with a few points you bring up, but beyond those, it sounds like your biggest problem with my statement is in the semantics. I don't find that to be very useful when obviously the logistics of such a system are complicated enough to warrant a whole doctorate degree. Comments on social media between strangers with no verifiable education isn't really the place to harp on precise wording and definitions. I think it's possible for humanity to coordinate without money. Is that better? Or do you still disagree?
Semantics are how we communicate ideas. If you change the semantic content, you change the idea.
Depends on what you mean by possible. At some point in the remote future? Sure, I agree. At the present time? I disagree. We're not there yet, and you can't just snap your fingers and change the fundamental beliefs, and logistics administration, of 8 billion people overnight. Best case scenario that's a multi-generational endeavor.
We can get there one day, we can't outlaw money tomorrow.
Please provide a non-authoritatian answer that has scaled and has produced advanced technology like modern medical devices and telecommunications devices.
While you're correct that there are no examples of such a society*, that isn't because money is crucial to development. It's because the time of technological breakthroughs happened in a global capitalist economy. Just because that's the way history played out doesn't mean that was the only way it could've. Money didn't invent those things, people did. They had the time and resources to make that stuff happen. And yes, they got those resources via a moneyed economy, but that doesn't mean those same people couldn't have gotten the same time and resources had they existed within say a library economy.
::: spoiler * Not exactly a perfect society (what is) but the Incas developed cutting edge technology for the time within a moneyless society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_technology :::
I apologize for not being clear in what I was asking for. I didnt mean that I wanted an example of a society that, say, developed MRI technology outside the capitalist framework. I simply wanted an example of a society which could produce and use an MRI without the use of money or authoritatian force. They can have access to all the underlying science and technological know-how. But they need to get someone to mine the iron ore that will be smelted to be turned into streel which will become a tool which will be used in the manufacture of an MRI machine... without paying them.
Problem being - no one wants to mine iron ore. There are limits on how much prestige a society can distribute, and little will go to iron ore miners. The actual benefit of the labor is so far removed that the likelihood for personal gratitude from a beneficiary is vanishingly small - for example, someone who has a torn meniscus diagnosed with an MRI is unlikely to send the iron ore miner a personal thank you card. Of course, we could pay our miner in clothes and food and housing - but then we've just reinvented money but less efficient. Seeing no personal benefit to breaking his back every day in a dark hole, out miner would want to find something else to do with his time, resilting in no iron ore, and thus, no MRIs.
But I mean, prove me wrong.
I would again point to the Incas as a decent example. Though I kind of want to pick at your use of "money or authoritarian forces".
Money is currently used as an authoritarian force. It's given those with money restrictive control over our daily lives. Look at all the censorship by those who control the major websites and payment processors on the internet. Look at the who lobbied the creation of infrastructure that forces most every person in the states to own and maintain a car. Look at how they're working on dismantling our public education system. Our police and military exist to protect those with money. This is how capitalism works. Despite some lofty ideas of peace liberty and democracy for all, when the system is based around money everything else will get compromised.
I read up on the Inca. Interesting. But I'm still doubtful they could build an MRI - I want a modern example.
And I'm certainly no fan of the current system - it sounds like you're describing America, and yes, America is a bit of a shit show at the moment. But we should also remember that Sweden's strong social safety nets, Finland's excellent education system, and the Netherlands' transportation infrastructure all exist in societies which use money.
Meanwhile, I don't think eliminating money would really solve the problems you are looking to solve. Power-hungry people will seek power regardless of the system they find themselves in. If they don't become capitalists, they become high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians.
An individual with a net worth of “just” $1b can afford to spend upwards of $50m per year on privacy and security, all while continuing to live a lavish lifestyle of excess and see their net worth continue to grow.
That’s more than the annual US household income being spent on a daily basis.
Now consider that the top 10 billionaires have more than 140x that amount.
Yes, they are made of flesh & blood, and are susceptible to all of the same maladies as you or I — but especially post Luigi, they are shoring up their defences to the point that even a motivated individual would have just as much chance of becoming a billionaire as they are to getting to one.
I would hope to be proven wrong, and to see a true working class uprising against them in my lifetime - but alas, I think they are too effective at keeping us arguing against ourselves to ever pose a serious risk to their hegemony.
Hear me out:
zombie movie, but it's the poors storming down the megarich bunkers.
And poor people are theoretically smarter than zombies. Even conservatards occasionally. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1518107286215389
they win because they throw money at enough ppl to build a wall of ppl to protect them
And yet, the poor and stupid people queue up to join the ICE and MAGA organisations.
They would be as upset as they should be, if they were smarter. They wouldn't be "poor and stupid" if they were smarter.
That's not a koinkidoink. USA has spent a very long time deliberately creating this situation. And by USA I mean those in power.
The people joining ICE may not be who you think they are. No journalism has scared me quite so much as this article:
https://www.nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/two-days-talking-to-people-looking-for-jobs-at-ice/
my uncle knows im looking for work and hella enthused was like why dont you just work for ice they have a great signing bonus, like bro im gonna send you to el salvador first if I somehow decide thats what I want to do with my life
That wall ain't 8 billion High though.
and you assume those 8 billion all fight, id sit on my ass and watch
Its not that. Its the fact that these people hsve entire services dedicated to protecting their lifestyle and security.
And the public security is also geared to disproportionately protect them as well.
Short answer. The elite have private security of their own. And they are allied with rich politicians who control the police and military. They've got a shitload of guns at their disposal.
Yet they can still be taken out by a 3D printed gun on a nice morning walk to the office.
You're not wrong, but if Luigi taught us anything its that they're not as impermeable as they like to appear. It just might take a few martyrs on our end.
Sometimes more than one of those things simultaneously!
Why you think they're tossing so much money to develope ai and humanoid robots?
When shit will hit the fan they want their own private army to watch their ass, but at the same time they don't want highly trained human mercenary inside their golden castel getting strange ideas.
Omg you are right on this. They see most of as disposable once they're able to consistently get away with it.
Which is now. They just need something safe to keep "that" up in the eventuality that civilization/economy collapse.
This is happening right now and the billionaires are winning.
Is it, though? Because if the billionaires had all that money but only themselves and their billionaire friends on team billionaire, how powerful would they actually be (in comparison to, say, now) if they didn't have any non billionaires on their side?
I think they're this powerful right now because there are a lot of non-billionaires who are dumb enough to do whatever they're told by them even if it's not in their own best interest (or the rest of the world's) at all.
And they always will be. The thing about one's own best interest is that it's self-interest, always at least parochial, if not outright selfish (as in the US). If the people comprising a billionaire's private security force can obtain a better standard of living, more power, more perks, for themselves and their families than they could by cooperating with the rest of the proles in a (let's be honest) speculative venture, even if it did pay off? Well, some people will take the billionaire's offer, at least enough people to comprise a private security force.
Eh. most of the pull and wealth is people that are just kind-of rich.
If the people were all invested in taking out the billionaires, then the people would win, hands down.
But if, as in the current situation, the people have higher priorities, in which 50% do not find billionaires to be an existential threat, and at least 300 million think they are simply temporarily embarrassed billionaires themselves, then the billionaires win, that is, until the Earth inevitably cannot support them any longer.
Technically that should drop down to ~150 million
No, no, you don't understand. See, the thing is, America Bad.
I would expect this comment to come from a lemmy.ml account
Jokes
Fair. There's not a lot of humor on there
It's not the billionaires but the antisocial, amoral whores who will sell their souls for money and do their bidding that are the problem (police, army, etc.), and those who would quietly acquiesce. And of those there are way too many in some societies for change to be easy/possible.
Billionaires, because we are too dumb to not fall for their tricks
But AI isn’t. They’re creating their own downfall as we speak
All evidence points to a regime change (in the physics sense, not the political) being the necessary condition for things to go from our current state to something new.
We currently have people paying poorer people a very small amount of their own net worth to protect the wealthy person's status and position. This is similar to how kings and queens paid the army and policing forces to control the peasants.
Before the French Revolution I am sure it seemed impossible that the peasants would revolt, but the years leading up to the revolution things were getting worse and worse for the average peasant. There is a tipping point where the average person does not think the current system is delivering on the promise that of you do what you are told you can have a good life. I think we are approaching that point now.
If the rich try to hire someone and underpay them for security, stiff contractors for services, flaunt laws and generally behave obnoxiously at some point people will have had enough. Whether that ends with guillotine action or people just divesting from those systems depends on how much freedom people think they have.
If people thought they could go and homestead, live off the land, and get by without the massive companies these billionaires own then they would have that outlet and choose that peaceful option. The fact that we have taxation creates a pressure to pay in currency which demands earning in that currency. Same with paying rent, you have to earn money simply to live. No amount of growing all of your food gets rid of your financial obligations, so there is no out from the system. If that system is unreasonable it begins to feel less like participation and more like coercive control. Wage slavery is not the same as slavery, but both involve coercion and require the legal system to support them. Both lead to revolutions. Both lead to violence.
I guess the billionaires have to decide if they really want to paint that big a target on their backs by flaunting their wealth. At this point I think they feel untouchable.
Mostly all agreed, but the populace isn't starving, not even close. I'm not arguing that we're not suffering, only that we're nowhere near suffering enough for a revolt. But damned do I like what you've written!
Just a quick point, you aren't starving. Plenty of people are not getting their basic needs met. There are tonnes of people who are unhoused, lots of people, especially kids, experiencing food insecurity, and a huge number of women specifically are living in abusive situations because they do not have the means to live outside those situations. Starving is failing to meet one need, but there are plenty of other needs that lead to death if not met. People die from cold and heat purely because of cost. Those deaths are no less tragic because it was cold rather than a lack of calories.
The biggest ruse in American history is the modern billionaire convincing the working class Americans that the immigrants, homeless, people of color, and LGBT+ people are the real enemy and the reason you're unhappy. Capitalism is the only functioning system of government, don't pay attention to the fact that almost every other developed country has universal healthcare.
I belive the billionaires is currently winning
But only because the other 8 billion let them
Yeah, and?
REVOLT!
The billionaires spend a small fraction to some idiots to betray their fellow non-billionaires. It's probably about a million people versus the masses.
Unfortunately that is not how the figures really are. Way too many of those 8 billions will willingly simp and fight the rest of us in the name of those billionaires.
Seems like the billionaires are winning 🤷🏼♀️ ?!
Nobody is winning, except that demon capital. The billionaires are just losing less.
Stop being so rational!!
I mean... Look around? Maybe billionaire is a new thing, but it is just modern royalty. We still have kings, they just got better PR.
The billionaires. People dumb AF. Billionaires have money to manipulate people to think they are doing good while they are fucking humanity.
If organized, the billionaires lose. It's really that simple and that difficult.
Okay, then go start organizing?
Don't tell me what to do!
8 billion temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
3000 billionaires because you can't convince everybody to ditch school. You can't change people. Pharaoh, Hammurabi. Those are thousands of years of genetic obedience.
I don't know if I like assuming that obedience is a genetically heritable trait. I've heard racists use this assumption to argue that racially Chinese people are more likely to be sneaky servile backstabbers because that's what their genetics are selected for due to their political past.
Controversial statement incoming: I also don't want to preemptively rule out the possibility of obedience, or anything else, being genetically heritable - even if it could lead to these uncomfortable conclusions. I think scientific studies should be done about such things to answer the questions of whether these personality traits are heritable, come what may of that knowledge. But to my relief, from the studies I've seen, personality traits heritability is on very shaky ground in most cases.
Assuming the 8b were all of the same mind, they would win. But we all know there are quite a few that the billionaires could buy to fight for them
so basically the billionares
The billionaires are winning now and the reasons are obvious.
The 8 billion are unable to think clearly, identify problems and organize. The billionaires are focused on their goals and super influential. They're able to buy loyality of the key less fortunate people and enforce loyality of others. They can also buy media to influence thinking of the masses.
If it was just about numbers, the billionaires would lose. But it's not.
While arriving for the competition, all 8 billion got wedged into the doors of the arena Three Stooges style and were unable to compete.
The billionaires, by convincing people the rich have a monopoly on violence.
But if anything sparks collective violence, the rich are overthrown within a month.
Their divide and conquer strategy is busting our asses.
Just stop believing that those 3000 are billionaires. If 8 billion people say "No, you are not rich" those fuckers become poor. Money is a religion.
Except that doesn't stop the exchange of goods and services.
Ok, let’s look at this…
IF billionaires were removed from the picture, what would be the result?
There would be investment assets in various holding entities that would then be what, up for grabs? Sold off? Put in probate? Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless. How would that affect the market and the regular person’s investments?
Multiple BoD positions and CEO positions opening up. How would those be compensated? Just make more people rich?
Material possessions originally worth absurd sums now up for grabs to nobody who could realistically afford to use or maintain them (yachts, palatial homes, etc). Manufacturers of luxury goods would vanish (stupidly expensive watches, clothes, cars).
How would you prevent some other greedy, power-hungry f_cks from taking up the reins and putting us right back where we started? There is no point in civilization’s history where greedy f_cks haven’t existed, so how do you prevent their grubby fingers from tipping the scales right back in favor of piling all the money and power in their corner?
What are the unintended consequences?
(This is NOT an argument implying we should keep billionaires, just asking realistically and pragmatically what the result would be should they no longer exist)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ownership
The implication that they would all be killed or completely stripped of assets is the problem you’re trying to solve, however, that doesn’t have to be the action taken. Perhaps instead, the 8 billion people of the world decide to enact a society that insists that such accumulation of wealth is obscene and should be curtailed. Perhaps systems could be introduced to make the wealthy more accurately contribute to the society they profit off.
Billionaires become billionaires through exploitation. Exploitation of workers, financial systems, and political power for personal gain. Make them pay for all these things.
Pay for education of the people they use to build their companies. Pay for the healthcare of the entire population, which they degrade with their business practices. Pay for the infrastructure that enables them to do business. The roads, the safety nets, the national parks, the air quality, the water supply, the land they use. Make them pay to replace and repair, fully, any damage their business causes. Polute the stream, pay to fix it. Dig the ground for ore, repair the ground so it can be used again. Make them replace what they take from society for little or no cost because their goods are only affordable because they do not reflect the true cost of production. Make their businesses pay for all these things, and the cost of production will rise to include the true cost of production. At the moment, the shortfall is paid for by we, the people, which enables them to become billionaires. Exploitation.
We don’t have to kill anyone, or strip anyone of all their assets in some revolutionary action. We just have to make them pay the true cost of their exploitation.
Tax the rich. Use those taxes to repay their exploitation. Increase the cost of doing business to include the cost of repairing the impact.
People can still become very wealthy. But society will also become much stronger through the use of the extra revenue to benefit all.
To make this happen will take a revolution, but it doesn’t need to include guillotines, it just needs people to become aware. Sadly, the politicians and media are also owned by the billionaires, making the final step of collective uprising extremely difficult. But humans have done it many times before in the face of adversity, perhaps it can happen again.
Nationalize the assets
Pretty simple and effective.
The same removal mechanism will need to keep new rich people from getting too rich. In general everything could stay the same in terms of assets if they are divided more equally. Even a billion dollar yacht could be divided and rented out. Who's paying for a billion dollar yacht vacation when there is no ultra rich? Divide that shit again into 500 admissions for a boat party until it doesn't make sense to upkeep.
The correct answer is to redistribute their wealth.
The same issues arise whenever billionaires pass from old age or sickness. The world will be fine.
I have no doubt the world will be fine, but the hypothetical we're discussing isn't just one or two rich bastards knocking off a year with their legal estate already taken care of in a will...we're suggesting more direct action assisting their departure en masse - which isn't going to happen without a lot of other upheaval causing all kinds of economic turmoil that we're ignoring for the sake of this argument.
Over 1 million Russians killed and how many tens of thousands in Gaza. 3000 would be quite easy compared to the innocent.
Yes markets would be in shit but so what, take their wealth and distribute it. The entire financial system is made out of thin air now, everyone will be all worried to justify why not to do it but we need to do it for our civilization to grow beyond having the Poor's do all the work for the greedy pigs.
The entire system needs to change and they won't go easy, it will be tough and bloody.
The hard part isnt the toppeling of the system, it is creating a stable new one, economicly and politicly. Think about the millions of indoctrinated people in all corners of the world that are fuled by hate towards a none existing enemy. Getting those in, will be hard. Especially if they are deep into conspiricy
We're already seeing the results of the fight, so no need to elaborate on who would win and how
What are we measuring. Like just a braw? A unanimouse revolution?
Huh, it's up to 3000 now.
If it's actually clearly and openly defined as a fight with two sides, 8 billion people. IRL billionaires are just kind of the visible tip of a giant inequality iceberg, so it's not so simple.
Don't worry, the entire system is collapsing from mismanagement.
Billionaires win. They are winning in this world — imagine the world as an arena...
They first reach out to those primed to defect. The ones who think they are defending their own interests because, one day after much bootstrapping, they'll be rich too. That's 10% of the non-billionaire population and a large group of the young, able-bodied, entitled predominantly male population.
Another 10% opt to not fight. They'll wait and see who comes out on top or opt for pacifism — supporting those who fight without fighting themselves.
The next 20% are those who want a compromise — not having the foresight to admit they'll be screwed in the end by the shrewd and wily billionaire class.
That still leaves 4.8 billion people.
Well, another 10% of the planet is malnourished, living in extreme poverty, or are infirm and unable to fight. Take another 10% who lack the capacity to fight effectively, are children, or are exceedingly advanced in age.
We're down to 3.2 billion people.
Of those who remain, each billionaire will need to kill 1 000 000 people in order to win the day. This is achieved by a combination of attacks — nuclear, chemical, biological, conventional, and systemic. Supply lines are cut early, communication lines are jammed, and every possible similarity that could bind 3.2 billion people together is spun into a wedge to divide them. The billionaires are unified behind their purchasing power. Each victorious serves as a message to the remaining people of the fresh horrors to come.
After five or six days, there are 2700 remaining billionaires, who somehow got richer and only 1 billion fighters. Demoralized, decimated, defeated, the non-billionaires give in.
The one strategy that would — nay, could — turn the tables is to upend the tables. Make money worthless. In some minds, this is the Purge. This is the antithesis.
Instead, as a thesis: truly valuing life and living things, the fragile interdependence of ecology within an economic, social, and anthropological order would negate any power that the death-driven cult of profiteering offers. I'm not talking about sitting in a circle and singing kumbaya into eternity. I am talking about doing the work of eternity — stewardship for a planet we understand (not just its commodities) and community for all participants (not just the economically viable). We can learn from one another and grow with one another without exploiting or reinforcing one another's weaknesses.
Takers like to quote Adam Smith, Sun Tzu, or the 48 Laws of Power. The battles we do not fight will feed us. The fields we do not raze will house us. The oceans we do not destroy will connect us. The planet we treat like a home instead of a hole in the ground will support us.
I chose to believe that the working class will eventuall prevail, that people will no longer have nationalism, and work together towards a common future.
It may take years, it may take decades, perhaps even a century, but we will get there. We must get there. Life is too short, life is too miserable. We cannot give up on trying to build a better future.
Because the moment I lose that last bit of hope, I will literally kill myself. So I cannt give up on humanity. I have to have faith that there are good people out there trying to fix problems, because that's what gives me he motivation to live.
Humans have been living under absolute monarchies, communities have been destroyed by imperialism and colonialism, slavery was rampart, the concept of human rights didnt even exist. But we have come so far, humanity have come so far, a lot of the problems we faced in the past had been fixed or at leased inproved. And yes we eill face a lot more problems in the future, and eventually we will find those solutions just as we did for the past problems; we cannot give up now.
Yes, climate change will destroy so many thing, lives and livelihood, but we must find the strength to perservere. Because life is a miracle, Earth even being capable of sustaining life is a miracle.
I remember there was a kid in class that asked: "If humans mess up the Earth, why don't we just move to Mars?", the teacher who's field is related to environment (can't remember the exact subject), told the class that, humans can use up all the fossil fuels and melt all polar ice caps, and Earth would still be 100 times more habitable than Mars.
Because no matter how bad it gets, its still still the most habitable planet that we know of.
Do not give up. (I know I'm being a hypocrite since I subconsciously always tell myself to give up, but don't do that, fight those thoughts)
Right on! Humans have lived through horrors that make 2025 a cakewalk. We'll hang in, we'll survive. We're the toughest multipurpose animals this planet has ever produced, the AR-15s and Toyota Hiluxes and Swiss army knives of mammals. Not the best at any one thing, but we can do it all well enough.
Things are bad now, maybe especially for us Americans. Who among us thought we'd see fascism taking root?! Maybe I'm old and idealistic, but I didn't see Trump 2.0 coming, not again. But we'll survive, we'll live on. History is always two steps forward, one step back. We Americans are seeing the "one step back" for the first time.
Nature seems to be helping out recently as well.
So 8 billion + nature team up?
I'd want to say "8 billion people", but right now 3000 billionaires lead on.
After all, they maintain their position by masterfully playing people off each other and setting things up to be on top. They have all the resources to extend their influence.
If 8 billion people could turn billionaires voices off for anything larger than a day, then yeah, 8 billion all the way, and 3000 will run out FAST.
But the latter know this, and will never let this happen. We should.
For anyone wondering, the effect describes the uncanny ability for rich people to put on red outfits and act like blind devils whilst bending the law in their favor as they bask in their own self-proclaimed peity
(I was making a daredevil joke but no one got it :'( )
I mean, it was a bit of a reach, but I went for it
Cash me outside
The billionaires have already won.
With modern drones and AI tech?
I was just yesterday talking to someone about how AI drones, specifically exactly AI drones, will be a pivotal piece of technology in a way I think even beyond nukes in some sense. With a decent AI drone swarm, it's not hard to imagine a SINGLE person dominating an entire population. The dictator's purest dream - none of those pesky military generals getting uppity.
Welcome to our AI Security and Defence catalogue. Shop below for your advanced security needs.
AI Micro Drone Advanced AI driven micro drones delivering chemically induced and untraceable coranary heart attack dosage to desired target. Drone is single use and will self dispose leaving no traceable evidence of origin. The mark II model will now remain in observational positions for up to 6 months before identifying the most ideal moment of engagement with the target and their environmental conditions. 3 BTC per unit.
AI Hounds Advanced AI driven perimeter control drones. These four legged hounds pack more than the traditional bite. 10 short range mini guided missles, flame thrower with napalm, 2 razor clamp traps, tear gas, poison gas and 360° bayonet. Fully reenforced titanium alloy shell, water proof, bullet proof, fire proof. The hound can run 40mph, jump 6 feet high and operates autonomouslly for up to 7 days without recharge.
Various operational modes available including:
Thank you. And if it should please you, our AI humanoid Companion© range may have that next special someone waiting just for you!
The most successful method the wealthy have used to subvert social movements is infiltration. When a drone swarm can do that, then drone swarms will be what I worry about.
homer patting Bart on the shoulder meme
The most successful method so far!
Depends on the situation.
If we were all put into an arena with zero weaponry, the 8 billion. Under no circumstances would the 3000 win because the 8 billion would most likely end up murdering them, even if by accident.
Under the current world conditions, not looking good.
Billionaires only have power because people do things for them in exchange for money
What kind of battle are we taking about? Violence? Then 8 billion people would win because the combined force of knowledge.
This question also really depend on strategy. You know a billion worth doesn't need to be all in cash. Before cash was a thing, we traded items.. but it's rare to trade items that are exactly worth the same, so money is a nice way to compensate that.
The billion worth can all be spent on defense, it can all be spent on pleasing the 8 billion people. It can be spent to create harmony instead of hatred.
4% of a bee hive vs all the billionaires.
Have the billionaires for lunch.
Trick question, we all lose
The likelihood we would have to have commanders with armies we could do an entire war with artillery, tank, infantry and air bombardment with jets they would be dead in days.
3000 multibillionaires and the trillionaires would win.
I am not an LLM AI.
The problem with your comment is that it is boring. It provides no insight, proposes no causitive mechanisms. Of course, we could follow up and ask you "why?", in order to understand your reasoning, and therefore have an interesting discussion. And in fact, we are so certain that what we actually care about is the reasoning behind the answer, that we may as well ask why in advance.
Almost as if we would like you to... hmm... there are two words...
Your problem with my comment is that you find or boring.
Your problem is that you can't find any insight.
No, because my answer would be "because".
First off, what are you even trying say? Secondly, who are "we"? You and every single Lemmy user? You and the rest of the world?
Lol, let me help you out since you are seemingly in a tough position. I'll block you and you'll experience the same effect as if I "hmm... there are two words..."
It is getting ridiculous how the kids aren't satisfied with just an answer, they want us to guess what their questions may be and pre-emptively explain all of it.
They put zero effort into forming questions, and just expect everyone to give indepth answers they're not gonna read anyways.
See what is happening in the world right now.