• HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    15 hours 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.

  • robotElder2 [he/him, it/its]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    17 hours 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.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day 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.

  • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    21 hours 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.

  • Quintus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day 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!”.

  • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    The outcome would be the same. If the 1% survived some event, they wouldn’t be able to survive on their own and would thus die out. It would just take a little longer for them.

    • themoken@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      Eh, 1% includes like 80 million people globally, they’re not all useless billionaires. There are probably a good number of them (likely towards the lower end of the spectrum) that actually work for a living and enough existing resources they’d have time to rework society.

      The real question I have is how they’d be distributed. 1% globally or 1% per country/region. Both have advantages and disadvantages for survival.

        • blackbrook
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Really, you think the 1% is just uniquely bad? You don’t think there might be a systemic problem?

          • culpritus [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours 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.

            • blackbrook
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 hours ago

              Ok, but do you really think the next one percent down is much different?

              • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                12 hours 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]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                18 hours 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?

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Starting over wouldn’t have any benefits unless humans would somehow have a completely changed consciousness. Otherwise the same egocentric views would dominate and competition would make sure that we get the same world again.

    Humans are not capable of prioritizing “what do we as a species want to accomplish this year”. Should we look at world production and make sure nobody goes hungry, for example. Nope, can’t do it, because we have countries and money, making sure we can’t just cooperate and make it happen.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Most of the richest 1% would come from few different countries, so there would probably be less cultural differences at least. I could imagine the world being divided into one country per continent or something. People living very far from each other would accelerate digitalisation of governance.

      Cutting emissions by about 95% could also help with climate change. Also people could just move away from highly affected regions.

      I think humanity might just be better off. That said, I dont think this is limited to the richest 1%, most distributions of 1% of the population would do.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The latter. It’s bad, hopeless, but still better than the former which is a completely nonrecoverable loss position.

  • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The 1% live a sheltered and privileged life on the shoulders of the rest. If that support would disappears, I don’t see much chance for long term survival. You’d be fucked anyway.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day 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.

  • morgan423@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    How did everyone die? Assuming that you were the rich person or the indentured servant of a rich person, it would depend on that for sure.

    Was it a horrendous, highly contagious mega-pandemic that no one is immune to, and you survived because you billionaire-bunkered the moment that news reports started to hit? I’d think you could resurface sooner rather than later, and there will be places you can travel to that aren’t really contaminated by the dead (like places that had low population before the outbreak).

    After a few years, you could branch out to wherever (not that any single place is really that much better than others in a nearly empty world), likely the plague will no longer be virulent among the dead. You could quickly carve out a decent life for yourself, though you’d better get self-sufficient fast, without the support structures of the old world being there to do everything for you.

    But if it was nuclear apocalypse? You’re going to be bunkered for a long time, with little company. You’d likely end up envying the dead.

    • infinite_ass@leminal.spaceOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      An alien invasion gone wrong. Creatures from another dimension did a demonic possession of the whole world population at once. Misjudged their ability to handle our genre of reality. All died from seizures. Except for the 1% who happened to use the same very expensive skin-care products that gave them an unexpected resistance to all that.