8 billion people vs. 3000 billionaires: Who would win?
-
3000 multibillionaires and the trillionaires would win.
Elaborate and explain
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...
-
Elaborate and explain
It’s funny cause no one seems to realize that the billionaires are human beings. They have a house, they shit, they piss, they bleed, etc. And yet, everyone is somehow convinced that becoming a billionaire makes you somehow invulnerable.
-
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...
-
Elaborate and explain
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.
-
Elaborate and explain
wrote last edited by [email protected]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)
-
It’s funny cause no one seems to realize that the billionaires are human beings. They have a house, they shit, they piss, they bleed, etc. And yet, everyone is somehow convinced that becoming a billionaire makes you somehow invulnerable.
they win because they throw money at enough ppl to build a wall of ppl to protect them
-
they win because they throw money at enough ppl to build a wall of ppl to protect them
That wall ain't 8 billion High though.
-
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 wall ain't 8 billion High though.
and you assume those 8 billion all fight, id sit on my ass and watch
-
It’s funny cause no one seems to realize that the billionaires are human beings. They have a house, they shit, they piss, they bleed, etc. And yet, everyone is somehow convinced that becoming a billionaire makes you somehow invulnerable.
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.
-
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.
humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now
That's a huge claim, you need to support that.
-
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.
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.
-
Elaborate and explain
4% of a bee hive vs all the billionaires.
-
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.
-
Elaborate and explain
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
This is happening right now and the billionaires are winning.
Eh. most of the pull and wealth is people that are just kind-of rich.
-
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
::: -
humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now
That's a huge claim, you need to support that.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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: wording~
-
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.
-
Elaborate and explain
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.
