Well, right, but I'm not sure the tech elites actually own much in the way of resources in that sense. Is the Apple fandom strong enough to get Tim Cook his own private army of zealots when society breaks down?
> Is the Apple fandom strong enough to get Tim Cook his own private army of zealots when society breaks down?
Society won't break down (in the chaos sense) and resources will still be allocated. Power abhors a vacuum as they say. It's just that resources and power will controlled and distributed in an openly feudal way.
Technology's egalitarian objectives will be replaced by overtly oligarchic ones.
Tech fandom will be replaced with other identities constructed to gain access to real resources owned and controlled by the few.
> Land, housing, water, energy, food, medicines, healthcare, security, and proximity to influence. I'm sure I forgot a few.
And you think the vast majority of people do not have access to the overwhelming majority of those things? The evidence suggests the opposite. The only item in your list I would agree with is "proximity to influence", but it is also the one thing that is totally different from the others in the list.
> And you think the vast majority of people do not have access to the overwhelming majority of those things? The evidence suggests the opposite.
The comment I responded to asked:
> Is the Apple fandom strong enough to get Tim Cook his own private army of zealots when society breaks down?
I didn't say we are there now.
Responding to the parent's question about a dystopian future scenario, I said that those are the resources that will become controlled by the few if "society breaks down" due to technofeudalism.
