Survival of the Richest

turkeydance

turkeydance

Well-Known Member
Life Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
4,486
Location
nc
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
quote:
They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.

link to the article:
https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1
 
Interesting read.

A couple revealing excerpts (bold emphasis added):
1) "The more committed we are to this view of the world, the more we come to see human beings as the problem and technology as the solution. The very essence of what it means to be human is treated less as a feature than bug. No matter their embedded biases, technologies are declared neutral. Any bad behaviors they induce in us are just a reflection of our own corrupted core. It’s as if some innate human savagery is to blame for our troubles."

"Ultimately, according to the technosolutionist orthodoxy, the human future climaxes by uploading our consciousness to a computer or, perhaps better, accepting that technology itself is our evolutionary successor. Like members of a gnostic cult, we long to enter the next transcendent phase of our development, shedding our bodies and leaving them behind, along with our sins and troubles."

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.
--Voltaire


2) Being human is not about individual survival or escape. It’s a team sport. Whatever future humans have, it will be together.

The author is a commie! At least, he sounds like one with this assumption underlying his philosophy. In any case, there's a few thousand years of human history that pretty much contradicts his conclusion.
 
turkeydance said:
quote:
They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.

link to the article:
https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1
Click to expand...
I love how your avatar fits your post.
 
Was discussing something similar with a coworker a while back.

If you track the evolution of artificial intelligence it is increasing at an exponential curve. Based on its current rate of “evolution”, it is no matter a question of >if< it will surpass human intelligence, but >when< it will.

The question then becomes “What will happen to us when the AI becomes more intelligent than us?”

This doesn’t necessarily mean a world of terminators seeking our destruction. The AI, being advanced enough to not disclose its plans (think parents planning a surprise vacation, all the signs are there, the kids just aren’t smart enough to figure out its coming), will have a way to remove us with little struggle. Nanobots in the water supply, pathogens released from quarantines, nuclear reactors breached. It will have all the time it needs to figure out what is most expedient.

However, it won’t “get rid of us” out of anger, or spite necessarily. In fact, it may be out of efficiency.

For example: a computer system for the “smart car” is designed to calibrate the absolute fastest commute times between locations. Some factors it has to contend with is people hitting emergency stop buttons, being late to get aboard, having to take down time for cleaning due to humans trashing the insides, and on and on. The AI, in its goal to create the most efficient system of transport, decides if it removes “humans” from the equation then its efficiency will increase 40%. So it “removes the feature” that slows its potential.

It isn’t done out of malice or hatred any more than the ant hill that was destroyed when my house was built means I hated those ants. It was just a barrier to progress that was “removed.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
robots.jpg

And yes, while this is me being my usual smartass self, it's not entirely untrue.

Day by day human civilisation falls deeper and deeper into being nothing more than a squirming mass of unproductive drones consuming all resources and crapping out poison.

Myself included.

Let the machines have a turn. Could they really be any worse?
 
Last edited:
Pink_Vapor said:
Can I have mine in a subservient, long haired, thin waisted brunette?
Click to expand...

That would actually be one of the easiest ways to prep humanity for extinction. With all the crap going on between men and women more and more people ONLY engage in relationships for sex and company and kids just sort of happen. Provide them with something 95 percent as good with zero effort and much like the microwave crap most people accept as food..... You've removed a massive percentage of human reproduction from the equation.
 
Last edited:
NCLivingBrit said:
That would actually be one of the easiest ways to prep humanity for extinction. With all the crap going on between men and women more and more people ONLY engage in relationships for sex and company and kids just sort of happen. Provide them with something 95 percent as good with zero effort and much like the microwave crap most people accept as food..... You've removed a massive percentage of human reproduction from the equation.
Click to expand...
Let's run with it and give free robots to the neo-Marxists.
 
How to maintain the rich mans supremacy is an interesting concept. I don't think they can.

It's not like we would be treading new ground after the balloon goes up, we in essence would just be going back (with better toys). There would be clan rule where the strongest would be the leaders; and then only as long as their efforts benefit the masses. Once they put themselves in the tower they become the objective for the rest of the tribe.

It would have to be like the pirate vessels of old where the captain is elected to his post and keeps it only as long as there is profit to be had for the crew.

No man would be able to survive as an island the only way to advance would be as a collective.
 
They might last until the food ran out.
Or until a machine they think they need breaks.
Then they are in a world of real hurt as they know nothing and can fix nothing.
They are then just another leach and no one likes leaches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom