Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by GSegbar 3747 days ago
I don't think so. It'd be more cost-effective to let us all starve.
2 comments

Hence, socialist safety nets. Because the alternative is.... unpleasant for capital/automation owners.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

This problem could be solved with robots as well. Why not having farming robots alongside with ones which protect them and the products of their labor from the greedy hands of the have-nots? It could be that robots able to kill will overturn the balance to the ones who can afford them even if they are a few. Who would dare to stop them?
If you have nothing to lose as a have-not, your options for action are extensive.

Even the smallest nation-states can afford and manufacture nuclear weapons now (ie North Korea). I don't foresee this capability getting more expensive or more difficult as time goes on, only cheaper and easier.

Then we'd just steal the food and he'd get nothing.
Robots could protect the food as well...