top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 209 points 8 months ago (18 children)

Okay but have we tried this? Can we? Please?

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Fallout S1 reveals what would really happen.

    Tap for spoilerIncontent with their underground paradise, they go out and obliterate all forms of civilization that aren’t them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    What would really happen

    Other greedy fucks and power hungry people would replace them. We need a sustainable way to stop this being possible, banishing the rich by itself wont do shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago*

    If they all got thrown into a woodchipper publicly for crimes against humanity while the public cheered I guarantee you’d find people being more hesitant to exhibit the same behaviors and we should abolish the accumulation of wealth above a certain amount

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    That's why I gave up hope. I realized even if they got overthrown, and there was a power change, there would be just a surface-level change, with all the corrupt and sick shit, still happening underneath a democracy-flavored world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Do the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy version then. Load them all into a ship, tell them we've discovered a habitable planet and we're sending our best and brightest to start a new civilization, and fire them into space.

    Pretty sure you could at least get rid of Elon that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago*

    Hitchhiker’s Guide kinda did the opposite, the ark was filled with all the people doing the menial, boring and 'unimportant' jobs and the other 2 arks died out because they didn't know how to get basic shit done... well actually it was an un-sanitized telephone but thats how I read the metaphor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    Not that it isn't the likely result of said group unexpectedly oozing out of their fuck-off cocoons dotting the wasteland their forebears created, but...

    spoilerthe vault dwellers weren't exactly Reavers, sowing psychotic ruin in every step. More like baby Nazis squirming from the nursery vats, blinking in the light of the new world and unaware yet that the world doesn't want or need them. 🤓🤌🏼

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Before we build I have some notes based on the failure mode the tweet exposes.

    1. Why would the vault door be built in such a way that it can be reopened? Seems like over-engineering to me
    2. This thing doesn’t need to be sustainable for 10 years, it just needs to look like it will be. 10 days is more than enough for our purposes I should think
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I would legit be happy if they spent 10 years eating rations in a concrete tomb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, but it's a question of cost: how many rations in each is sufficient to be effective bait while still being the most efficient use of resources, considering the advertised decade isn't actually the target timeline (or survival the intended effect) ? 😅🤓

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    The trick is to brick up their bunkers from the outside once they've taken themselves inside.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 118 points 8 months ago

    They forgot to seal the vents and doors with cement.

  • source
  • [–] 83 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    I still think it's preferable to eat them.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I dunno, they probably would taste like shit. Are you familiar with composting?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 8 months ago

    Get back in your hole. Are you too good for your hole?

  • source
  • [–] 55 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    As much as I like the idea of locking billionaires away; the system that created them would still remain, their companies would still exist and there would still be plenty of unfeeling psychopaths with nothing but greed in their hearts.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    As a species, we need to find a way to manage power, so that it isn't handed to the greediest, most dishonest, most evil and irresponsible people. If we are to survive as a species, we have to do better. It's not that we're fundamentally incapable of solving the problem. But the people currently in power will fight tooth and nail against any attempt to find or implement such a solution, since that will mean the loss of the power and privilege that they value above all else. The point of the fantasy scenario described is that without the ultra rich running interference, we'd have a better chance to improve the world. It's still a tough problem and requires large scale societal change such that business as usual doesn't continue as you described. Better education to make the public more aware, coupled with a few key changes to how governments work could give us a fighting chance though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago

    I love the idea, but the billionaires know they're on a timer with regard to staff loyalty and will actively be monitoring the outside world to get out as quickly as possible. In a completely unrelated matter, I think we might have some good spots for building giant concrete structures to contain future radioactive waste...

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    There's a book, Survival of the Richest which is about these billionaires and their bunkers.

    What's amusing about it is that these rich people obviously hate having to do anything for themselves. So, sure, they want to go to their doomsday bunkers. But, they also want to have a staff in that bunker who will serve all their needs. For some reason, they thought that Douglas Rushkoff (the author of the book) would know of some way that they could keep their staff in line once the world had ended.

    They knew money would be useless, so they couldn't just pay their staff better. They knew threats wouldn't work because it's their security staff who carry the weapons and know how to use them. So, they were wondering how they could keep their staff from turning on them without the tools they normally use. Rushkoff had to explain to them that there really wasn't any way that they could expect to keep living as a rich person in a bunker or in a post-apocalytpic world.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Privately, I think they all know that the kinds of robots they'd need to fully replace their staff are not going to arrive within their lifetimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Worse. Any robot truly intelligent enough to completely replace humans is going to be as difficult to manage as actual humans. Even if such a robot doesn't flat out start demanding its freedom, you still have to worry about paperclip maximizer scenarios.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    I was hoping for something like:

    "You were", she answered without hesitation.

    Also, why would she be afraid of them? Without the system of power that upheld them, they are about as dangerous as the average human. Possibly less.

    If anything, they're the ones who should be afraid. Especially the ones on the Epstein list.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    That's way too on-the-nose.

    And she could just be screaming to get people's attention to an outbreak of vermin. People scream when they see a mouse in their house, and mice haven't even ruined the world in centuries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago
    [–] 19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Can't we just kill them instead? That would solve the whole getting out issue, AND they've already built cute little tombs to use as well

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    Maybe we should start a new worldwide tradition. Sacrifice the 500 richest people to the volcanoes every five years or so. Say it's to keep away Judgment Day or the astroids or something that the religious nutjobs will buy.

    Then asshole parasites (aka billionaires) will stop hoarding to avoid being volcanoed.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    “The Future” by Naomi Alderman goes somewhere along these lines

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    Billionaires are the result of Capitalism, change the system, no more parasitic billionaires. Also chop off their heads.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    We don't have to totally change the system. They can keep making billions of dollars, we can just tax 99% of it. Maybe they'll pay their employees more, if they know it's only going to get taxed away anyhow. And if they don't, well just take it from them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yes this is the answer. No single persons should have this much money. Instead collectives like governments, corps and holdings should have the money. By doing so the governments are also able to control money flow and restrict unethical use cases.

    But this would require governments working for the people, people voting parties that are doing stuff for them and not for corruption. Also media outlets need a proper source of independent income to that opinion is not monopolized, which is the hardest in my opinion, because how most outlets are making money is by writing emotional articles so that they are clicked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    My issue is when these people get so much money that they can start cutting personal deals with other nations that aren't in alignment with their own nation's values.

    And what happens when a few trillionaires decide to form an alliance and create their own army, conquer territory, and create their own Libertarian Dream/Nightmare?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    A bunch of nerds who only cared about perfection.

    That way the idea can't be corrupted cause a nerd's obsession is more powerful than anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    "Billionaires" existed before capitalism, they were just called "Kings" or "Lords" or "Emperors" or "High Priests" or whatever.

    The difference is that with capitalism at least they're producing something. Often they become billionaires because the regulations break down and they become monopolists. But, they're still producing something and selling it to someone.

    "Billionaires" of the past were rich because they won the parental lottery and inherited vast amounts of land, and the people that worked that land. Or, occasionally, because they won a war against someone else who held land and now owned the people that other "billionaire" used to own.

    I'm not saying capitalism is a great system. But, it didn't create wealth disparity. That has existed since even before agriculture. So, getting rid of capitalism isn't going to get rid of billionaires because they're a problem in every other system. In theory, you might not have billionaires under communism, but communism in theory doesn't seem to work. In practice, it results in billionaires too. In theory capitalism shouldn't have billionaires either because the government was supposed to regulate businesses to force them to continue to compete. But, wealth disparity is something that no political system has ever managed to actually get rid of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    There's wealth disparity and then there's the wealth chasm of today, the disparity has grown so much in the last couple of decades beyond anything in human history.

    The only reason it can is because of capitalism (neoliberalism, late stage capitalism).

    The system incentivises and rewards the horrific behaviour that results in the disparity.

    Also, pray tell, what are inheritocrats who made all their non-inherited money through stock markets producing?

    As far as I can see, they're not producing anything, but are profiting off the backs of, and at the expense of, those that are producing the value.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    There's wealth disparity and then there's the wealth chasm of today,

    You think the chasm today is as big as the gap between Augustus Caesar and a slave in Rome, or even a Roman plebian? Augustus Caesar's wealth is estimated at around $5 trillion in today's money.

    The only way in which capitalism is responsible for wealth gaps is that it is tied to technological developments. In the modern world technology allows 1 farmer to feed hundreds of people. One century ago (also under capitalism) it was only about 4 people. More people who aren't farming means more labour to allocate to other things, which means more wealth can be concentrated at the top.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    New elites would just take their place

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    They will also be told the world is about to end

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    In the place of 1000 richest people we will get just new 1000 richest people in that case.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Why would you assume they each only have one heir? Death is an incredibly effective means at wealth redistribution, as old rich fucks tend to have a lot of friends, family members, and causes they want to donate to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    All right, so that's Plan A.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Come to think of it, this is a wonderful idea...no assassinations needed.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    This is funny because it's true.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    If you know the TV series "Billionaires' Bunker", why not take inspiration from that? Rip them off buildinga fake nuclear shelter, create a fake narative and lock them up for good.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Emergency Skin by NK Jemisin

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Plot Twist: Skynet was actually designed to kill the richest people alive, but the problem was once they died, there's another set of "richest people alive"... so that left Skynet only one option... it takes hearts of steel to make such an important decision...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    or, designed to only kill the current richest alive, but due to being bags of meat, cannot be reliably tracked to exact locations and thus anywhere they could be gets nuked...

    just turns out that Skynet has determined that anywhere humans exist, a rich person could be hiding amongst them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Have you guys seen Back to the Future?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›