Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bunch of "hate the rich people" posters in this thread, lol.
If a situation like this were to occur where the 99% vanished, I guess it would be like some sort of apocalypse. So then it would come down to who had the best survival skills. And in that case, I would put money on rich people over poor people. This is simply because most rich people have above-average intelligence, and would be able to figure out new concepts for survival much quicker than their poor counterparts.
To be a bit cheeky, it's mathematically impossible for the 1% to survive without the 99% since if the 99% disappeared, there would no longer be 100% for anyone to be 1% of.
This was intended as sarcasm, but it's the most realistic answer.
In theory we could someday reach the point where all labor and intelligence (food production, waste disposal, water treatment, construction, weather prediction, transportation of goods, etc.) could be 100% managed by machines and AI. But realistically this would be an impossibility.
Just think of legal disputes... who spends the time to bother researching laws? Who does the negotiations? If two adjacent one-percenters disagree on their border, who do they send to fight their war? If they send robots, who repairs the robots after the war is over?
There will always be the need for someone to do work. So if the lizard people (or Illuminati, or whichever conspiracy theory you prefer) ever decides to kill the 99% with chemtrails and vaccines, the world will still mathematically be populated by 100% of the people. It's just that the 99% doing the work is considerably smaller.
Off topic, but top the 1% is lower than what most people think. Back a few years ago my former wife and I were nudging up against the top 2% of the US (arguably we were well up in the top 1% globally), and we were "only" professionals with moderately decent careers. We were right on the edge of being affected by the tax plans at the time that "only taxed the upper 2%". We were no where near appearing on an episode of The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
Bunch of "hate the rich people" posters in this thread, lol.
If a situation like this were to occur where the 99% vanished, I guess it would be like some sort of apocalypse. So then it would come down to who had the best survival skills. And in that case, I would put money on rich people over poor people. This is simply because most rich people have above-average intelligence, and would be able to figure out new concepts for survival much quicker than their poor counterparts.
Totally not true. A true statement would be "most rich people either have above-average intelligence or have ancestors with above-average intelligence". Especially if you start talking about the ultra-rich "old-money" types.
As people gain riches they attract prettier mates, but not necessarily smarter mates. Countless fortunes painstakingly earned by intelligent innovators have been squandered by their progeny a few generations later.
Also, someone is smart with finances and/or is capable of theft by pen and paper will be the last person who'd know how to preserve food and live off the land.
In the case of an apocalypse, I'd bet on a rural family surviving long before I'd bet on someone who lived their whole life with the assistance of servants.
Beautiful and pertinent song, you should listen to it:
I have a more interesting question. How would the 99% survive without the 1%? Fairly well I would think. Another is what good would it be to be the 1% when there was no 99% to consider yourself better, prettier, more privileged than or exclusive from? Exclusivity is useless if you can't use it to feel better than the 99%.
Yes, net of 250 enclaves, well protected and guarded. The rest of the world can do whatever it wants to, likely turn to gangland run by warlords.
There is a book on this by forgot his name Japanese author. Enclaves will be connected to each other.
Will the 1% survive? Sure, why not. Automation currently quite well permits this. Also, it will not be pure 1%, it will them + some number of servants, technicians, etc.
Also, do not forget that that idea - and current actual goal - is geared towards practical immortality. Most likely towards transferring particular "human" into an artificial body. There is - known, who knows what's not - positive experiment announced on this not so long ago.
This "what if" idea is clearly seeded in people's minds, slowly becoming a plausible and then a norm.
Plenty of movies/books out there around it. Movies like Her. AI. Etc. Humanoids. Androids.
In enclaves, system will be built on the rigid cast principle. Nation to be "taken in" will be Indians, as they have cast system and its rigorous obedience in their blood and it's natural to them. As servants, of course.
Totally not true. A true statement would be "most rich people either have above-average intelligence or have ancestors with above-average intelligence". Especially if you start talking about the ultra-rich "old-money" types.
As people gain riches they attract prettier mates, but not necessarily smarter mates. Countless fortunes painstakingly earned by intelligent innovators have been squandered by their progeny a few generations later.
Also, someone is smart with finances and/or is capable of theft by pen and paper will be the last person who'd know how to preserve food and live off the land.
In the case of an apocalypse, I'd bet on a rural family surviving long before I'd bet on someone who lived their whole life with the assistance of servants.
Beautiful and pertinent song, you should listen to it:
You quoted what I said as untrue, but what I said was "most rich people have above-average intelligence" which is correct because they attend elite schools and have higher testing scores. If you're going to add "or have ancestors with above-average intelligence", that would apply to the entire earth, rich OR poor, wouldn't it? Then we can just change the statement to "all people on earth have either above-average intelligence or ancestors with above-average intelligence" because no matter how many generations of stupid people someone comes from, there had to be at least one person in their gene pool with above-average intelligence.
I don't know what your second point has to do with the 1% surviving on their own, but I don't think it really matters in this instance.
I think it's pretty safe to say that billionaires don't get there by being idiots or lazy asses, which leads me to ask you this question: you really think people in the 1% couldn't figure out a way to live off the land? Sure it's challenging but I've met more than a few wealthy people, and 9/10 times they are very self-driven.
You quoted what I said as untrue, but what I said was "most rich people have above-average intelligence" which is correct because they attend elite schools and have higher testing scores. If you're going to add "or have ancestors with above-average intelligence", that would apply to the entire earth, rich OR poor, wouldn't it? Then we can just change the statement to "all people on earth have either above-average intelligence or ancestors with above-average intelligence" because no matter how many generations of stupid people someone comes from, there had to be at least one person in their gene pool with above-average intelligence.
I don't know what your second point has to do with the 1% surviving on their own, but I don't think it really matters in this instance.
I think it's pretty safe to say that billionaires don't get there by being idiots or lazy asses, which leads me to ask you this question: you really think people in the 1% couldn't figure out a way to live off the land? Sure it's challenging but I've met more than a few wealthy people, and 9/10 times they are very self-driven.
First, you are confusing intelligence with education. Rich people have the ability to send their kids to the best schools, but that doesn't mean they have the highest intelligence. I knew several blooming idiots barely scraping through college who were the children of very wealthy parents. My "second point" above has to do with the fact that someone who is intelligent and driven who earns wealth out of nothing may choose a pretty but less intelligent "trophy wife" as a mate. Half the genes come from the father, half from the mother. You can send a kid to the best schools in the country, but if they were born dumb as a brick they won't make it very far.
Second, you seem to think that everyone who is rich personally earned those riches. You are forgetting that the vast majority of the ultra-rich actually inherited their money, and may or may not have earned any of it. It isn't called "old money" for nothing.
I grant you that an intelligent self-starter who pulled himself up out of the middle class to the top 1% would probably be one of the top survivors in a apocalypse. But an heir or heiress who never had to do anything but make sure they invested daddy's money properly would die or be killed quickly.
Case in point, Sam Walton (WalMart) vs. his progeny. I don't think anyone doubts that Sam Walton was a brilliant, hard-working man who started with nothing and worked his way to be a billionaire. But what about his grandchildren? They never had to do anything but cash interest checks. Sam Walton lived through the Great Depression; put him in an apocalypse and he'd survive. His progeny would not. Especially the daughter who keeps getting DUIs and even killing people in her car without ever facing consequences.
First, you are confusing intelligence with education. Rich people have the ability to send their kids to the best schools, but that doesn't mean they have the highest intelligence. I knew several blooming idiots barely scraping through college who were the children of very wealthy parents. My "second point" above has to do with the fact that someone who is intelligent and driven who earns wealth out of nothing may choose a pretty but less intelligent "trophy wife" as a mate. Half the genes come from the father, half from the mother. You can send a kid to the best schools in the country, but if they were born dumb as a brick they won't make it very far.
Second, you seem to think that everyone who is rich personally earned those riches. You are forgetting that the vast majority of the ultra-rich actually inherited their money, and may or may not have earned any of it. It isn't called "old money" for nothing.
I grant you that an intelligent self-starter who pulled himself up out of the middle class to the top 1% would probably be one of the top survivors in a apocalypse. But an heir or heiress who never had to do anything but make sure they invested daddy's money properly would die or be killed quickly.
Case in point, Sam Walton (WalMart) vs. his progeny. I don't think anyone doubts that Sam Walton was a brilliant, hard-working man who started with nothing and worked his way to be a billionaire. But what about his grandchildren? They never had to do anything but cash interest checks. Sam Walton lived through the Great Depression; put him in an apocalypse and he'd survive. His progeny would not. Especially the daughter who keeps getting DUIs and even killing people in her car without ever facing consequences.
I'm not necessarily impressed by education but a lot of the 1% are brilliant people regardless of whether they attended elite schools or not, so I know the difference. Oh, and thanks for clarifying your second point. While this makes sense, it's also possible for two intelligent people to have a dumbass kid. I've seen this on more than one occasion.
I never said that; that's just your assumption of what I meant. I'm aware of that, but I also think that the ones that actually amassed their fortunes themselves would come up with ingenious ways to survive with minimal effort on their own part.
Can't disagree with anything you wrote in your third paragraph. I think so too; however, you seem to take offense to rich people getting off the hook for stupid stuff. There are plenty of poor people that get off the hook for stupid stuff as well, but that's another topic.
For some reason I'm inclined to say that technological advances make it so that the 1% can survive without the need for the lower classes, and that the makeup of the humanity of the future will be largely determined by who is part of the uppermost classes today.
Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Is it:
- Impossible to achieve?
- A technical possibility?
- A technical reality?
For some reason I'm inclined to say that technological advances make it so that the 1% can survive without the need for the lower classes, and that the makeup of the humanity of the future will be largely determined by who is part of the uppermost classes today.
Yep, that's where we are blindly headed.
Last edited by rruff; 04-08-2016 at 07:47 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
