The top 1% don't get 99% of the resources, they get 99% of imaginary wealth. It can't be sold off en masse.

Ergo, we don't have a magical extra 100x increase in actual goods and other physical resources per person coming if we just kill the 1%. Things could be distributed much more fairly for sure, but it's not as simple as "these few people own everything so if they're gone, everyone else is a millionaire".

Anyway, much of the "basics" is going to be in person care work with an aging society. We haven't handed that off to AI yet, nor medicine, but once that's happened then yes we can actually handle social safety nets in an aging society. Right now the solution they're going for is a constant increase in retirement age to keep the tax revenue high enough to pay for retired people's needs.

"Le Sigh. You are but a juvenile child, and I the calm and logical adult. The arguments I make are simply too complex for such an underdeveloped mind; my explanations would only fall on deaf ears. Even the machinations of my coy wordplay is lost on you, clearly, for you could not even decipher the hidden meaning behind my deceptively foolish appraisal of this society's motivations. My account is of the sheer scale of human productivity, a folley by which your feeble little brain could not even begin to comprehend."

Dude, you're cringe. People have literally been obsessed with medicalizing anti-aging since before the Renaissance. You think we're only just now, in 2026, taking arthritis seriously? C'mon. You said something dumb and you're too much of an internet trilby enthusiast to even take a second and consider what it means that thousands of people are applying for, acquiring, and expending massive amounts of grant funding toward this endeavour and have been doing so for decades.

Not gonna be engaging with this anymore, only made this comment because of how you characterized yourself in this response.