>>10683721Because I don't believe in extinction-through-X-risk. We only consider something an existential risk if it threatens our entire civilization. The moment we have colonies on other planets, it's not a threat to the entire species for life on Earth to end. More than likely, there will always be people who are willing to ride out the apocalypse and prepare accordingly, and civilization has no reason to stop this. "If most of us die, then we'll all die together" is fundamentally backwards in terms of preventing the extinction of our species.
Therefore, it's a numbers game. Going by pure probability, the less amount of hyper-rich people there are, the more likely all of them are to die in the event of a collapse. Trying to call it an apocalypse just evokes needless paranoia and classism. It's a collapse, and in a collapse the richest have the most to lose. It's simple math.
Note that I don't consider the Soviet Union to have rebooted its economy. "Collapse" in history just means the rights of the rich being ignored because they quite literally don't serve the needs of the masses anymore. That very real condition shouldn't be mythicized as some "end of the world" scenario.
