@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social @shuro I agree. When I reference “bad humanity” I’m looking at the collective. Surely we are not all bad, but as far as Mother Earth, NOT team players, and we will destroy ourselves the longer we remain selfish. You’d have to get statistics. An easy observation, but not conclusive is look at the make up of Congress, almost half there are-anti-democracy to manipulate, profit, and to exploit or to persecute. Then ask yourself how many votes do they represent? 🤔
@Huntn00 @Radical_EgoCom @shuro
Even if humans were inherently exploitative... it would be in every persons self interest to build a system that minimizes exploitation.
Bad news: You forgo the 0.001% chance of being the exploiter.
Good news: There is also no 99.999% chance you are the exploited.
@Huntn00 @Radical_EgoCom @shuro
True. But then again: If humans are inherently exploitative, why not create a group of your own and topple the current group?
I would imagine this to happen all the time if that precondition holds.
The dominating group/class needs military or police to keep the masses at bay?
Now we have an armed group of inherently exploitative people with no natural enemies...
@wakame @Radical_EgoCom @Huntn00 > I would imagine this to happen all the time
Because exploitation by definition means gaining vastly more resources and it is kind of hard to topple much stronger opponent?
Also these structures are complicated and diverse. It is not like there's just some lone tower with an usurper sitting in it.
E.g. if some people somewhere in the world are unhappy with Bezos then to topple him they'd have to take on the entire US.
@shuro @Radical_EgoCom @Huntn00
I implicitly assumed that the "important" part of exploitation would not be natural resources, but humans/human labor.
I agree that someone could become a stronger opponent if you, for example, take nutrition and materials for weapons and armor into account. This would be only based on resources.
My argument for your example would be either "Who cares for the US?" or "If you really wanted to eliminate a single person, why not just pay for it?"
In the second case, I am not talking about having more money/resources than Bezos, but just enough money/resources to pay a motivated person somewhere in his vincinity to throw him off a cliff.
@wakame @shuro @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social Wealth, I would not advocate the cliff solution, 😉 but I would advocate hard significant wealth caps. With automation arising, I don’t see the 1%living well and everyone else struggling as viable. Besides who needs more than $1m/yr to live a good life? When I was working I was very comfortable at $250k/yr but that was not living in California. 🫤
@Huntn00 @shuro @Radical_EgoCom
This was more in the style of "let's discuss human society mechanisms", less direct suggestions to change our society