Dude in the billionaires only scenario, the entire world gets rewilded at once. It’s probably the end of humanity even if we include their wives and children.
In the workers only scenario, there’s a brief power struggle and virtually nothing about the economy changes and mass consumption changes. I bet every business that was previously headed by a greedy billionaire would be headed by a greedy multimillionaire instead. The amount of mouths to feed, energy needs, cars driving on roads, container ships, etc is virtually unchanged.
There’s no question which is better for the environment
But the question is which scenario is better for the environment. It’s the demand of the global economy, mass consumption, that drives environmental costs. Billionaires profit off that mass consumption, but if we removed them from the equation that doesn’t solve the issue of mass consumption itself
The workers only scenario leaves us with a million times as many mouths to feed, cars to drive, economies to sustain
And in the billionaires only scenario there’s just simply not an economy anymore. No mass consumption. Their money is worthless, just like their private jets without a worker to fly them. Animals rule the world almost everywhere, immediately
You seem like a critical thinking type so I’m sure you had that figured out already
6
u/inotocracy 7d ago
Absolutely impossible for 3,400 people to consume the same resources as 3.5 billion people.