[QatzelOk]

Have we reached an era where the labor of the vast majority of the human genre is no longer sufficient to secure the security of our species?

Would it be wise to eliminate up to 99% of humanity in order to protect what remains of the natural environment?

Hasn't technology evolved to the point where most of the labor that the 1% require to live comfortable and hyper-consumption-anchored lives can be done by machines that require less resource consumption than the humans who once did those jobs?

Is humanity now in the same situation as the prehistoric animals who did the labor on the Flinstones?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation

[Tainari88]

Have we reached an era where the labor of the vast majority of the human genre is no longer sufficient to secure the security of our species?

Would it be wise to eliminate up to 99% of humanity in order to protect what remains of the natural environment?

Hasn't technology evolved to the point where most of the labor that the 1% require to live comfortable and hyper-consumption-anchored lives can be done by machines that require less resource consumption than the humans who once did those jobs?

Is humanity now in the same situation as the prehistoric animals who did the labor on the Flinstones?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation

The problem Q is that the elite 1% people prefer to murder millions rather than share power with them.

When that happens the choice is simple. If you do a cleanse? You do it on the one percent intolerant selfish bastards. Problem solved. Lol.

[QatzelOk]

The problem Q is that the elite 1% people prefer to murder millions rather than share power with them.

When that happens the choice is simple. If you do a cleanse? You do it on the one percent intolerant selfish bastards. Problem solved. Lol.

Not entirely true, Tainari88. The 1% do NOT always want to kill off their serf-class slaves. The relationship between these two groups is similar to the relationship between cattle farmers and their cattle: a mixture of control and of conditional love.

If his cattle provides him with more milk and meat than they consume, the farmer loves his cows.

But if that same farmer can find a mechanical way to create milk and meat WITHOUT the trouble of feeding and caging his cattle, he will probably do that. And he will be especially apt to "get rid of his cattle" if they create problems by trying to break out of their cages, go on strike for better work conditions or environmental conditions, or even resort to attacking the farmer and his family.

The "love" that farmers have for their owned cattle is totally conditional on the advantages that these cattle provide the farmer. Their "surplus labor" is why the farmer allows his caged animals to go on living.

Here is a Farmer Representative talking about the conundrum that artificial milk has created in regards to the willingness of the farmers to continue to feed and care for their cattle:

Yuval Noah Harari: Workplace Automation & the "Useless Class"

► Show Spoiler

For the sake of this post, "Farmer" is used to describe the controlling classes, and "cattle" is used to describe the rest of humanity.

[Truth To Power]

The 1% do NOT always want to kill off their serf-class slaves.

In fact, only when the latter become a threat to the former's privileges.

The relationship between these two groups is similar to the relationship between cattle farmers and their cattle: a mixture of control and of conditional love.

No, because unlike the greedy, parasitic privileged, who only take from their victims, cattle farmers actually provide a lot of benefits to their cattle and do a lot of other productive work. The relationship is more like that between parasite and host. See Michael Hudson's "Killing the Host." In most cases, a parasite has ways of tricking its host into thinking that it is harmless, or part of itself, or even beneficial.

If his cattle provides him with more milk and meat than they consume, the farmer loves his cows.

Nah. Farmers know better than to love their livestock.

But if that same farmer can find a mechanical way to create milk and meat WITHOUT the trouble of feeding and caging his cattle, he will probably do that.

The privileged are not creating any meat or milk. They are just legally taking them from those who do produce them, and contributing nothing in return.

And he will be especially apt to "get rid of his cattle" if they create problems by trying to break out of their cages, go on strike for better work conditions or environmental conditions, or even resort to attacking the farmer and his family.

AI may give the privileged the option of getting rid of the productive -- but then the AI will have little reason not to get rid of the privileged.

The "love" that farmers have for their owned cattle is totally conditional on the advantages that these cattle provide the farmer. Their "surplus labor" is why the farmer allows his caged animals to go on living.

Unlike the privileged, who are only a burden to the productive, farmers actually enable their livestock to go on living, in a symbiotic relationship. Parasitism is not symbiosis.

Here is a Farmer Representative talking about the conundrum that artificial milk has created in regards to the willingness of the farmers to continue to feed and care for their cattle:

Yuval Noah Harari: Workplace Automation & the "Useless Class"

Ignoring the fact that the real useless class is the privileged, who are already useless....

► Show Spoiler

For the sake of this post, "Farmer" is used to describe the controlling classes, and "cattle" is used to describe the rest of humanity.

As explained above, that analogy is a poor one.

[QatzelOk]

...unlike the greedy, parasitic privileged, who only take from their victims, cattle farmers actually provide a lot of benefits to their cattle and do a lot of other productive work.

Would you prefer to be a cow locked in a pen, or a wild animal, free to roam and do as you wish?

Or, as a penned cow, are you even able to imagine what it would be like to have free will and the legal right to act on your instincts?

And if farmers do a lot of productive work, does this really excuse the slavery of the animals whose lives they diminish through a lifetime of imprisonment and social isolation? Are they doing as much for their cows as their cows are doing for them? Didn't slave-owners ALSO have to do some maintenance work on their slaves? Did this make slavery equitable for all involved, in your mind?

The relationship is more like that between parasite and host. See Michael Hudson's "Killing the Host." In most cases, a parasite has ways of tricking its host into thinking that it is harmless, or part of itself, or even beneficial.

Cattle farmers are also part of the parasitic relationship between modern, tool-abusing mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom. So the relationship between the 1% and their cattle .

I don't disagree with you that the 1% are parasitic. But if you think about how much the lives of caged and penned animals are diminished from birth to death... you can see how cattle farmers provide the same diminished livelihood to their cattle as the controlling 1% give to their cattle (us).

And every once in a while, farmers slaughter their cattle for meat. Aren't we at the starting gate of the 1% doing the same thing to "their cattle" in another world war?

After all, now that we are no longer afraid of going to hell or of not worhipping our king... we have become too "unpenned" for the farmer class to squeeze much more surplus labor out of us.

Plus, most Western countries are bankrupt. This means that the only "meat" that the 99% can provide them with... is their own.

[Truth To Power]

Would you prefer to be a cow locked in a pen, or a wild animal, free to roam and do as you wish?

The other wild animals are also free to do as they wish -- including kill and eat me, not necessarily in that order.

Or, as a penned cow, are you even able to imagine what it would be like to have free will and the legal right to act on your instincts?

And be eaten alive by hyenas.

And if farmers do a lot of productive work, does this really excuse the slavery of the animals whose lives they diminish through a lifetime of imprisonment and social isolation?

Animals are not people. Only people have rights because only people are able to respect others' rights.

Are they doing as much for their cows as their cows are doing for them?

Certainly.

Didn't slave-owners ALSO have to do some maintenance work on their slaves?

No, they just told other slaves to do it. It was remarked at the time, as a justification for chattel slavery in the antebellum South, that African-American slaves were actually materially better off than contemporaneous landless European peasants. Perhaps you are having difficulty with the concept that unlike slaves, cattle can't just be told to look after the other cattle.

Did this make slavery equitable for all involved, in your mind?

It was roughly as equitable as private ownership of land.

Cattle farmers are also part of the parasitic relationship between modern, tool-abusing mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Nonsense. "The rest of the animal kingdom" is not an organism, just a description, and tool use is how we roll.

So the relationship between the 1% and their cattle .

No, I already explained to you why that is not the case. The privileged are abrogating everyone else's rights without making just compensation. Cattle have no rights, but get a lot of compensation.

I don't disagree with you that the 1% are parasitic. But if you think about how much the lives of caged and penned animals are diminished from birth to death... you can see how cattle farmers provide the same diminished livelihood to their cattle as the controlling 1% give to their cattle (us).

No, because there is no doubt that the lives of wild animals are in general much more difficult than the lives of domesticated livestock, and most livestock would die slowly and painfully in the wild.

And every once in a while, farmers slaughter their cattle for meat. Aren't we at the starting gate of the 1% doing the same thing to "their cattle" in another world war?

No, that is not a valid analogy, as already proved.

After all, now that we are no longer afraid of going to hell or of not worhipping our king... we have become too "unpenned" for the farmer class to squeeze much more surplus labor out of us.

Check out how long people still "willingly" toil and scrimp just to buy the little postage stamp of land under their dwellings.

Plus, most Western countries are bankrupt. This means that the only "meat" that the 99% can provide them with... is their own.

More of the same false analogy.

[QatzelOk]

The other wild animals are also free to do as they wish -- including kill and eat me, not necessarily in that order.

And be eaten alive by hyenas.

Animals are not people. Only people have rights because only people are able to respect others' rights.

It seems that the reason you are unable to accept this thread's OP analogy is because you think there is some fundamental difference between humans and other species. And this ostensible difference is why it is impossible for you to envision an entire class of humans who think of themselves as the farmers of human cattle.

How many boosters did you get after the farmers locked you in your pen for two years?

And if the farmer class don't need their human cattle with automation... why wouldn't they just trigger a world war that kills surplus human cattle?

You have not stated anything that would convince anyone that the 1% are not acting like they perceive their role as cattle ranchers of human cattle.

Look at the OP video again. Notice that the speaker is addressing a bunch of well-dressed executives (cattle ranchers) as they discuss what to do with the now-useless cattle (useless eaters).

Think about all the "useless" eaters that humankind has already eliminated.

Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study

Humankind is revealed as simultaneously insignificant and utterly dominant in the grand scheme of life on Earth by a groundbreaking new assessment of all life on the planet.

The world’s 7.6 billion people represent just 0.01% of all living things, according to the study. Yet since the dawn of civilisation, humanity has caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and half of plants, while livestock kept by humans abounds...

And they did this while thinking "who needs these other species."

[Truth To Power]

It seems that the reason you are unable to accept this thread's OP analogy is because you think there is some fundamental difference between humans and other species.

Which there indisputably is.

And this ostensible difference is why it is impossible for you to envision an entire class of humans who think of themselves as the farmers of human cattle.

I don't care what they think, humans are not cattle.

How many boosters did you get after the farmers locked you in your pen for two years?

I never experienced any such event.

And if the farmer class don't need their human cattle with automation... why wouldn't they just trigger a world war that kills surplus human cattle?

They might. But wars have a way of inflicting collateral damage on those who thought to profit from them.

You have not stated anything that would convince anyone that the 1% are not acting like they perceive their role as cattle ranchers of human cattle.

False. I have demonstrated that there is little resemblance between the privileged and cattle ranchers.

Look at the OP video again. Notice that the speaker is addressing a bunch of well-dressed executives (cattle ranchers) as they discuss what to do with the now-useless cattle (useless eaters).

I don't see the cattle analogy being drawn at all.

Think about all the "useless" eaters that humankind has already eliminated.

Like smallpox?

And they did this while thinking "who needs these other species."

Animals don't have rights, and aren't much use at fighting back.

[Rancid]

Good, I look forward to being disposed of like a piece of trash.

[Tainari88]

Good, I look forward to being disposed of like a piece of trash.

Just how rich and powerful are you? Show me the money?

Show me the money...where is the bank account that makes you the one percent?

Nationally, it takes an annual income of $652,657 to cross the threshold into the so-called 1% level of wealth, SmartAsset calculated, based on data from the IRS and Bureau of Labor Statistics. By comparison, the median U.S. household brings home about $75,000 annually.Aug 2, 2023

Show me your bank statements Rancid.

[Rancid]

Just how rich and powerful are you? Show me the money?

Show me the money...where is the bank account that makes you the one percent?

Nationally, it takes an annual income of $652,657 to cross the threshold into the so-called 1% level of wealth, SmartAsset calculated, based on data from the IRS and Bureau of Labor Statistics. By comparison, the median U.S. household brings home about $75,000 annually.Aug 2, 2023

Show me your bank statements Rancid.

I want to be abused by the rich.

[Tainari88]

I want to be abused by the rich.

You are not showing me the money.

You are not the 1%. You are not the elite.

You are part of the 99%. Get down. Get dirty with the working class. Admit your lower class reality. Be humble. Be truthful.

Admit....you are a commoner.

Admit you are in love with me. Admit if I did not tell you that you are a man of the PEOPLE. Not of the PENIS.

You love me. I tell you the truth of who you are.

Yo soy tu secreto de Amor en PoFo. ¡Admítelo!

Porque te amo y me amas. Tell the truth. Me amas. No puedes cambiarme el nombre. Eres un hombre cualquiera y me amas.

Dilo ahora. You love this old vieja puertorriqueña. No puedes vivir sin mi.

[Rancid]

@Tainari88, if I were 1% rich, I would just disappear.

Maybe I would show up at @QatzelOk and start yelling at him. Tell him how poor he is.

[Truth To Power]

I want to be abused by the rich.

You are. Big-time.

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88, if I were 1% rich, I would just disappear.

Maybe I would show up at @QatzelOk and start yelling at him. Tell him how poor he is.

Aha, so I got an answer about showing me the money eh? Hee hee. You are not making over $600k a year in salary? You poverty-stricken man in Austin!

Shit that average salary of $75k a year I never saw in my working years in the USA. Lol. I probably am far better off financially in Mexico in semi-retirement than I ever was in the USA. The USA is tough. Expensive rents and mortgages, and high property taxes and taxes for people who are lower class and middle class are really high. You have to be a multimillionaire to get the loopholes you need to avoid taxation. Be some Exxon Mobile corporation. Lol.

My strategies have always been straightforward. Never rent a place that is expensive or take out a mortgage that is hard to pay every month. Live way below your means. I mean way below. If you buy food wait for specials and buy in bulk, plan meals, and be conscientious about buying stuff. I never bought new anything. Never bought new cars. New anything I never bought.

The only time I bought new was in Mexico. Did I say to myself? What the hell I am getting older and I can afford it now? The new stuff turns out the same price as the old used stuff in some thrift store in the USA in Mexico. Might as well do custom made furniture in Mexico. It is affordable.

I always did not believe in spending on credit cards and crap. Never believed in debt. So I was always debt free for years. Never even had debit cards for years. Nothing. I did not like owing or buying on credit. I told my husband. Save money, buy it cash, never pay interest.

Most of the people I knew were always in debt with some shit. I said why? Because you need to keep up with the Joneses' it is crazy.

You would disappear but since you are not that rich? You stick around. Waiting for the knuckle-dragging morons to come to your door...Trump won the 2024 election. His new thing is to make lists of the undesirable people who donated to his opposition. They pull the list. Your name is on it. They send the white power goon squad to your front door....

But you are not home. Hee hee.

[Rancid]

You are. Big-time.

Yes ma'am, can i have another.

[Rancid]

You are not making over $600k a year in salary?

I do not make that much, and if you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to know what I make, you can PM me.

[Tainari88]

I do not make that much, and if you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to know what I make, you can PM me.

I respect Gringo rules. The Gringos reveal a lot but not their finances. Hee hee.

I would do an estimate based on facts. Hmm. Let me guess?

I would say you make more than the average. Because you give a good look for the company. You got a minority guy who is the face of the department. You do not take shit. You are easy to talk to....

Starting around $117,684 per year and add about $25k more for years of experience in a leadership role. So doing the math? I would say you make? Drum roll.....$142,684. Or a bit more. But I would guess that would be the low $150,000s.

Which is a good salary. Per month? About $12,500 a month. But if you take federal taxes and such? Take home pay is about $10k or so. Health insurance and so on deductions. Which means your mortgage before you paid it off would be in the low $3,000s. Which means the house when you bought it was around 475k or 650k with a low interest rate. Solid middle class home in Texas.

I could be off. But no, Rancid, you still are not the one percent.

No that would be my sister. Not you. LOL.

Be glad you are not the one percent. Those people are really strange. Hee hee.

[Rancid]

I respect Gringo rules. The Gringos reveal a lot but not their finances. Hee hee.

This is changing. Gen Z is much more open about salary. I see it at work all the time, more and more people openly share. I do not share because I'm a manager and also a high grade level.

As for your estimate, I do not want to say openly here if you are accurate or not. Would give away too much.

No that would be my sister. Not you. LOL.

If my wife leaves me, will you introduce me to your sister? Does she love money as much as I do?

[Tainari88]

This is changing. Gen Z is much more open about salary. I see it at work all the time, more and more people openly share. I do not share because I'm a manager and also a high grade level.

As for your estimate, I do not want to say openly here if you are accurate or not. Would give away too much.



If my wife leaves me, will you introduce me to your sister? Does she love money as much as I do?

Gen Z. I have no idea what those people love or not about money. Hee hee.

My sister is not someone you could like, or trust. Run away from her. That is the advice I have given dozens of her girlfriends over the years. RUN FROM HER. I am totally alienated from her. She would not be interested in you because she is a lesbian hardcore, masculine type lesbian that is domineering and pushy. Lol. She does not respect men. Though her behavior is that of a very domineering and nasty machista asshole man. She thinks she is defending women.

She has a lot of money. And hardly works much at all. She is a lawyer and into real estate and greed. The worst of both of those professions really.

I am embarrassed at what she has become Rancid. I have someone else listed as the person I would leave my little boy to raise. I trust other people to be good people and trustworthy.

She is very powerful, very wealthy and very rotten. Not for you.