psyklax

If they survive multiple generations, then they survive. I give that a less than 50% chance ("unlikely"). Selecting for the wealthiest 1% is selecting for 1) elderly 2) psychopathic 3) men. Only 10% of the population of the richest 1% is female, and I would assume they are also older than the average person. I'm putting a lot of weight on the psychology of the wealthy and the state that we've "collectively" (it was them) put this planet into.

People run technology. People have knowledge. These things die when people die.

The richest 1% are not those people. We'd have a better chance with a random selection (only 12% of billionaires are female!)

The internet, electricity, running water, sewage, do not work unless someone is operating and maintaining them. Manufacture of supplies to maintain them depend on coordination across the globe, and further specialized skills.

Effectively, technology will be reset for at least a generation to pre-electricity levels. This is survivable, sure.

But, the way I see it, if this event happened instantly or close to it (months, even) the survivors would not be prepared to shift immediately to that lifestyle. This is where I would predict mass deaths.

I've also been assuming these people are not together in one place, and without air travel they would be limited to a shorter range. I suppose if they were all smart enough, they might congregate in a few different places. There's a chance if they cooperate and don't fight each other. Humans can do that. The richest humans, though?

These scenarios are identical in my opinion. They'll likely dwindle and die in a short time anyway. The wealthy are not particularly well suited to rebuilding society, nor are they at a disadvantage, they are just average people who (used to) have wealth.

Actually, little side thought occurs to me here, they can't access their wealth unless it was stored physically, and even then, only if our concept of currency hasn't changed. In my version of this scenario, I'm assuming the 1% still have useful currency, banks still work, etc.

So we got a bunch of more or less equally rich people, who may have access to resources, but their laborers and security forces are Thanos-snapped away.

Hmm..

My guess is that the ones who have weapons will establish a sort of warlord apocalypse scenario. Wouldn't be much different from any other random selection of 1% of the population. The resources you hold and the skills you know matter even more when society disappears. It will start with 1%, the sudden shock of not having most other people to provide for each other will quickly halve that. The fighting over resources will kill a bit more. Eventually there will be an environmental disaster like a drought, and that's it for humanity.

I appreciate you posting this here. I had not read a manifesto yet that sounded like it was legitimately his. This one seems internally consistent at least, as if it was written by a real person. Can never be sure.

In this one, it seems there's nothing for me to dislike, which makes me believe it was written by a real person, but even more cautious about believing it. I had, until now, only heard negative (from my pov) things about him. It is unusual for something like this to leak. The media tries it's best to keep the lid on contagious ideas. (Another reason to be incredulous)

I expect the media will try to give both sides something to dislike about him, to discourage idolatry and imitation. Feels like some 1984/Brave New World style social engineering to me.

Lemmywinked

Because.. the site winked.. out of existence for a minute?

Some day in the distant future (the year 2000!)

Judging from the dearth of new ideas in the game industry, Assassin's Creed: Veritas et Aequitas is still very probably going to happen. Seemed like the natural next step after Syndicate.

I bought this on itch. Played through all the way to the non-ending and I didn't undestand it. Is it some mythology or cultural reference? What is Qud?

You're too kind

(Subtle enough?)

I was coming to say that also.

The stock market is nothing more than gambling on the public (rich people) sentiment about how well that company is going to do. It's similar to how there is gambling on who will win the presidency, and does not affect the outcomes.

Buying stock is not investment, the money that the company recieves comes from issuing the stock. Your money does not fund the evil things that the company does, unless you are paying for goods/services from that company. But, I have seen that stock price influences the decisions of leadership inside the company. Your individual action will not influence the stock price.

Who is that one guy in the trifecta? Almost feels like this image was meant to draw attention to him.

(Edit: That is Thomas Homan)