this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
1046 points (98.3% liked)

Memes

45403 readers
869 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 103 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children)

A little billionaire cocktail math for you. Each billionaire emits in the neighbourhood of 1 million times more CO2 than the average person. So you streetcar just 3000 or so billionaires and that's the equivalent of reducing the earth's population by about 3 billion. Can't really think of anything greener

[–] tyler@programming.dev 40 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Not that I don’t believe you but I’d love to cite this in future discussions, where did you get your stats from?

[–] tee9000@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Thats their investments, not their personal use. According to your source anyway.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 3 weeks ago

I’m pulling the lever as hard as I can, I swear!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 48 points 3 weeks ago
[–] don@lemm.ee 37 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Put a sniper on top of the cart in case the switchman gets bought out. Ain’t taking no chances.

[–] xintrik@lemm.ee 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And when the sniper gets paid off?

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Now there's 2702 billionaires to take out...

[–] RandomVideos@programming.dev 5 points 3 weeks ago

So killing them saves 1.00074 habitable biospheres?

[–] fin@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 weeks ago

I’ve seen this meme a while ago and I saw someone saying he wants to run over the billionaires back and forth to make sure they’re dead and I deeply agree with that.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago

I see no problem in this trolley problem.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

2700? That's more than I thought.

[–] CliveDrinksCola@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

that's a scarily large amount of billionaires

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Another consequence of inflation, I suppose.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Trolley problems usually have some conflict that makes the decision hard.

[–] onlooker@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

Exactly. There's no moral dillema here. I'm keeping the switch in the "left" position and welding it in place, just in case.

[–] RogueBanana@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 weeks ago

That's 2700 more than what I would like

[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

I wonder what would happen. Let's say 10,000 people.

Let's say some extremist, highly organized group manages to successfully assassinate the 10,000 richest people in the world, and then disappears without a trace.

I'm guessing those people would all be succeeded by their next of kin. Would that cause a wave of change or...?

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

No, it would not cause change. More would quickly take their place. The problem ultimately isn't the billionaires, but the system that allows them to exist.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

the system that allows them to exist.

Which they maintain (and rig further for their benefit) with their exorbitant wealth and power, let's not be coy.

Sure, killing them all isn't enough on its own, but abolishing capitalism will never happen as long as they, and their power, exist, and very few, if any at all will give it up voluntarily (to begin with, anyway), leaving us only one choice. They are what is destroying the planet and oppressing, and killing, millions of people, proactively and by choice, the "magic hand of capitalism" didn't force them in to their positions.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Depends. If it happens once, you're right. Nothing would change. But after the 2nd or 3rd time in a year? I think the people who inherit it will start seeing a little more charitably.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

Hence the necessity of Communist theory, otherwise random adventurism takes place.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You're correct. It would cause some disruption and a lot of joy, but system would continue. It need to be overthrown entirely and new one built. That is, proletarian revolution is needed.

[–] vfreire85@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

my boy/girl.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think a more efficient tactic would be to, once a month, execute the person with the highest net worth. Billionaires would be scrambling to get rid of their money

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Be better to just go ahead and achieve a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, any Capitalism that remains can be kept no bigger than can be crushed easily if it gets out of hand.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Let’s say some extremist, highly organized group manages to successfully assassinate the 10,000 richest people in the world, and then disappears without a trace.

The problem is that these billionaires profit the most from a system of resource exploitation, but they do not benefit exclusively. We'd still have hundreds of billions of dollars in fossil fuel centric infrastructure that we'd need to replace and reconfigure. And that reconfiguration would require a national organized effort.

Ultimate, you can't just wave a wand and make Rich People Go Away. You need a national project that is both popular and efficient. One that reduces emissions while improving quality of life. You need a Green New Deal.

That's not something you can affect purely from subtraction.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You'd have to also threaten to assassinate their inheritors from taking the estate, or just take the estate. Either way that's violence. The question then becomes is it okay to use the Master's tools to build your own house, to which my answer is no I can't. I can use the Master's tools to tear down their own houses. I may be a bit too idealistic though.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

Have you read theory? I can point you to some good entry points, but essentially if you can smash the bourgeois state and create a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you vastly democtatize society.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 3 weeks ago

I’m guessing those people would all be succeeded by their next of kin. Would that cause a wave of change or…?

Something would happen on the micro level. Some families would fight over the power vacuum, other families would slowly fall into obscurity due to the loss of a loved one, some might spend resources to track down information, some might a come to Jesus moment about the wealth, etc.

Would anything change on the macro level? Doubtful. New people will rise to the top as the system that created unimaginable wealth still exists.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RickAstleyfounddead@lemy.lol 12 points 3 weeks ago

The billionaires are deliberately playing on the broken rail

[–] kungen@feddit.nu 11 points 3 weeks ago

We'd see some real trickle-down in that case.

[–] idunnololz@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

B...but the shareholders! Won't someone please think of the shareholders. 😢

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 9 points 3 weeks ago

Billionaires brought the tram and dismantled it for car infrastructure

Add on the left workers rights, freedom, and real economic prosperity

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

And I'm thinking "hold on, there aren't 2.7 trillion people here"

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

Lest we forget, trolley tracks are electrified sogo ahead and let ol jg gotrox step on one

load more comments
view more: next ›