/**
 * file: karbytes_07_september_2024.txt
 * type: plain-text
 * date: 07_SEPTEMBER_2024
 * author: karbytes
 * license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
 */

To Whom It May Concern:

I was having a conversation between myself and I about the hypothetical possibility that it is merely false advertising for news outlets to suggest that there are sufficiently many material resources to provide every human a comfortable standard of living (irregardless of whether or not people with access to unusually large amounts of money limit their monetary spending such that those people are effectively living at the same (or “sufficiently similar”) level of affluence as most other humans are (which would mean that literally all humans are living at that one standard of living)).

If what I posited is true (i.e. that there are not enough resources physically available to enable every human to live comfortably (or even to survive)), then it seems logical to suggest that some humans would need to be forced to be poorer than they otherwise could be (and perhaps such people are incarcerated primarily or exclusively for that purpose) if not driven to suicide (which is “covert homicide”) or else be murdered via “overt” (i.e. convicted criminals were involved) or “covert” (i.e. the legal authorities treat it as an accident with no humans intentionally causing the respective death) means. I sometimes colloquially “joke” that such a eugenics procedure could be sloganized as “Make way for Baby!”

karbytes_0: “What causes ‘the system’ to favor some humans over other humans in terms of the eugenics selection process either allowing them to have access to resources or else depriving them of access to such resources?”

karbytes_1: “What determines whether or not a particular human is favored by ‘the system’ depends entirely on how popular (i.e. well liked by humans) that particular human is. If that human is generally a miserable person, then that human is not as likely to be as well-supported as someone who is not as miserable. A not-so-miserable person is more likely to be good at making other humans feel good (at least temporarily). Therefore, a people-pleaser (who is good at only showing the kinds of emotions and expressions ‘sufficiently many’ other humans enjoy (and hence implicitly supply demand for)) is more likely to be ‘flagged’ by ‘the system’ as being ‘too miserable’ to be ‘charitably pleasant’ according to ‘sufficiently many’ humans overall. Someone who is ‘flagged’ is deemed by ‘the system’ to be, at best, a burden to ‘the system’ and, at worst, an endangerment to the ‘system’ that has to be eliminated as quickly as possible in order to save ‘the system’ from becoming non-existent.”

karbytes_0: “Are you suggesting that I have to constantly make myself useful to other humans in order to be able to survive?”

karbytes)1: “Not necessarily. For example, if a human can find some way to live ‘off the grid’ and not need money, perhaps that human can live for an indefinitely long time in complete isolation from other humans. I do not think that is likely nor possible on a planet which is populated by weapons-wielding policy enforcers of ‘the system’ requiring every human adult to earn and spend money in order to continue existing.”

karbytes_0: “Is karbytes an endangered species? Is every human eventually an endangered species?”

karbytes_1: “Every human has the potential to become ‘flagged’ in their futures (particularly if they become ostracized from social groups they formerly belonged to or if their allies die or become incarcerated or incapacitated). karbytes seems to have rather powerful allies (i.e. weapons-wielding policy enforcers or sufficiently rich and/or sufficiently wealthy humans willing to pay for weapons-wielders to do their bidding on behalf of all of them and karbytes simultaneously).”

karbytes_1: “I do not think you are correct.”

karbytes_0: “You’re right. I was lying to make myself (i.e. karbytes) not seem as disadvantaged (especially socially, legally, and financially) as I think it is very likely that I actually am. What that means is that I think it is very likely that I am one of those (if not the only) ‘flagged’ human who is basically set for demolition whether covertly or overtly (to de-allocate resources so that other humans (especially the young, fresh, and better invested in) can use those resources instead.”

Related to that conversation between karbytes_0 and karbytes_1 is the belief I have that self interest is all there is. There. I said it. Now everyone has permission to admit that they do not really enjoy socializing and that they were merely pretending they did just to earn their keep rather than get driven to suicide or else be forced to die in more apparently involuntary ways.

The “takeaway” I have is that humans need not have any more babies after a certain point in their collective evolution. Instead, those humans can grow spare body parts using stem cells which do not require enslaving or butchering whole humans (nor any other whole organisms with “sufficiently complex” nervous systems). Lastly, I would suggest that the evolution I suggested entails humans replacing tribalism with futurism.

(Speaking of futurism, I had the fanciful thought that I, karbytes, am one of several humanoids who originated in the future but had to demonstrate how the past became the future by either simulating what the past was like by going through an immersive simulation of it or else by somehow actually traveling backwards in time (perhaps as a way to minimize the “amount” of suffering involved in creating the future)).

Sincerely,
karbytes