The benefit to humanity wouldn't be the 14 dollars. It would be the elimination of Bill Gates as one of our man-gods.

Of course another vampire king would be promoted to take his place and nothing would change. Except for the face telling us everything's swell and going to continue to be so.

Which in itself is a plus since the new guy probably wasn't as "close friends" with Epstein as Gates was. (And for Gates-stans, I'd like you to respond with your fanfiction for why his wife decided to divorce him soon after all that.)

... and only plebs really think in terms of money. Money is the lot feed they give us cattle to control us. They don't deal in terms of money, they deal in terms of power.

Or in other words, capital.

Protip: An Alaskan communist managed to secure this crazy idea that a portion of the oil of Alaska belonged to Alaskans. It was worth $1,000 a year for each person. This year... uh... they're proposing $3,900? Good god.

How much "free stuff" we've just been giving away...

You're thinking about things in terms of a movie, not in terms of reality. Things don't happen in one big climatic event, they're a chain of smaller events. The unthinkable is unthinkable until it isn't. It's a process, not an event, as they say.

So in this case the murder dogs and venom bees don't show up on the front end of the apocalypse. They're cleanup on the back end. Of a disastrously bad timeline where an Epstein or fascist cult manages to maneuver themselves into a dominant position.

At the end of the day, everything is about power. Being able to replace people with robots obviously dramatically tilts the scale even further in favor of capital over labor.

As you say, "why would they want to get rid of people" can just as easily be flipped to "why would they want to help people."

We live in a happy world where "let them die" is a common attitude towards healthcare and the homeless, and those in positions in power are 100% happy to keep things that way, or make it even worse.

Technology has made things better than the past and I believe it's the only way to avoid dooooom for the future, but I understand nothing is a guarantee.

Malice and neglect, the yin-yang vital essence of the conservatives and liberals, will be the start of social change. How it will end, no one knows. Not me, not you. Even Ray Kurzweil thinks SGI has a 50/50 shot of being "good" for humanity as a whole, and he always notes that he's considered by many as something of an optimist.

Always remember the spirit of the anthropic principle and survivor's bias: things only worked out so incredibly well in the past only because they had to for you to be here to see it. The dead and those without the leisure and means to casually chat on internet forums, might have other opinions.

>Like, what do the actually gain from it?

> More land?

> More resources?

> They can get infinite of both. And could kick anyone they wanted dout of their land at a moment's notice.

Uh... yeah? They could have all the atoms by kicking everyone off of their planet?

Here's the rules for rulers video so you can learn more about how power structures work, and how the elites do very much think of themselves as a collective in-group. tldr: They're pirate ships that need to constantly acquire more loot and rents to feed themselves. If you're not expanding, you're shrinking.

By this kind of logic, everyone having a job or being on social security should be responsible for MASSIVE inflation.

At some point you have to realize we've long since left the ranch when it comes to the labor theory of value. In this world it's somewhere between an energy ration and a magical imaginary number driven up by a combination of rent seeking and speculation.

You're looking for r/singularity if you're looking for living in the matrix with your robot wife while being immortal and on welfare. (r/longevity for a more grounded view on the curing aging thing.)

A beautiful dream, but futurology hasn't been like that for the past ten years, as extreme optimism shifted into realistic pessimism. Daily reminder even Kurzweil thinks a technological singularity would have around a 50% chance of being a net positive to human life, and he notes that people think of him as an "optimist."