-29
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
-29 points (24.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44173 readers
1756 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The outcome would be the same. If the 1% survived some event, they wouldn't be able to survive on their own and would thus die out. It would just take a little longer for them.
Eh, 1% includes like 80 million people globally, they're not all useless billionaires. There are probably a good number of them (likely towards the lower end of the spectrum) that actually work for a living and enough existing resources they'd have time to rework society.
The real question I have is how they'd be distributed. 1% globally or 1% per country/region. Both have advantages and disadvantages for survival.
Good points. I wonder if they would try to enslave each other.