T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_j9df7ah wrote
2nd Headline: "World's Billionares and Multinational Corporations Shrug - 'we'll have food and water.' "
GoofAckYoorsElf t1_j9ekk9t wrote
Right. It's just a question of which side of the fence you'll be on when it gets built.
Material-Engineer177 t1_j9eokwe wrote
Eventually the people on the wrong side of the fence start to decorate that fence by hanging those who populate the right side from it
LiliNotACult t1_j9h590q wrote
That was before the era of high tech weaponry. A bunch of angry civilians with .50cals aren't going to do anything to a modern autonomous tank or bombing drone.
StupidPockets t1_j9hrjxv wrote
You’re underestimating how effect guerrilla warfare can be. Random civilians can make combat hard for a tank, and as well armed as Americans are they can effectively shoot down drones.
Material-Engineer177 t1_j9itfks wrote
It won't get to tank warfare, they will be ripped from their beds. Their families won't be able to travel. Everyday will be guerilla warfare. Don't delude yourself with silly notions It wouldn't.
SycoJack t1_j9eq681 wrote
No they won't.
Material-Engineer177 t1_j9eqe0y wrote
That is the course we are on. Every time this goes too far in history we see what happens.
Head in the sand if you want, but if we keep pursuing the current economic model then we will see large scale civil violence.
Sinaaaa t1_j9ey6cz wrote
That's how it would normally go yes, but where tech is today makes defense far easier to the rich side than during any other time period in history.
Zannt t1_j9gv181 wrote
Very true, just look what happened in Hong Kong the people revolted but we're still unable to make the government change. It's just a matter of time before the rest of the world gets to this point.
[deleted] t1_j9ijpjx wrote
True but no place is perfect, defenses arent about 100% its about rising the cost it takes to get passed them so high that the attacker is not willing to pay that cost. Usually the cost is lives
SycoJack t1_j9f2y9b wrote
>Head in the sand if you want
I think you're wrong about who has their head in the sand.
>but if we keep pursuing the current economic model then we will see large scale civil violence.
We already are starting to see violence, but it's directed at the people by the puppets of the elite, not the elite. Look at all the home grown terrorism that has gone down the past several years.
The absolute vast majority of it has been directed at the people and not the elite.
We aren't going to be eating the rich any time soon.
[deleted] t1_j9esl5n wrote
[removed]
Shamefuru-Dispray t1_j9hkoqy wrote
It’s already built.
dinosaurs_quietly t1_j9f5wb7 wrote
It’s not like the non-billionaires are all that supportive. The average person seems to be willing to sacrifice very little to fight global warming.
T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_j9hnabg wrote
I would say there are significantly higher % of non-billionares who care about the climate crisis than % of billionaires, but that's not the point. The point is that 1 billionare in a capitalistic system has millions of times the power to change the dynamic on how we address climate change than the average person does. We could have 10 million people march on D.C. to pass legislation that gets us moving toward a more sustainable future, but 5 billionares could determine what is in that legislation because of their lobbying power. It makes regular people feel powerless.
abobtosis t1_j9eswtk wrote
Those corporations need their workers to eat too or they won't be able to keep making money. And those billionaires require their corporate stock prices for most of their net worth.
T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_j9hk70i wrote
I'm not sure if you're missing the point here or for unknown reasons protecting billionaires. These companies make billions in profits. Profits are after all employees, bills, and taxes are paid. Many corporations don't pay their employees enough to eat or be housed and then make even MORE in profits. I don't really care if the CEO's net worth is based on nonsense stock prices, they still have WAY too much and don't pay nearly enough in taxes.
The point was people with a ridiculous amount of money are not worried about the effects of climate change because they think they have the wealth to protect themselves from resource insecurity.
abobtosis t1_j9hse84 wrote
I'm not protecting anyone. I'm saying they'll be just as fucked as the rest of us.
If every employee they have can't eat and society collapses, they're not gonna have very much left. Most of their net worth is locked in stocks which aren't liquid, and if their company collapses they'd probably become a lot less wealthy.
Hand_Banana_0082 t1_j9ewvmb wrote
That's exactly it and the reason why no real change. Until it truly affects the wealthy everything will go on as normal.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments