Asklemmy

44182 readers

2123 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

-30

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

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

obviously they'd bring their kids along they'll figure something out, or their kids will kill each other down the line and make a new line of humans

I see your argument a lot from liberals, no offense, and it's just big cope--the insanely rich are the best equipped to survive cataclysm, and will definitely have advance knowledge of it before it happens (at least past a certain threshold of importance)

Like if you just gave me a goat and a few potatoes I'd survive an apocalypse provided the temps and rainfall weren't too fucked, and also provided there was noone else around me. That's why they're buying up New Zealand, or all this rural land in the middle of nowhere. They will survive.