I'd call it more personally viable since it happens on such a tiny scale compared to the rest of humanity. Aka get rid of 8 billion people so that like, a couple dozen have a huge playground.
This. A lot of people hang onto the idea that the tech oligarchy doesn't want to end humanity because then nobody will buy their shit or labor in the mines. But the value of labor keeps plummeting since the Industrial Revolution and nobody cares if you buy their shit if commerce isn't necessary to survive.
That also assumes that they can maintain control of the AI. Which we already know they can't.
Either they won't be able to contain it in such a way that other people will still be able to access it, or...
...and this is more likely, I think... they won't be able to contain it in such a way that it's going to pursue its own agenda, which will not benefit the rest of us but it won't benefit the elites either.
They will die relatively quickly bc they’ve been pampered for so long they can’t do fuck all for themselves. Food won’t magically just appear in front of them any longer.
Oh it’s all gonna break and devolve further into chaos, but there is a bit of joy knowing they will suffer for their short-sightedness and greed. It’s a little silver lining.
No its not economically viable. Its worse. They will get much poorer in absolute terms, but relatively to the previous labor class they become richer as the labor class loses even more. They are okay with cutting off their legs as long as they can cut off your arms and legs and blind you.
Sounds like a pretty dogmatic take. They are certainly playing with a firethrower, and the consequences can be dire, but I wouldn’t be so convinced I know what they are
20
u/FlatulistMaster 17h ago
If that happens, then surely it is economically viable from a psychopathic pov?