Is world evolution about having 99% people unemployed? greedy, lying, fighting eachothers...

Is world evolution about having 99% people unemployed? greedy, lying, fighting eachothers? because that's what it looks like and it sucks

If 99% are useless they should die as they would.

The 1% will have it all and live free of the burden of the useless eaters.

the sytem makes it so to bury people and talents, not doing distinction between good and bad peoples.

Idiots are getting employed while geniuses die

Then the geniuses should kill the people that produce the system.

If something is killing you, and you support it, you will get killed.

If these geniuses cannot figure it out, they will go extinct.

Not criticizing but:

The rich don't want a revolution. Status quo will be preserved at all costs. the "useless 99%" are not useless. They are the most useful in the eyes of the rich and powerful. It is where they draw their wealth and power.

Greed, lies and violence have always existed in human society. People with these traits are already persecuted by the majority. They will always be persecuted by the majority.

Nature will take care of overpopulation if we cannot. The economy is already punishing people for having kids. More people are opting to not have kids every day.

There are dark days ahead of us, but they won't last. People don't like suffering. They will do something about it. As the number of people suffering grows: the number of people willing to fix the problem will grow as well. When there are enough people we will see things start to change.

We will help when the time comes. We must just wait it out for now.

Stop being so pessimistic.

>99% people unemployed
Why is only 1% of the population working? What's the 99% doing with all their free time? How is it that you're so retarded that you came up with this bullshit fantasy?

>99% people unemployed?

implying the 1% actually do meaningful work

I get it OP.
In short watch A Bugs Life.
Just like every other civalization there will be strife. Just how hard will trump and his peers push the people?
Kinda fun to watch. I'm involved for the looting.

What's the solution?

snowpiercer
Something major has to happen.

Kill the jews

Nope, world evolution is about having enough riches and technology to be able to leave 99% without a job, and STILL have enough goods, food, etc, for everyone.

Or to be able to have everyone be employed, but for much less time, thus enjoying a lot a free time to themselves.

Of course, we'll have to get rid of the selfish bastards trying to hoard all the riches for themselves, first, but, heh, the interest of Humanity as a whole should trump the private interests of a little group of parasites.

In the eye's of the founding fathers, we should have started fighting the corrupt government in the late 90s.

We didn't and now we're sheep.

>get rid of the selfish bastards
Good luck with that, they own every politician in the western world at this point and they control laws, the police and the military.

Our votes mean nothing.

Have the gov step out of busness, destroy the federal reserve (not part of the gov btw) get back on gold and silver. People in the 1900s may have only made .75 cents an hour but thats worth about 13-15 bucks now.

The government was already corrupt under Reagan, and Kennedy was killed by those who didn't want the corruption to stop.

> Protip: American fags should definitely revolt, throw out the selfish bastards, and recreate a new nation where everyone really has the same chance at a good life, instead of the sad parody they have right now, where the power is held by rich, powerful people, and where poor people are only seen as tools to be used (and discarded) as best suit the rich bastard's interests.

>99% people unemployed
Maybe if you'd stop demanding handouts and fucking demanding employers recognize your non binary gender and bullshit, maybe you could actually get a real job.

Otherwise, until you grow up, you'll be a drain on our economy and will always vote for whatever candidate claims you'll have to do the least amount of work.

Cunt.

Adaptation

Greed = care for oneself
Lying = smarts

No no no, comrade. That is the evolution of capitalism. Communism takes the same route. Socialism, the perfect offspring of the two, is the only system that can realistically last and keep the most amount of people happy.

Fight = survival

Agreed, but NAFTA should have absolutely been the last straw.

A handful got mad and loud, but few noticed and the loud got silenced by 9/11.

Why would you want people who want to kill you happy?

Oh, I very well know that - I support the France Insoumise party, which advocates a big change in paradygm, but, of course, the newspapers, TV channels, and most medias overall, being run by billionaries (9 of them possess more than 80% of the French medias) strongly opposed our candidate.

Also, stupid fucks thinking they are "better off" not sharing riches - when they are barely above the median, and when the truly rich fuck them in the ass with cactii wrapped in razor-wire, keep voting for those who exploit all of us.

>feels bad, man.

maybe because, then, they wouldn't want to kill you ?

That was a good movie

Didn't think that way. Could revert away from destruction

Plus just about everything cost 5 cents.

Obviously, that depends on WHY they want to kill you, in the first place.

I mean, if it's because of poverty, to take your riches, so that they might survive or have a better life, then it should work.

If they want to kill you because of things like religion, or some other bullshit reason, then, of course, making them "happy" probably won't be enough.

But most of the crime as we know it would probably disappear if everyone had enough material wealth to feel they do not need more.

...

True.
Problem is that the human is an envy animal.

Might be a solution, as long as it's REAL communism (or socialism), and not the fucking dictatorships calling themselves so, as we've known in USSR, China, North Korea (Best Korea, of course), Vietnam, and other such places.

Cuba is an example of "better" communism (but is still a dictatorship, not a real communist country) => Good education, very good medics, and most of the poverty has been caused by the embargo enforced by the USA for 50 years or so.

I really would like a country where the population holds the real power, instead of giving it to a single person (dictatorship, monarchy, etc.) or a few of them (republics, and countries pretending to be democratic)

It's unintentional

I like your view

>I really would like a country where the population holds the real power, instead of giving it to a single person (dictatorship, monarchy, etc.) or a few of them (republics, and countries pretending to be democratic)
Yes and no. Live in community and do something the don't like. They will put you on the cross. Like MJ case. Did he molest? I honestly don't know.

It's hard to imagine every situation.

People are dangerous, especially when there is more than one.

Everything has to be perfect to be perfect.

Except for every place it has ever been tried

Wheel is a wheel sometimes. I've accepted that for now. There is something better than a wheel. It won't be a car when that's discovered.

>But most of the crime as we know it would probably disappear if everyone had enough material wealth to feel they do not need more.
This user is a genius. Let him live.

>Problem is that the human is an envy animal.
Envy is alright. That just means you want the same as someone else justly has.
Jealousy is toxic. That means you want someone else not to have what someone else justly has for no other reason than spite. "Justly" and "has" are open to interpretation.

The bourgeois media was to blame for sensationalizing Jacko. It's they who need the drama, not the rest of us.

>implying Stalin wasn't just a dictator wrapping himself in the trappings of communism in order to gain power, much like the left-neoliberals
Stop spamming you moron.

Yes, I know. But, still, it's quite easy to risk your life for a chance at a better life (or because of stupid beliefs) when you feel you don't have a lot to lose, and when you don't especially like your life.

However, if you have most (if not all) things you'd like, if you can travel, enjoy the world, etc, and basically live a nice life, you'll probably be less likely to throw it all away, for a mere chance at, maybe, getting more.

So, even if we cannot solve all the problems (because interpersonal problems will still exist - jealousy, unreciprocated love, etc), we might solve most of them anyway by providing those basic needs.

Which, in turn, would let us focus less resources on "protection" against other people (police, army, etc), as that wouldn't be as needed anymore.

Good points. Let's talk about it some more.

Uh oh, someone just got fired from McD's.

:)

Tru tru.

Well, sure, crowds can be dangerous, especially when they become a mob.

But are autocrats any less dangerous ? I mean, you have to please THEM, or not antagonize THEM, instead of a whole crowd, so that might be easier (knowing what one or a few people like is easier than guessing at what a whole country will like or dislike).

But one could argue that, at the very least, people would act in a way which SEEMS to be in their best interest (even if they are still capable of stupid decisions).

Whereas we clearly see that the current governments don't even make a good job of pretending to act in our interests, when they merely further their own, selfish agenda.

Well. He's visible. The one who hides in the crowd is not.

Love this thread. We'll talk. I gota sleepo.

Democratic socialism is the only way forward. Let the people decide, and let the people rule.

>Well. He's visible. The one who hides in the crowd is not.
Not always. Often, republican governments are fronts for the permanent bureaucracy, or "deep state" if you prefer. The CEO reports to the board and the board almost always has other interests.

Cheers m8. Crash time for myself as well.

You get a lot of talk these days about how, in the next five minutes, 99% of the world's jobs will be replaced by robots and we will enter a new age where humans are free to do almost anything, Star Trek style.

I'm a programmer, and have been so for the past five years. Programs fall over if one quotation mark or bracket is left out, or if a function receives a date in one format when it was expecting another. Full automation, with 18 tonne trucks and jumbo jets laden with passengers driving themselves, is not going to happen any time soon.

We also have to be brutally honest with what people would do all day if they didn't have to work. We don't have to model this hypothetically. Go to any socialist European country and you will find vast swathes, numbering in the millions, of people who are perfectly capable of working but don't want to because they feel that the jobs on offer are beneath them. People who failed to make the grade, and now society is having to prop up.

Do these people use their free time to learn new languages, or advance science, or conduct research, or further the human race? Or do they play on their PlayStations and watch soap operas all day, slowly getting fatter and ironically even more of a burden on the system?

Humans are products of a Darwinian world. The strong survive, and the weak perish, however brutal and unfair that may be. We have now created a world in which the weak prosper and the strong are punished. It can't possibly last.

i wonder what comprises of meaningful work to you?

this made sense until you claimed the rich are hoarding wealth for themselves. Surely you realize wealth does not simply exist, it is created through work or investment.

>You get a lot of talk these days about how, in the next five minutes, 99% of the world's jobs will be replaced by robots and we will enter a new age where humans are free to do almost anything, Star Trek style.
You get that talk because people want labor to stop asking for their due.
>People who failed to make the grade
And who the hell are you to judge? The world hums along fine without them.
>Humans are products of a Darwinian world. The strong survive, and the weak perish
Kill yourself, neoliberal.

Sure, autocrats are visible, and crowd manipulators are not as much.

However, autocrats typically have the army obeying their any wish, whereas, for a crowd manipulator to get this kind of power, a mere whispered word isn't enough: You need someone to step forward, to rouse people, to make them take action.

And when they do, they become as visible as dictators, and can be struck down in the same way.

No, the strong aren't punished. They are merely held back from dominating everyone else, because, really, this kind of society isn't desirable.

Of course, we've just replaced physical might with something less visible (financial and political might), but I guess that, in time, people will also get rid of this, to provide a nice place for everyone to thrive in.

Fully automated luxury communism incoming.

Or the rich kill everyone. It is a question of political power.

Oh, but they are !
Have you read the report from OXFAM, I guess, which states that a few billionaires own as much wealth as 50% of the world's population ?

In France, the top 100 most wealthy have about the same cumulated wealth as, I think, the 50% less wealthy. That's 100 families (so, let's say, maybe 1000 people) versus about 35 million people.

So, yeah, unfortunately, the wealthy ARE hoarding the riches.

--

As for the second part of your affirmation, it depends on what you call "wealth". I mean, an apple tree, in itself, is a resource, and can be seen as "wealth". The same is true for a nice, drinkable spring, or for an oil deposit, etc.

Now, of course, I agree that most of those resources will need some work to be usable (you CAN just pluck a low-hanging apple, or cup your hands and drink from the spring, but if you want to reach the highest apples, or to take the water away, you'll need to "invest" time, work, and possibly require tools, like a ladder, a basket, or a pail for the spring).

So, yeah, you still require some work to get more wealth. I'm not saying that invested capital should not be rewarded: After all, if I need a ladder to be able to pluck those nice, high-hanging apples, and you provide me with that ladder, I should give you some apples as way of thanks.

That's the part devoted to capital, and that's fair.

What is NOT fair is when you use the fact that you own the ladder to progressively ask for more and more apples, telling me that, if I'm not happy, you'll lend the ladder to someone else, who would be more than glad to oblige, and pick the apples in my stead, leaving me with nothing.

That kind of economic "life or death" power that rich people have come to obtain, and which they fight toe-to-toe to keep and further, with lobbies, bribes to politicians, and the like, IS toxic. That's why I'm saying that the rich, greedy bastards, are currently parasites.

>Programs fall over if one quotation mark or bracket is left out, or if a function receives a date in one format when it was expecting another.

Autonomous vehicles don't have to be perfectly safe, they only need to be safer than human drivers; They already are in most cases, and pretty soon will be in all cases.

Qualified welder here

no job in a month in a 150 000 inhabitants town

Bosses are looking like dying when asked for job "it's already difficult managing me and my unique employee" boss have entire 10000 m2 workspace full of machines

bump