I don’t think this question is particularly interesting or productive, either you accept total extinction or you accept eco-fascism as a valid viewpoint in the context of this question. There’s nothing to be learned from, and it sets the user up to align with eco-fascism based on a false dichotomy to begin with.

There’s only one answer. What’s the point of this question? The only people that would want total wipe out are the ones that say stuff like “Humanity is a cancer on the world I shall go and do a clean-up!”.

The latter. It’s bad, hopeless, but still better than the former which is a completely nonrecoverable loss position.

Nah, if 99% are dead, then its definitely as the result of the rich 1% murdering them, so no murderer should get to live.

Let other species have a chance.

This is just a question on whether one were rich or not lol.

But anyway, both option tend to end with everyone dead or at least only 0.001% surviving if we’re talking about Thanos snap situation. The 1% cannot run any facility on their own(electricity, plumbing, health, etc), and tend not to be a survivor expert. Infighting will happen soon, and tribes will form. If it happens in winter, the one from cold country will all die out if they don’t all have doomsday vault, leaving those from the warmer climate to face the element. In the end, they will realise the billions and millions of moneys they accumulated is worthless if there’s no way to use it.

The outcome would be the same. If the 1% survived some event, they wouldn’t be able to survive on their own and would thus die out. It would just take a little longer for them.

Keep the species alive.

70m rich people to run humanity… they won’t be rich anymore, it’s all relative. Probably the first problem is going to be to organize self sufficient communities, search and rescue the isolated pockets of survivors.

Many rich people tend to live near each other, but not too near, so some communities will be able to get started quickly.

Basics of life, food, shelter, security, health. Probably a fair few doctors in the survivor group, so health is covered.

Probably many can fly airplanes. A few might even be able the maintain their planes.

Adventuring is an extremely rich person’s hobby, so there will be basic survival skills in the group.

Food, like in many zombie scenarios, will last a few years before it becomes critical.

In this scenario, we’re probably looking at a lot of learn skills in this group, because of their previous amount of leisure time, some of them have accrued lots of knowledge. That they can now apply. For those who have no basic skills, they will be forced to learn. Maybe not all 70 million will thrive, but enough. Society will continue. Humans will continue.

As far as the survivors are concerned, they’re no longer rich, they’re in a labor poor environment, and they have to provide for themselves. So society will effectively reset.

These scenarios are identical in my opinion. They’ll likely dwindle and die in a short time anyway. The wealthy are not particularly well suited to rebuilding society, nor are they at a disadvantage, they are just average people who (used to) have wealth.

Actually, little side thought occurs to me here, they can’t access their wealth unless it was stored physically, and even then, only if our concept of currency hasn’t changed. In my version of this scenario, I’m assuming the 1% still have useful currency, banks still work, etc.

So we got a bunch of more or less equally rich people, who may have access to resources, but their laborers and security forces are Thanos-snapped away.

Hmm…

My guess is that the ones who have weapons will establish a sort of warlord apocalypse scenario. Wouldn’t be much different from any other random selection of 1% of the population. The resources you hold and the skills you know matter even more when society disappears. It will start with 1%, the sudden shock of not having most other people to provide for each other will quickly halve that. The fighting over resources will kill a bit more. Eventually there will be an environmental disaster like a drought, and that’s it for humanity.

Starting over wouldn’t have any benefits unless humans would somehow have a completely changed consciousness. Otherwise the same egocentric views would dominate and competition would make sure that we get the same world again.

Humans are not capable of prioritizing “what do we as a species want to accomplish this year”. Should we look at world production and make sure nobody goes hungry, for example. Nope, can’t do it, because we have countries and money, making sure we can’t just cooperate and make it happen.

100%

I dont actually care about the continued propogation of the species all that much, and I’m cooked either way so… lets crab bucket it up.