8/24/2026 at 11:34:47 AM
"A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case" -- Niccolo MachiavelliIt's a self fulfilling prophecy... while us commoners, or so called "activists" or ethicists ponder and debate on culture, morality, law and ethics... The powerful are just living an alternate life devoid of all these moral qualms and are have clearly distanced themselves from the mundane, have distanced themselves from the guilt or any kind of accountability. In their eyes, they are just capitalising on the human tendencies which have been always existed (the seven deadly sins), so the "absolve" themselves pretty quickly by saying that they are not creating new "sins", just leveraging, or allowing the people to go along those sins.
They think, why should they be the ones to not capitalise on them, if someone else might and will. It's a coordination problem of our society. No one wants to let go. They want to hedge, they invest in ozempic and invest in fast-food at the same time, there is no moral compass guiding them. It's for us commoners to debate and think about.
by pulkitsh1234
8/24/2026 at 1:31:05 PM
Setting ethical and moral questions aside for a second:Never pay a human again
Every time I see stuff like this (along with other more serious shenanigans like wage theft, union busting etc) I only ask myself the same question again and again - what is the end game here? If much of the population is too poor to buy anything, too sick to consume much etc - who is left to buy anything at all? If all their power comes from their wealth and if that wealth is threatened because consumers are too poor to buy, then what happens? Someone has to buy for the system to work, no?
by akudha
8/24/2026 at 1:54:36 PM
> If much of the population is too poor to buy anything, too sick to consume much etc - who is left to buy anything at all?No one. That's the idea.
A low-population paradise. Venice without its pesky people to mess with Bezos's wedding. Bora Bora without the peasants.
by ceejayoz
8/24/2026 at 3:37:10 PM
There's been plenty of good sci-fi written about this, but surely they know that any any display of power is meaningless without someone to have power over? The wedding in Venice only means anything because people live in Venice and you're still able to "take over". Any "paradise" built like this will never be paradise, it'll be just chasing the next extreme until there's nowhere left to goby bodge5000
8/25/2026 at 12:35:05 AM
You don't have to look at sci-fi, go look at the history of the Republic of Venice. It was ruled by a tiny group of ultra-wealthy people while the vast majority of the population owned nothing and had zero influence.by ytoawwhra92
8/24/2026 at 4:13:47 PM
> There's been plenty of good sci-fi written about thisCan you recommend me some? I feel like my brain still can't fully internalize the world these people are pushing for.
by tavavex
8/24/2026 at 8:51:43 PM
Baxter's Flood, then Ark. Neal Stephenson's Seveneves, too. Down And Out in the Magic Kingdom is tonally similar, if you like Doctorow, although that explores a different manifestation of disconnection from others. All great for a rompby saltwatercowboy
8/24/2026 at 8:04:40 PM
Vernor Vinge's Peace War and especially Marooned in Realtime both touch on this point of view.by gopher_space
8/25/2026 at 12:13:26 AM
Adrian Tchaikovsky’s Service Model is a good look at this IMO.by jamiek88
8/24/2026 at 6:46:37 PM
Accelerando remains my favourite.by trollbridge
8/24/2026 at 10:30:41 PM
[dead]by throwlifeaway
8/24/2026 at 3:50:34 PM
I would have called BS on that before but I think now I would just call BS on the part where it was people like Bezos or whatever. It seems there is a neverending number of people who would do the same. Look at the stories about the sunflower fields that had to close down before the pandemic, or the current overrunning of cities and villages in Italy (like Lake Como). Or competing for views on social media (not just attempting to get them). Fighting for status is as old as.... well maybe humanity. What is fairly new is money and real property... and virtual property.There probably is nowhere left to go. Maybe one of those little islands in the South Pacific but you can't live there and they are all mapped too.
by jambalaya8
8/24/2026 at 3:48:14 PM
[flagged]by tetris11
8/24/2026 at 3:54:19 PM
[flagged]by chabes
8/24/2026 at 5:04:25 PM
> Rich white man's paradiseThe majority of new billionaires are either Chinese or Indian [0] so at some point you’ll need to update your race-based hatred (if you feel passionately about it) to remain accurate
[0] https://www.hurun.net/en-us/info/detail?num=FTJ5PSSPOWOF
by harambae
8/24/2026 at 5:35:54 PM
We’re already heading into a certain demographics crisis. It’s not only about the pyramidal system that retirement is but also about who will be your nurse when you’re old, make your car, be your doctor, etc if there aren’t enough people anymore? Every developed country is well below replacement rate with no real plans from the powers that be to address it because it’s so far in the future that it’s the next best guy problem (30 years horizon)by ornornor
8/25/2026 at 12:56:02 AM
But why wouldn't the rest of society kick them out before that point? Like at some point, there's going to be a lot of political pressure to fix things, especially if the majority of the population is going hungry or struggling to find work.Feels like at some point, some 'rogue' political figure will win election by saying the elites need to be overthrown, and the latter's influence will burn to the ground. If even a percentage of the world's countries are still democracies by that point, then any sort of 'leave the population to suffer while we live in luxury' plan will fail.
by CM30
8/24/2026 at 4:11:38 PM
Eh, you see too many of these guys complaining about declining populations for this to be a thing.I don't think you need Machiavellianism to explain their actions. These people have everything they could need, but death comes for all of us and they aren't getting any younger.
Purely speculating, but if you had everything in the world (except time) wouldn't you put everything you have into building a future with a 10% chance of living as long as you wanted? What would you sacrifice for that?
by jackp96
8/24/2026 at 7:47:43 PM
Lots of those people complaining about population decline aren't really talking about the absolute number. They're dog-whistling about demographic replacement - the idea that minorities are reproducing too fast and whites are reproducing too slow.by SmirkingRevenge
8/24/2026 at 6:39:07 PM
> Eh, you see too many of these guys complaining about declining populations for this to be a thing.Overpopulation is the best way to get to low population - eventually.
> if you had everything - wouldn't you put everything you have for a 10% chance of living [forever]?
No, I wouldn't, that sounds awfully silly.
> What would you sacrifice for that?
Nothing. I don't sacrifice stuff for BS even if it's 100% sure.
by bigbadfeline
8/24/2026 at 2:27:04 PM
And who is going to maintain this low-population paradise of elites, if there is no one left but the elites ?by swat535
8/24/2026 at 3:23:08 PM
Servants. Yes, robots eventually, but servants are the classical answer. The terrible truth is that palace economies are stable -- we see them in "resource-cursed" countries around the world and through time. When a single easily-owned fountain of wealth dominates the economy, a small group of people consolidate ownership and everyone else polarizes around them, forming into concentric rings of gatekeepers and masses struggling to access the only thing that matters. It's terrible but it's stable, and if you're inside the palace it doesn't feel like much of a curse at all.by smallmancontrov
8/24/2026 at 3:46:49 PM
The robots would have to be intelligent enough to be fully self sufficient, at which point they don’t care about people.by bamboozled
8/24/2026 at 4:17:08 PM
'Care' is a human concept. Robots, even extremely advanced ones, will not necessarily come bundled with aspirations. Giving a robot the capacity to care and want change, if it's even possible, would be extremely dangerous. It's completely realistic to imagine a world where robots just do what they're told because it's what they're made to do, because they lack any incentive to do anything else.by tavavex
8/24/2026 at 6:50:58 PM
> It's completely realistic to imagine a world where robots just do what they're toldYeah, although there are some wrinkles, doing anything else would be clinically insane.
by bigbadfeline
8/24/2026 at 4:36:14 PM
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Servitorby etc-hosts
8/24/2026 at 7:04:29 PM
Yeah. Billionaire techbros and neofascists love to mis-read Tolkien, but this is a much better picture of the future they want to bring. Down to the mystical doom cult of Peter Thiel and the techno-feudalism on Mars that Musk wants.Of course they’d imagine themselves as the High Lords on Terra, not amongst the untold billions who died eaten by bugs or enslaved by evil space elves.
by kergonath
8/24/2026 at 11:18:40 PM
Personally, not being a billionaire, in a WH40k-type setting, I like to imagine myself as an ork. The dakka would make a lot of cool noises before I die.by eli_gottlieb
8/24/2026 at 3:02:32 PM
Robotsby prepend
8/24/2026 at 3:36:28 PM
And who is going to fix the robots when they break down?by 65
8/24/2026 at 3:40:11 PM
Robotsby triceratops
8/24/2026 at 5:14:07 PM
Can the robots replace the elites while they're at it?by goatlover
8/24/2026 at 5:36:18 PM
They will surely replace the culpable "unelitables".by mdp2021
8/24/2026 at 3:57:18 PM
You might be interested in William Gibson's Jackpot triloy - The Peripheral and Agency.by kelseyfrog
8/24/2026 at 4:42:47 PM
There will always be a certain percentage of the population whose greatest aspiration is to be "house slaves" as opposed to "field slaves". They're the ones that today would be described as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". [1]1. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-once-...
by toomanyrichies
8/24/2026 at 4:17:52 PM
Slaves. They will call 'em by another acceptable word though.by lenkite
8/24/2026 at 2:28:31 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotby ceejayoz
8/24/2026 at 2:22:19 PM
how's Bezos going to fund his wedding if there's no population of proles buying from Amazon, nor anyone putting their retirement into a fund that buys Amazon stock? does he just plan to use force rather than money at this point?by sznio
8/24/2026 at 3:25:15 PM
Yea, at some point, these guys won't really need the vast majority of us to buy from them. They'll be buying from and selling to other wealthy people.by ryandrake
8/24/2026 at 3:30:30 PM
That makes litteraly no sense. All the biggest companies are driven by middle-class purchases. Rich-only companies are boutique and are order-of-magnitude smaller than mass market companies.by megaman821
8/24/2026 at 4:20:22 PM
This is actually changing. Many consumer and retail companies are already shifting their focus from the mass middle class toward high-income and affluent segments. Businesses find higher profit margins and more resilient demand in premium goods. And in enterprise, companies just pay other rich companies who pay them. (sometimes just directly).by lenkite
8/24/2026 at 4:20:41 PM
50% of all consumer spending now is done by the top 10% and this keeps shifting up.We've got a horribly K-shaped economy even before AGI.
by georgemcbay
8/24/2026 at 2:25:21 PM
Why do you think they're all so into AI and robots?by ceejayoz
8/24/2026 at 2:57:18 PM
The wars of the future will not be fought on a battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today, remember always, your duty is clear: to build and maintain those robots. Thank you.by willturman
8/24/2026 at 3:09:45 PM
The plan is that he (along with a small number of other people) will already own everything. The only reason he currently wants proles to buy things from Amazon is that he has not yet achieved what he considers sufficient ownership of the world.by tshaddox
8/24/2026 at 3:03:10 PM
They need to? The have all the money right now already.by nancyminusone
8/24/2026 at 2:29:17 PM
That is in the past.by esafak
8/24/2026 at 1:40:20 PM
There is no end game. Short term profits are by definition not a long-term view. The family's future will be secured if I invest in plastics and robot payment mechanisms now. I won't live forever, so I won't get to rest under the shade of the trees I plant for my family. With money and influence, they will be best set up to conquer whatever comes in the future.by butlike
8/25/2026 at 3:24:19 AM
it's because it is a narrow set of never-pay-a-human. in that world, only certain task won't be done by human.by itemize123
8/24/2026 at 3:07:20 PM
The people who advocate this expect to be part of a very small group of humans who own literally everything, so they don’t share your concern.by tshaddox
8/24/2026 at 4:21:56 PM
> Someone has to buy for the system to work, no?Well yeah, but not human consumers. Businesses can buy from other businesses and that can be the only surviving part of the economy. Even further, maybe those businesses are fully autonomous. There's no reason this wouldn't work, as far as I can tell.
The economy would be much more focused. It would be mostly energy, materials, and tech.
by Miner49er
8/24/2026 at 5:51:06 PM
Exactly, it seems many if not most people are trapped in an 1800s ideal of how an economy works. "You do work, you get money, you spend money, you do work" In fact the entire "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." statement is in full force here.It's impossible for most people to envision an economy without them even though there are economic systems that will work without them.
by pixl97
8/24/2026 at 10:11:23 PM
Wasn't much of the population too poor to buy most stuff, back in the day? It seems to have worked out fine for, say, European Aristocrats c. 1400s-1700s.by dfdydx
8/24/2026 at 1:39:05 PM
If a small group of people fully automated all production and controlled it, they wouldn't need anyone to buy anything anymore; they could live off of it indefinitely and produce whatever they needed to in order to protect themselves from the masses. I don't see any obvious reason why this outcome would be prevented by a purely capitalist economic system (assuming that this sort of automation ends up being possible), which in my mind is an argument in favor of some sort of upper bound for wealth consolidation.by saghm
8/24/2026 at 3:02:15 PM
I think the end game is to only do interesting things and automate all the mundane parts of life.We used to have to wash clothes by hand and it took all day. Now we have a washing machine and it takes 2 hours.
People used to spend time washing clothes and now we have more members of the household working.
I think the future from scifi that I remember (eg, Star Trek) is that humans are just being creative. Usually some sort of post scarcity where there’s no more need for money.
by prepend
8/24/2026 at 3:37:21 PM
If everything is automated away, you won't see a Star Trek style post scarcity utopia because everyone on UBI will have lost basically all of their political power. They aren't employable so they can't threaten to withhold their labor in order to get any sort of leverage. The most they could do is withhold consumption to some extent. If you have a dependent population being managed by the same state that's already allowed wealth to accumulate to its current levels, what incentive does the state have to do any more than the bare minimum?by ndiddy
8/24/2026 at 4:53:13 PM
You actually believe this is what these people want to create?Why then are they directly attacking many forms of creativity (writing, photography, art, filmmaking, even programming)?
Why do they resist all forms of social programs if these technologies are supposed to create untold wealth (ala Star Trek)?
by runtime_terror
8/24/2026 at 5:35:41 PM
That's not what the tech bros are saying the end goal is.by goatlover
8/24/2026 at 1:40:57 PM
> what is the end game here?They don't have one, outside of trying to hoard as much wealth and power as possible if it all falls apart. I firmly believe that greed is an addiction just like any other.
Why does the raging alcoholic drink themselves to death? Can they not see that they're careening towards the end? The powerful worship one concept at the expense of all others, and that is the endless accumulation of more.
by CodingJeebus
8/24/2026 at 10:17:46 PM
I really wish that logic held.Automation doesn’t need customers.
Automation just needs more automation, and access to energy and natural resources, both of which don’t require money if you have enough automation.
Ultimately, Money is only used to pay wages, nothing else… so no wages to pay, no money required. In the post employment scenario, money is not needed by industry. You don’t pay the forest to cut the trees, you don’t pay the dirt to mine the iron, and you don’t pay the sun to grow the crops.
Capital doesn’t need to produce goods for customers. It just needs coercive power to gain and maintain access to resources and energy. You know what gives you that power? An army of 20 million self manufacturering robots.
It’s the grey-goo scenario, only with a few humans nominally involved, and on a macroscopic scale instead of nanotechnology.
Humans are the main impediment to unchecked capital growth. Soon, that impediment could be largely removed. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
With automation, there is no need for the rest of us to exist in order to support the capital class. Ai enabled robotics won’t just eliminate employment, it will make money (and increasingly, people) irrelevant to capitalism. The new capital is automation capability, and you only need energy and raw materials beyond that.
You don’t buy a yacht, you build a one-yacht factory and build it from raw materials. With a few million self manufacturing robots, you don’t need money to have enormous wealth and power.
When they want money, they will mine it. Gold, bitcoin, whatever doesn’t involve hiring people. The rest of us outside the gilded walls will be increasingly irrelevant scavenging over the scraps and trying to maintain some kind of agrarian society since manufacturing will be largely pointless.
by K0balt
8/25/2026 at 3:14:36 AM
Wouldn't everyone else just restart the same economy with what resources they do have?by hattmall
8/24/2026 at 3:04:27 PM
No one has to buy anything for the system to work. You buy because you beneficially contributed to the system or the system gifted you some credit. Otherwise, you buying is actually "inflating" consumption for others (ie: the rich). There are billions of people in the world buying nothing and yet the "system" still work. They just want you to be lined up to them next. (or line them up next to you).by csomar
8/24/2026 at 2:13:36 PM
there is nothing magically good about economic activity, it has merely been necessary thus far.once it's no longer necessary and once they can have robot security they will decouple from the rest of society.
they would also require military grade deterrence. eventually they will either steal, buy or make nukes.
by teravor
8/24/2026 at 2:20:01 PM
https://www.wkms.org/energy/2025-07-25/billionaire-peter-thi...> A California-based company with ties to billionaire investor and Trump ally Peter Thiel announced plans Friday to build America’s first U.S.-owned, privately developed facility to enrich uranium in far western Kentucky.
by ceejayoz
8/24/2026 at 8:11:43 PM
From AZ's perspective that's someone else's problem (i.e., governments step in with UBI or whatever)by insane_dreamer
8/24/2026 at 2:33:24 PM
The end game is that we're all dead, and they live off their robot slave army in a world of abundance, no poors, and no governments to tell them no. I wish that were hyperbole, but it's what they want more than anything if you really pay close attention to what thy're doing, which as you say doesn't make sense given an end game where you and I are part of the system. When then say "everyone in the future will be rich" they don't mean that poor people will be made rich; they mean poor people will all be dead, or don't count as people, thus trivially leaving only rich people.by ModernMech
8/24/2026 at 3:26:32 PM
I still can't wrap my head around it.So we're all dead, robots take care of the infrastructure and healthcare, and there's maybe 50-100 billionaires left on the planet. Then what? They drive their sports car, do bungee jumping, sip cocktails and watch ai made movies. They don't have children? The human race dies with them? Or they have children, somehow avoid the trap of inbreeding and their children in turn have children and in no time there's again a billion of "us".
We're talking about a level of control over the remaining humans, them and their friends, that require absolute totalitarianism. Of course billionaire A won't accept to live their life according to billionaire B so it'll be a mess in no time.
This thing makes no sense to me when they can already enjoy everything the world has to offer and on top of that they're for all practical purposes above the law.
by stackbutterflow
8/24/2026 at 3:31:34 PM
> Then what? They drive their sports car, do bungee jumping, sip cocktails and watch ai made movies.It's helpful to think of the world as if it were a gigantic vacation resort for about 1000 people, and the remaining 8billion of us are just the staff keeping it luxurious for them. They would be 100% fine if the resort didn't need or have any staff.
by ryandrake
8/24/2026 at 3:36:30 PM
When you have everything, you want something new and different. The whole Epstein scandal is literally about this, you want to kill babies, r*pe the kids, do sacrifice rituals, etc because nothing gives you sensory satisfaction anymore. In the view of the commenters above, humanity will just be the final playtoy, let's have a little nuclear bomb in that town and film it in 4k, etc.by augment_me
8/25/2026 at 3:17:40 AM
Nah, they were just fucked up, plenty of rich people not into that and plenty of poor people that are into pedo rings etc.by hattmall
8/24/2026 at 3:35:12 PM
> This thing makes no sense to me when they can already enjoy everything the world has to offer and on top of that they're for all practical purposes above the law.It doesn't have to make sense because these are not well-reasoned theories of the future. Thiel, Yarvis and Musk, from what you hear and read on their interviews, come off as drug-addled losers who hate other human beings and anything that doesn't have to do with their hyper-optimized partial view of the world.
by Daishiman
8/24/2026 at 4:28:45 PM
I'm not even sure they care about living. They only care about the growth of capitalism. At some point it seems very likely capitalism won't need humans to continue growing, and all humans may be killed off.There's people that actively cheer this on, Theil and other billionaires may be among them.
You are assuming they are acting out of greed, but maybe they are just doing what they've spent their whole lives doing - accelerating the growth of capitalism.
by Miner49er
8/24/2026 at 4:11:09 PM
You have to put yourself in the mindset of a virus, then it makes perfect sense. The point is to consume and exhaust without thinking (introspection), not to sustain and thrive.btw none of this will be possible because it's a dumb plan and would never work, but it's their utopia.
> they can already enjoy everything
What I love Elon Musk for is teaching me that even if you have everything in the world, you can still be an empty miserable shell of a human, unhappy, unliked, and satisfied with nothing. His example makes me far less driven to acquire more and rather just be happy with what I have. But we should be aware these people could own everything on Earth, the Moon, and Mars and it wouldn't be enough to satisfy them. They're fundamentally empty and insatiable people, it's such a shame so many aspire to be like them or join their ranks.
by ModernMech
8/24/2026 at 5:57:04 PM
>btw none of this will be possible because it's a dumb plan and would never workEnsure you realize that "not working" and them "not trying" are two totally different things. Because they absolutely will try just as many dictators have tried in the past with horrific outcomes, even though the end point was it not working out.
by pixl97
8/24/2026 at 10:01:47 PM
Yes, usually the way it turns out is "If I'm going down I'm taking the rest of you with me".by ModernMech
8/24/2026 at 8:34:34 PM
>I still can't wrap my head around it.Mmhm
> So we're all dead, robots take care of the infrastructure and healthcare
Yep, and then there's a few hundred or few thousand kings and queens of the world that can do whatever they want! And no more dirty fucking lowlife scum to worry about (poors).
by esseph
8/24/2026 at 2:19:56 PM
It becomes sort of like the dystopian future imagined in William Gibson's "The Peripheral" - most of the human race has died off, but technology has advanced so that the elites can self-sustain anyhow. Big cities are haunted with holograms running scripts of people going about their day to make them feel lived in.by SmirkingRevenge
8/24/2026 at 3:24:56 PM
> what is the end game here?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_Player_One_(film)
A tale as old as time, power and control, over the means of production and (what those seeking this power and control consider lesser) humans.
If you think they're doing this for "the betterment of humanity," I would ask you strongly re-examine the evidence. "Watch what people do, not what they say."
"The wealth of the top-400 Americans surpassed 20% of GDP at the start of Trump's second term."
https://www.ft.com/content/2472ef5a-798d-4e7b-b4be-020855cf3... | https://archive.today/8X9dw
by toomuchtodo
8/24/2026 at 3:27:17 PM
These guys have already all but built Elysium--just not in space.They live their lives completely insulated and apart from the masses. They go to different events, they have other people shop for them and transport them around. They don't really interact with us at all. When was the last time you even saw a billionaire in person, let alone talked to one? They have private security to keep us away from them. They only interact with each other.
by ryandrake
8/24/2026 at 3:31:09 PM
Certainly, and it isn't enough, is it? It's never enough. Political spending, lobbying, etc. That's the point, the accumulated wealth and their actions are simply symptoms of the dysfunction."Just another billion bro." Like a food driven shark, I acknowledge the shark's existence, while wanting the strongest cage possible between us when in close proximity. Never envy, always recognizing the danger and need for self preservation from the paperclip maximizers.
by toomuchtodo
8/24/2026 at 8:28:17 PM
Several times a year in the USA during the last 15 years with several 'You don't need to knows'...About 2008 in Hamburg, Germany. Some woman jogging with her St. Bernard dog along the empty beach of the Elbe river at around 4:30AM at earliest dawn(blaue Stunde), while I was tending the last glow of a camp-fire, alone, and she complained about the smoke. I complained back. We complained back and forth for about 30 minutes until she jogged away, exasperated :->
Hilarious!
About 2003 in Gevelsberg, Germany. Some inventor, amongst them tools for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDC_(electrical_connector) (LSA+). Fixed his computers and network.
Interesting. Big house, but living alone, with the exception of some really nice horses. Otherwise no extraordinary luxuries. No kitsch.
August 1988, Neuss, Germany. 'You don't need to know'. Fucked daughter which I knew from boarding school, because she had a crush on me, and her parents wanted to fulfill her wishes.
So I've been invited home for a weekend. Besides riding Freya and being ridden by her with full consent of her parents, I had much joy riding their horses with her in lush greens.
Yeehaaa!
About 1983 in Bonn Bad-Godesberg, Germany. Some Tanya (former classmate) 'You don't need to know', living right next to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Spinat (been paperboy, and played with the horses), with some Bettina (then classmate(very well off, but not extraordinarily rich) of Tanya) at the same time :-)
Doubleplusgood Fun!
About 1983 in Bonn Bad-Godesberg, some Anja, daugther of 'You don't need to know', really big into pencils, pens, all sorts of stuff for painting and drawing. After her mother overheard what I've been talking about to her, of some extraordinary thing I did, which she got confirmation of behind my back via telephone from the hospital in which I did that, then I had 'carte blanche', and the adoration of her daughter.
Sweet careless fun!
About 1980 to 1981 in Bonn Bad-Godesberg, playing with Max, son of 'You don't need to know' , big into fire extinguishers, living right over the street from me. When he's been there. They lived elsewhere, too. He was also in boarding school most of the times, unhappy about it. Very, very smart and friendly mother, though.
Interesting. Because humble.
About 1980 to 1981 in Bonn Bad-Godesberg, some René, son of 'You don't need to know', Big Pharma by themselves, and the German exclusive distribution rights for other stuff. Very unhappy child, they had it all, butlers, gardeners, security, really big house with laaarge garden, big indoor aviary with shiny hummingbirds. But something seemed to be always 'off', like tension because of domestic problems.
Interesting, because that made it obvious that money alone is not making you happy.
About 1980 in Pech, Germany, near Bonn Bad-Godesberg. One of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haribo heirs. Been watching the compound with the deers, but really hoping to see the private https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook in Haribo livery starting or landing there on the private heliport. Someone came walking to the edge of the fence I casually leaned on, with a rifle or shotgun over his shoulder. Asked me what I wanted. I told him. He said bad luck, it's in Sankt Augustin for maintenance. We talked a little, and he said who he was. I asked him how it felt to be responsible for countless cavities all over the world?
Not good!
Luckily I've been really fast on my road bicycle, and just gave him the bird while speeding away while he cussed and cursed.
Intense!
by LargoLasskhyfv
8/24/2026 at 3:48:46 PM
Comparing GDP to net worths isn’t very meaningfulby demibabs
8/24/2026 at 3:53:14 PM
Its a measure and visualization of undemocratic power and control through wealth and resources.by toomuchtodo
8/24/2026 at 3:24:04 PM
> what is the end game here?You are asking the wrong question.
There's no end game. They just really hate life and the living. They want you to suffer.
by surgical_fire
8/24/2026 at 3:44:10 PM
that sort of crappy movie with Matt Damon and Jodie Foster that is supposedly dystopian but far more utopian than the reality would be.wonder if the overlords will allow meat or only gruel or bug bars like that Bong Ho movie to the survivors. heh but serious.
by jambalaya8
8/24/2026 at 4:02:30 PM
I think you're arguing against something that is made up by doomers. They truly believe (evidence by the comments below yours) that the billionaire class are all a of one mind and want to eradicate other humans, live in cloud cities, and have robots cater to their every need.I don't even really know how to start refuting this. It seems to absurd to even start.
by munksbeer
8/24/2026 at 8:30:22 PM
I think people think this because many billionaires outright say it. We can’t pretend they aren’t salivating at the idea of eradicating labor when they literally talk about how excited they are to eradicate labor.Ok fine, I guess not all billionaires. But the other ones are reaaaal quiet.
by preg_match
8/24/2026 at 5:40:31 PM
We have an entire history of rich elites abusing their wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. It's lead to various conflicts and social upheavals. And we currently have tech elites selling the idea of full automation, machine godhood, and opposition being the antichrist. Also they like talking about replacing democracy with some sort of digital feudalism.How it all plays out remains to be seen (predicting the future is hard), but calling people who point this out doomers is very dismissive and one sided.
by goatlover
8/24/2026 at 4:07:51 PM
[dead]by cindyllm
8/24/2026 at 4:04:13 PM
Look at how they fantasize about humanoid robots and you will understand.Why the humanoid form, with all of its engineering inefficiencies and difficulties? Because it is a thing which can be dominated.
The whole purpose is domination. Ever seen Apocalypse now or read Heart of Darkness? They are little colonel Kurtzes. The will to dominate for these people goes to the depths of their soul.
by mlsu
8/24/2026 at 1:41:12 PM
Nietzsche also described it well when noting there are those who deem themselves nobles and feel they are righteously above the laws and those who derive their identity from suffering under the same laws.by oezi
8/24/2026 at 5:53:16 PM
It's interesting if you think of Solidarity in these terms.There is a kind of solidarity of persistence under harsh natural conditions. And another kind of solidarity of persistence under laws.
So it might follow that the former group, those who feel above laws, also lack in a feeling of Solidarity. That would suggest a strong adherence to Individualism as a key component to their identity.
by stillpointlab
8/24/2026 at 5:31:43 PM
> NietzscheYou have used a bent interpretation: "exploitation" is not involved in that framework.
by mdp2021
8/24/2026 at 1:57:31 PM
Nietzsche died broke and insane. Was that from following his own advice or failing to do so?by Zigurd
8/24/2026 at 2:02:46 PM
Newton put needles in his eye's and probably suffered greatly from self inflicted lead and mercury poisoning; Why do you trust his laws of motion?by kodoman
8/24/2026 at 2:10:21 PM
Being successful or not in your wealth doesn't make you right or wrong about anything with the exception of maybe running the business that generated your wealth.Nietzsche presented two prototypical sets of human who interface with laws and ethics. He described why those believes exists and are self-reaffirming even if they are puzzling from the other side.
by oezi
8/24/2026 at 2:43:45 PM
The Ayn Rand stans say the same.by Zigurd
8/24/2026 at 2:19:41 PM
My uncle told me not to smoke, but he's a smoker so I didn't listen.by chermi
8/24/2026 at 2:45:45 PM
Good, lots of other people who aren't smokers can tell you thatby EGreg
8/24/2026 at 3:13:32 PM
Is there a name for this style of non-argument? I guess it’s an attack on credibility due to the inability to attack the content of the argument?by Waterluvian
8/24/2026 at 4:24:15 PM
Based on the comments its even shallower than ad-hominem. It's loose association to the "bad" they learned from the "good". Therefore everything from bad is bad. It's team sports thinking.If I had to guess they probably read some wired article saying tech people are followers of Nietzsche based on one guy quoting one thing one time. Although probably used more dramatic terms like Nazis or fascist or something.
by chermi
8/24/2026 at 3:31:28 PM
ad hominem.by wgjordan
8/24/2026 at 2:46:04 PM
> Nietzsche died broke and insaneIf he was alive today he’d probably have a YouTube channel and be making bank shilling dietary supplements.
by mr_toad
8/24/2026 at 3:31:23 PM
Not a follow of Nietzsche and critical of him but this is just unfair the sort of pandering to the audience that is required for a popular philosophy channel on youtube is something he would never debase himself to do (or probably any serious thinker).It's deeply embarrassing to be a whore even if it's well payed.
by kodoman
8/24/2026 at 3:00:27 PM
You jest, but that's the point a lot of people here are missing: Nietzsche would fit right in with the YouTuber bros, right up to the ignominious downfall.by Zigurd
8/24/2026 at 3:12:57 PM
No, not really. Nietzsche was a trained philologist with a brilliant academic career, before he ended it early because of health issues. He was leaps and bounds more educated and knowledgable than 99% of people making philosophy content on YouTube. He was also a pretty meek and gentle person, even if his ideas are anything but.Most people haven't actually read him though, and their knowledge of his work comes from poorly-researched YouTube videos.
by keiferski
8/24/2026 at 3:21:10 PM
I tried, even in German on the theory that he was badly translated. Nietzsche was an undisciplined writer and a beefing gossip, among other infuriating characteristics.by Zigurd
8/24/2026 at 8:15:56 PM
Nietzsche was also a pure trollby dgellow
8/24/2026 at 2:45:27 PM
So did Tesla and Vincent Van Gogh, but how much did he create?Faraday was poor, etc.
Lenin deteriorated, and Marx was always poor.
Anyway...
by EGreg
8/24/2026 at 12:57:22 PM
> who wishes to maintain himselfThis is the key. Everyone wants stability in their circumstances, but you have to go to extreme lengths to sustain an extreme lifestyle, particularly if it is based on preserving a high rate of accumulation instead of accumulation itself.
by randusername
8/24/2026 at 3:33:50 PM
Researched some companies and their founders, many are YC alumni: LendUp W12, uBiome S14, Zenefits W13, Kalshi W19.The halo effect is real: https://medium.com/@trendguardian/rigged-networks-1d5ad5c6f8...
by mgh2
8/24/2026 at 1:38:09 PM
I think you are interpreting the quote incorrectly. It is not that the prince should be immoral, but rather that he must understand political reality is often filled with perfidious actions and motives. He must recognize that within his principality, there will be those ready to backstab him to gain power. His duty is to the continuation of his principality and the preservation of his own power.This is not merely selfish ambition; it becomes a duty. People depend on him to defend their city and owe him for the stability of their affairs. Therefore, he must dedicate himself to his principality and, by extension, his power, rather than acting morally like the common man who must navigate political reality.
What is incredible about the current state of the western world is that Andreessen Horowitz seem more like common men. They believe they can simply continue their profession, they are the prince's of are time and are the pinnacle of power in the west. They seem to think there are good guys and bad guys, viewing those who dislike them as bad, while those who accept their power are good. They believe people should never conspire against them.
Precisely because they are dedicated to a particular set of morals, they are unlike the prince. These are morals both of us dislike, yet they believe in them dare I say, naively and idealistically. They view capitalism and profit as an immutable moral truth that others must accept as righteous power.
This is a luxury only afforded in most times to the common man, who can maintain false notions of morality despite his profession depending on the political stability of some sovereign. I don't hate these people; I am just perplexed by their lack of understanding that history is littered with men who worried about politics, yet still fellto fellow members of their class, mercenaries, and scions seeking more than money.
I don't think there is much good in the common people, as bitter resentment is always their. They would do well to know that money does not protect them from it. Most of what is called morality and ethics are cheap, self-serving philosophies. The only exception is true mystagogy, a beautiful flower that cannot grow in the barren American mind. It grows only through the blood of the martyrs.
by kodoman
8/24/2026 at 1:44:13 PM
> Precisely because they are dedicated to a particular set of morals, they are unlike the prince. These are morals both of us dislike, yet they believe in them dare I say, naively and idealistically. They view capitalism and profit as an immutable moral truth that others must accept as righteous power.They actually don't believe in capitalism and profit, because if they did, they'd recognize that extreme concentration of wealth is actually detrimental to capitalism (the system's) performance. Ricardo, Mill, and Smith all saw this dynamic, but "capitalists" like Andreessen have shown zero interest in combatting it for the health of the capitalist system as a whole.
They also wouldn't, for example, try to use government to prevent the market from building housing near their mansions: https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2022/08/08/marc-andree...
You're ascribing way, way too much intellectual consistency to these people. They have no moral system.
by estearum
8/24/2026 at 2:41:07 PM
I concede partially to your point about not believing in capitalism, the issue is I think though Smith sincere I do not think that Smith's moral positions are based on a need to ascribe moral value to the budding industrialists and the moral scorn on the aristocracy and Tory power. The adoption of these ideas by the British empire is that they are the best way to exploit and the talk of free markets by empires both British, American and Chinese? (later no doubt) is that they are to be promoted when it is useful to do so. The best capitalists therefore are the ones who understand subconsciously or consciously that the ability manipulate the market by some means or to have the market already pre-figured in your favor is the purpose of the talk of the good of the free market. It is true how ever that free market no doubt turns against all empires and the economic, political, military reality shifts in a way that is outside the control of the empire.That is all to say that the cynical attitude of Andreesen or Thiel is what I think it's always been about. I probably sound a little Marxist or just cynical but I am not a Marxist and I do right and wrong, I do think that the modern theories of morality should be understood cynically as their purpose is primarily a political attempt to change or preserve something and in some sense when one examines them deeply we see self interest usually hidden and diffused by moralising prose and sentiments in these modern theories of morality. So techno optimism manifesto is a more brash, bold and crass version of these works of moral theory indeed a making a sort of unintentional parody. None of this is to say that political economy is only moralising (which techno optimism is).
by kodoman
8/24/2026 at 3:41:36 PM
[dead]by cindyllm
8/24/2026 at 7:48:32 PM
Machiabelli was a big Florence patriot and was writing his advice specifically to help a prince better govern Florence and hence increase the chance that Florence will not be annihilated in the constant wars that raged on the Italian Peninsula at the time.by badpun
8/24/2026 at 12:27:20 PM
[dead]by cindyllm
8/24/2026 at 12:01:19 PM
TLDR: "Don't hate the player, hate the game".by merelydev
8/24/2026 at 12:06:08 PM
No, we really should hate the players. They are keeping the game from changing.by AJMaxwell
8/24/2026 at 12:27:24 PM
A small number of players set the rules of the game.by genxy
8/24/2026 at 1:18:24 PM
No sarcasm: play a different game. If you play their game, of course you'll suffer. But if you play a game they're repulsed by, you can win a life they'll never have access to: one filled with people who love and respect you and an environment where your best self and life can emerge.by rglover
8/24/2026 at 1:33:12 PM
The parent comments are talking about how the game is negatively impacting society. Your suggestion is to check out and leave society to them. One of the many problems with that suggestion is that it's hard for your best self/life to emerge in a bleak future.by AlotOfReading
8/24/2026 at 1:56:16 PM
I think it's possible to "pick and choose" to some extent. I've found most of the bleak future stuff goes away if I turn off my phone, but since I need it to contact people in 2026, I try and give things their due, and, to the best of my ability, ignore the more unpleasant aspects of modern life. I think the landline telephone is a good example. It was fun to chit-chat with friends on the phone, but when a telemarketer called, I either hung up immediately, or said "stop calling," then hung up. It can be the same way in modern society. Weight the conversations with warm-bodied people higher, and stop scrolling as much (to put it overly-simplistically).by butlike
8/24/2026 at 3:44:17 PM
It’s done wonders for my free time and mood by deleting my Reddit account and restricting HN to toilet time. Instead of reading rage bait American news I do a daily scan of BBC. All those are sources of negativity and stress that bring nothing of value to your life. I invest my newfound time and energy into my family, hobbies, and health.by qwerpy
8/24/2026 at 6:24:49 PM
Nice. That feels like the correct way to meby butlike
8/24/2026 at 3:06:15 PM
You can’t ignore climate changeby AndrewKemendo
8/24/2026 at 9:29:02 PM
Ignoring it is a tradition at this point in the US...by datadrivenangel
8/24/2026 at 3:14:48 PM
fairby butlike
8/24/2026 at 2:07:08 PM
That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about leaving society, I alluded to leaving their society. That's the thing: people keep giving these guys money and attention. If you take that away, they become more than irrelevant. Simplified: if they're going West, you go East.The more "small time" people reject this narrative that we need a bunch of elitist white guys shoving their mediocrity down our throats, the faster we rebuild a society they're barred from accessing.
by rglover
8/24/2026 at 3:15:31 PM
I didn't say anything about leaving society, I alluded to leaving their society. That's the thing: people keep giving these guys money and attention. If you take that away, they become more than irrelevant.
by AlotOfReading
8/24/2026 at 3:35:33 PM
Leave Babylon behind and go build local businesses and communities in what they refer to as "flyover country." That's what I'm doing. Easy? Fuck no. But does it take their relevancy away from them? At the scale of everyone who isn't a coastal barnacle: big time.They view the rest of this country with disdain and indifference. I'm suggesting that others quit looking at these people as lords and sages to be placed up on a pedestal. Most of them are quite incompetent, skill-less, and frankly, not cool enough to want to hang out with (why they're making "jokes" about there only being two jobs left in the world in the future: Anthropic employees and hookers for Anthropic employees [1]). I'm sorry but I'm not taking direction from a bunch of dorks who can't get laid without paying for it. And I'd take a wild guess that given the climate, the lion's share of America is with me.
by rglover
8/24/2026 at 4:27:07 PM
What does flyover country have to do with the present discussion? Kalshi is just as big a problem (or bigger even) in Nebraska as New York. Taxes going to Anduril happens whether you live in Malibu or Missouri.by AlotOfReading
8/24/2026 at 5:22:30 PM
> What does flyover country have to do with the present discussion?Read what I already wrote above, I made it pretty clear.
by rglover
8/24/2026 at 4:10:06 PM
> Your suggestion is to check out and leave society to themAbsolutely not. Their suggestion is to play a different game. You don't even have to play a game with win conditions. You can just play to play.
by hackable_sand
8/24/2026 at 4:02:08 PM
You can, of course, distance yourself from their world and work on things they would never see as valuable. However, you can't check out of the most grand game we're playing, the game of life and existence. Those people desperately want to toy with things that could eventually prevent you from being able to live a life where you still have food, water and shelter. You can ignore it while they're still not all-powerful, but as their wealth and influence grows, you will eventually have to confront it.by tavavex
8/24/2026 at 3:27:34 PM
What if their game is to flip the boards of everyone else’s games?by nrb
8/24/2026 at 3:58:24 PM
Then so be it. Hopefully they've considered all of the angles and can defend themselves against people being radicalized to the point of hunting them down.Turns out their obsession with moats was prescient.
by rglover
8/24/2026 at 12:29:49 PM
Yes this is their reasoning, it doesn't mean we shouldn't hate the players and the game alikeby cpt_sobel
8/24/2026 at 2:36:08 PM
That is like hating a hacker who hacks into your vulnerable server that is outdated and allows ssh password login. If there is vulnerabilities in the system someone will eventually exploit them, sure not you or me but there is always someone out there that will.by merelydev
8/24/2026 at 4:47:15 PM
That same hacker can choose to responsibly disclose the vulnerability through the proper channels, or take advantage of it to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Which one they choose objectively determines the quality of person they are.by toomanyrichies
8/24/2026 at 4:58:09 PM
That is how we find ourselves in this mess, we design systems thinking only of everything that can go right and not what can go wrong.by merelydev
8/24/2026 at 4:48:06 PM
Let’s bring your example into the physical world:“That is like hating a thief who robs your home which has an old lock and a window you forgot open. If there is an open window in the house someone will eventually climb through it, sure not you or me but there is always someone out there that will.”
It is perfectly reasonable to hate the person who robbed your house or hacked your server. “If that someone hadn’t, another someone would” is in no way a defence. It is not OK to actively harm someone just because they didn’t protect themselves.
by latexr
8/24/2026 at 4:53:16 PM
Yes. My point is that until you learn to lock your door, thief will enter and steal your property. You can hate them all you want, that wont change the facts or magically lock your door.by merelydev
8/24/2026 at 1:08:33 PM
It’s not the players we should hate but the ones who make the rules of the game. Specifically not the ones who make the rules for the greater good but for themselves.by bdelmas
8/24/2026 at 4:26:30 PM
So, the players?by mylies43
8/24/2026 at 12:17:42 PM
That’s a cop-out. It’s the most powerful “players” who are making the “game” what it is, and they make the rules be whatever benefits them.It would be pretty reasonable to hate the player who brings a machine gun to a stadium, kills every opponent to start scoring and when people complain says “Nothing in the rules says we can’t kill other players to score. If I didn’t gun everyone down, the opposing team would’ve. Don’t hate the player, hate the game”.
by latexr
8/24/2026 at 12:38:49 PM
What game has David Ellison been playing? The same as yours or perhaps slightly different? Does that difference matter?by pyvpx
8/24/2026 at 2:15:42 PM
That's what thiefs sayby boelboel
8/24/2026 at 12:05:58 PM
“Also, I have no intention of acknowledging that not all people have an equal chance at winning the game, nor doing anything about it for that matter.”by Forgeties79
8/24/2026 at 12:44:24 PM
> The powerful are just living an alternate life...So, you consider anyone with a job "powerful"? Personal ethics are arbitrary enough to poo-poo any job. It's just as easy to call everyone else "useful idiots".
by sublinear
8/24/2026 at 12:54:30 PM
> So, you consider anyone with a job "powerful"?That is not what OP said, so you may want to re-read what they said.
by ImPostingOnHN
8/24/2026 at 6:02:45 PM
What did I misunderstand?by sublinear
8/24/2026 at 12:28:18 PM
"Us commoners" ponder and debate on culture, morality, law and ethics, and then go out and buy whatever stock we think will go up without a second thought to any of that idle chatter.by consensus1
8/24/2026 at 1:50:50 PM
We commoners also requested laws and regulations to play fair, which are being superceded by those in leadership seeking only more power. Stocks aren't the problem.by ncr100