Asklemmy

44174 readers

1766 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

-27

The whole world population dead or only 99% dead (keeping the wealthy 1%). Which do you choose and why? (leminal.space)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by infinite_ass@leminal.space to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Most of the richest 1% would come from few different countries, so there would probably be less cultural differences at least. I could imagine the world being divided into one country per continent or something. People living very far from each other would accelerate digitalisation of governance.

Cutting emissions by about 95% could also help with climate change. Also people could just move away from highly affected regions.

I think humanity might just be better off. That said, I dont think this is limited to the richest 1%, most distributions of 1% of the population would do.