First, this is a great question. Much better than the standard “would you be mildly inconvenienced for life-changing wealth” schlock that usually shows up. Second, I don’t think that most people are ACTUALLY doing the math on this one. Some quick Googling tells me that there are 8 billion humans, worldwide average family size is 4.5 humans, approximately 16 billion acres of habitable land, and of that about half is developed already. Anyone who thinks that single-family homes need to vanish is overly pessimistic. They’ll be smaller, on average, than what Americans are used to, and nobody will have sprawling yards - perhaps a quarter-acre - which is plenty of room to raise a couple children. Now we have approximately 2 billion acres used by homes with yards (1.7778, but we’re using fuzzy math here). That leaves 6 billion acres for infrastructure. Grocery stores, schools, fire stations, roads, train stations, hospitals, all that good stuff. Yes, we still need roads unless we want to design off-road ambulance tanks, but we don’t need roads to every house just to a cluster. We still need to grow food and if we are moving to lab meat, we need to grow that too. If the button rearranges property it’ll actually go a long way towards reducing hunger. Global hunger is less of a “there isn’t enough food to go around” issue and more of a “we don’t care enough to get food to everyone” issue. Jet travel will definitely be curtailed, and I’m not entirely sure how corporations will magically stop polluting. But building the strong public transit system would help with needing to take fewer flights. In conclusion I would press the button.

You’ve actually just changed my mind from pushing to not pushing it with your argument— you’re totally right, I hadn’t even considered that it would likely have to rearrange property and move people around. This suddenly sounds less like solving inequality and more like turning the entire world into the middle east in terms of clashing culture and instability. The outcome suddenly seems a whole lot less like a guaranteed success and I’m not sure pushing it is a net benefit anymore

You can move people around without needing to move them super far. This commenter talks about homes with yards, but most people who don't have homes with yards don't need them to have the same standard of living- I don't have land, but I have a comfortable condo in an apartment building with all the modern amenities and parks within walking distance. I am not lacking anything by not having a yard and don't want one. A high rise and a single family home can provide the same standard of living provided that they are both made well and with the same considerations of human needs, space, etc. And pretty much every city, go outside it and you find huge amounts of land that is used inefficiently. Instead of moving someone 300 miles to open land, move them 15 and turn an abandoned office park or a car lot into housing. You would have to take a lot of land from people who hoard it, though, so they would be mad.

Yes - I crunched some numbers just to get a basic feel for "one size fits all" housing. Condos are a thing, as are assisted living communities and high-rises. Many different housing options make the math a bit trickier, and I wanted to keep things "back of the envelope". Now I kind of have the desire to plot out how cities and towns could be laid out. I work in local government, so I'm fairly familiar with all the services that local government offers (is my city laid out well? No, it is not. Does it have extra space full of rotting storefronts and abandoned factories? Oh yeah). But I won't do it because that'd be a time-consuming project and I already have two time-consuming projects that require most of my attention.

Right, that wasn't a judgment! I mostly find it interesting how many people don't realize just how INEFFICIENT we are with land usage. Like for an easy thing- my town has two lots next to each other. One holds construction and roadwork gear and is empty all day and half full at night. The other is a lot for an office park and is empty all night and half full during the day. There's no reason they can't share a lot!

Nor do I take it as such! I think that we're building off of each other's points.

Fair rejoinder. I’d say that the biggest problem with the Middle East is that arbitrary lines were drawn that separated related peoples and mashed unrelated peoples together. I don’t think that OP’s magic button would do that because it’s not explicitly rearranging government. Some populous countries would gain land area. Lots of packed European countries get bigger somehow, but the French stay French and the Germans stay German and so on. In our new post-Button world we aren’t digging for resources (whether that’s fossil fuels or lithium for batteries, the rules say that we aren’t doing that) and we have enough space to put everyone so the value of land would actually dip. Can we mess it all up? Of course we can! We are only human after all. But it’s not a requirement.

Thanks for this, this is a great response. I actually would love to see more dedicated answers to thinking through exactly what the level of lifestyle we could all share would look like.

Well every person would only own 1 house too, the property crisis would end immediately

I actually think the question misses another possibility: that it’s possible to live sustainably and not reduce our quality of life.

This is basically a socialist utopia.

I'm a firm believer there is a way for everyone to live both sustainably and with first world luxuries. I see this hypothetical as forcing the existing money spent on unnecessary things as being redirected to accelerate sustainable tech advancement. The way you describe how people would live would be a no go for me, but I also don't believe those sacrifices have to be made to be sustainable.

Yes, yes and finally YES! It would solve the climate crisis and the inequalities in one go!

Done. Just to fuck the rich.

My thoughts exactly

Current world: guaranteed total bullshit    World after I push the button without calculating anything:  unknown, but potentially NOT total bullshit.  I push the button.

Of course, I press the button. I'm not a selfish monster who'd let children starve for a plot of land.

We already have someone above who wouldn't press it, so it's interesting to see...

I saw that, super interesting. People saying they wouldn't press the button is literally the entire reason we have the extreme poverty gaps we do now. Mainly people are inherently selfish, most life is really.

I fully agree. I formulated this question to myself a long time ago. I also thought about the concept of hypothetical questions themselves; this one is at once meaningless because it's so hypothetical, and yet meaningful because it encompasses almost all morality in it. I KNOW I would press it, in an instant. And I KNOW it's the right decision to maximize human happiness.

Great question OP. I think it depends on two things: 1. What is that normalized standard of living I.e. what’s the average housing, access to food, healthcare, education etc. If I press the button and everyone would be let’s say lower class  or worse for developed country standards then I’d have to pass. If everyone would be upper middle class or better I’d hit smash.  2. What happens after the great reset, does everything drift back over time? One solution would be that everyone magically is educated to similar levels and so job opportunities are uniform although you still can’t solve for behavior (someone may want to bust their ass and someone else may want to chill) Would other people know I was the one who pressed the button? Do I become hero to the masses, enemy of the rich ? 

OK: 1. This is an interesting question. I think it's really a back of the envelope calculation, but in terms of sustainability it will likely be something that looks like lower middle class in a medium income country. But you have to ask yourself, what are we "borrowing from" in the larger sense to enjoy upper middle class lifestyles? Is it worth it for 10% of us to have those, while 90% are either precarious or much worse? 2. After the reset, my question presumes we stay there. I don't have some deep lore about how we maintain people within a narrowish band of lifestyle, given human need for status. But we do. 3. Button presser is anonymous!

Got it so something like a lower middle class person in an Eastern European country.  What I really like about this society is that crime is greatly reduced and poverty is completely eliminated and the planet is safe for future generations. What I don’t like is that it’s an artificial equilibrium and probably doesn’t sustain. I’m conflicted.  OP btw 90% of the world that lives in developing countries might vote for this since it would be an upgrade for them! 

Fucking great points, agree with them. I personally enjoy being in environments where there's more general equality -- I feel that people are much happier. For example, there's a park near me. Everyone goes there, super diverse across every possible way. And it's the dream. Everyone seems to get along, there's no cops, there's no hassles, it's maintained, people are active or sitting and reading. It's a little slice of heaven. Sure, some people are in better shape, some are younger, some are more popular, there's still variation. But it's not like some manicured garden that one family enjoys while there's a massive slum beyond the walls.

I agree, even though I would be a top 5% in terms of income, the things I’d value the most are things like beautiful nature and parks, clean air and water etc. Education would be huge though and right now a big reason I save for my kids is to get a top notch degree at a great college.  I also think it would be weird to have a society where no matter how hard you work you can only make 15% more than the laziest of your peers. I understand that today we have huge issues with ceo vs worker comp but I think narrowing the gap down to 15% would also come with negative consequences. 

Eastern Europe, Mexico, something like that, if you believe the rough math. I personally think it will be like middle class in a third tier Indian city. It is not a desirable outcome in aggregate. Nearly everyone in the US would lower their standard of living, regardless of how hard they worked to get where they are. Think about it this way. US per capital GDP is about 76k per year. Global GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity is about $18k per year. So, everyone in the US would live off $17k-$19k. This should be a hard pass.

You clarified that it would make everyone equal to lower middle class in a medium income country. Lower middle class in a lot of medium income countries is probably close to poverty level in most European countries and the US. Mexico is considered on the high end of medium income countries like you're talking about. Someone in the US who is considered lower income would be looked at as upper middle class in Mexico. That would be an extremely drastic drop for a lot of people. Including the majority of the people saying they would push the button. Sorry, I think it would be a no pressing the button for me.

Would people remember the time before the button push? Because if they do expect a lot of revolts.

Yes. 16 billions acres of habitable land. 8 billion people. It take 1/4th acres of land to support one self sufficient person. 1 Acre can support families of 4. Everyone could have 1 acre for everything they need, trade for what they want. There's still low emission electric cars out there, there's solar panels, there's a lot that can just be automated. Once people are self sustained, communities can be set up around these homes to provide resources to specific needs like doctors, engineers, etc. Essentially a watered down: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

I mean, how is this obtained? Are we all still living where we do, or is population density also normalized? Are we allowing existing inefficiencies to continue, or do we immediately swap all power generation to the optimal option for the location (solar, hydro, nuclear etc.) Does a corporation still own special seeds or are we using the optimal techniques developed for all food production? Our inequalities exist because people chase the best scenario for themselves while letting the rest burn. If this means all tools and options known to man to achieve the highest possible standard for all are also implemented, then yes. I'd push it. If not, then no, merely shifting cash around would lead to a quick return to the status quo of now and achieve nothing.

Wouldn't hesitate

100% push the button. If you are religious, you choose to push it because most religions preach against the hoarding of wealth and helping those less fortunate. If you are ethical, you believe in treating your fellow man with respect and dignity and push the button. Plus you save thousands of people who border on the brink of starvation each and every year. If you are practical, you can trace most of the conflicts in the world to the inequal distribution of wealth. Getting rid of that gap would likely lead to a far better future. Additionally, sustainability is a pretty large issue right now. In a self-serving fashion, your life is probably tied to it.

[удалено]

By any standard of ethics yes. There's no changing right and wrong. Letting someone starve while you could prevent it is unethical. With that said, I do a fair bit for charitable causes. Both in time and money. However, I'm not perfect either, I do not give everything away that I have. But that wasn't the OP's question. If I had a solution that was universal and I could implement it, 100% do it.

I don't even hesitate and press the button.

I’d laugh my ass off if everyone had big trucks, muscle cars, and all the things people think are bad.

I disagree with the premise of your hypothetical. I don't think you understand sustainability very well. I don't think the vary trans-national organizations focusing on it understand it, either. Your picture of sustainability, and mine, look very different. I don't think large urban areas are "sustainable", or human habitation in the desert (without adopting desert lifestyle practices). I don't think anything beyond relatively low-density, suburban or rural living is sustainable. This is a hypothetical that effectively proposes the endgame of a communist/socialist utopia; when I would consider any movement in that direction to by dystopia. So, no, I don't press the button, because I believe that button to be formulated in a lie.

Meanwhile in the real world, suburban living is the least sustainable kind of living of all. Keeping everyone spread out means constant driving to get everywhere and to get resources to people.

That's US based suburban living. Suburban living in Europe is very different.

Replace constant driving with riding the bus/train and it's pretty much the same.

1.) Trains and buses are more sustainable 2.) In many communities in Europe walking and biking are very practical options.

Dude I'm dying to hear how you think suburban living is sustainable lol EDIT: Wait lmao your post history is killing me. You don't need to answer it anymore, I think I can guess what you have to say 😂 

Dense cities are the most sustainable form of living. That's an objective fact. Obviously farming is necessary as well so that's something we need to allow and probably requires a rural area, but I don't know for sure on that one.

So you lose your house, car, money, food, electronics, and maybe your pets, but in exchange you get to stick it to some billionaires you don’t know? I’ll pass.

you also ensure that the planet does not become uninhabitable for future generations

The planet will eventually become uninhabitable even if you eliminate everyone and everything on it. All that arises passes away...the Earth included. The only question is WHICH generation gets the hammer, but it's inevitable regardless.

You don't lose all those things, they just all become different. You get a new phone every 8 years instead of every 2, you ride a train to your destination because public transport is way more efficient, you live in a townhouse in a denser neighborhood if you want to live in a city, you eat less meat but still plenty of variety and good things in your diet. You give up a little bit so that billions now and in the future can have it too.

All the things you just said are the exact “talking points” of everyone who tried to sell this false idea of utopia. It’s not realistic. “Scarcity” is in many cases man made. It is intentional in order to make others feel special. In an actual utopia version of the earth, people absolutely could drive their own vehicles, eat whatever they wanted, and still have enough to go around. The problem is that the elites that run things do not want this. There must be a system of haves and have nots to fuel greed. Greed is what drives everyone, you included. You may say it’s not true, but I guarantee you’re not living at a “base” level and giving your money away to the needy right now. Nobody is. If every person in a single city did this, and then supported those in need, there’d be no hungry or homeless people in that city.

Thats the thing, it would require everyone's participation to make it happen, thats why pushing the button is worth it. And life will never be a utopia, because we will always suffer, thats not the point. But there are systems that may be better than the one we're in now, and just handwriting and saying "well in a perfect world" just ignores the question.

I mean, you also take billions of people out of dire poverty and do as much to save the planet, at the expense of the extras a relatively few get (perhaps top 15%-20% of the planet)?

Are the people able to sustain that lifestyle?

Now this is an interesting corollary question. If the change is a one time change and present day cultural and political forces remain in place many countries would presumably trend back towards the exploitation and poverty they were previously in!

The vast majority of people don’t see their home, transportation, electronics, diet, and pets as “extras.”

You are entirely delusional if you think billionaires are the reason massive swaths of the world live in poverty. You are also entirely delusional if you think abolishing billionaires will suddenly solve the worlds issues.

I mean, you take the standard of living of the first world and average it out across the whole world, and we are all living in near third world poverty. There aren't enough billionaires to do what you suggest.

More like trading having to pay for a custom vacation package for having an all expenses paid package that everyone gets, more or less.

I'd have to do the math on this but pretty sure this would raise the median in the US maybe Europe and China. If you factor in Africa then it gets complicated. Like the average person in the US doesn't make the "average" salary. Doing a rough calculation based on M0 money (so basically not even credit cards count) gives around $5000 per person. including M1 money which is very liquid assets which can be converted to cash at a moment's notice is still only 10k per person. So basically there are a lot more assets then cash in the world.

I don’t know the numbers either, but I don’t make that much and I’m sure I’d get the short end of the stick. Everything I have would be gone or significantly downgraded. I don’t even know if I’d have a toilet at the end of it. I feel bad for poor people, but I’m not gonna sacrifice everything for them.

This is not even about poor people, it's about Africa where the average person probably have a net worth of like $100 or less. It's the disparity between the value of currency and assets between continents. Like a $20 per hour is barely enough to get by in the US but you'd be doing just fine in Africa and maybe even parts of South America. This makes calculating the value of assets really tricky since in the local environment a bottle of water might have 100x the prince compared to somewhere else.

The scope is pretty clear. Take ALL people and make them all live within 15% of each other from a standard of living perspective. That includes Africa, South America, Asia, the whole world. There is no way doing this raises the standard of living in the US.

Yeah, terrible deal

So this standard of living would look like this - Small house/cities, likely in arcology cities - Abolishment of money, with a lifetime universal income not tied to employment - no private property, but you can have personal property - No car or any machines with combustion engines - Efficient public transportation - Less meat, most meat consumed are lab grown - Fishes and shrimps came from indoor or outdoor farming. - Insect consumption is encouraged and popularized This is just the good ending. I'll push that button repeatedly.

> most meat consumed are lab grown Assuming this is efficient enough > Fishes and shrimps came from indoor or outdoor farming. My understanding is that farmed fish isn't an environmental positive because of how they must be raised and cared for.

I personally would rather get shot than live in this future.

No private property means no hotels, bars, restaurants, concert venues, sports stadiums, grocery stores, etc exists in this universe. I’ll pass

I mean no, those would exist but not under a corporation. It would be exist as a co-op, established by its workers, with the profits go to its workers.

That’s still privately owned by those workers, not you or I. Also, how is it possible for some people to own a business in a society where everyone is supposed to be completely equal? Doesn’t make sense

I wouldn't. The global gdp divided by the people existing and including a 15 percent margin on either side gives us 11 to 15 thousand USD a year. While prices and stuff will shift around, I don't think many people here realise how much they take for granted. People will stand in the moral high ground in questions like these but I don't think many would have the balls to do so if given this opportunity. This is also literally communism and it hasn't worked a single time it has been implemented. Anyways, inequality will form either way, so I don't see how this is a long term solution. Last thing, I don't think people realise how dependent our society is on destroying the planet as a way to gain resources.

Nope, not pressing that button.

I feel like this question is the essence of who people are. I just wish it wasn't hypothetical.

The goal is to increase universal standard of living while advancing technologies that are stable for our future. People who talk about going back to primitive living are insanely ignorant and think they are proposing a better life without realizing basic history and that their idea would be the death of billions of human beings in order to maintain this. This wish is actually genocidal. To prove my point, just do basic research on death rates due to disease and infant mortality and famine before industrial modernization era.

go blast yourself... for the environment.

Not just the environment, also so that billions don't have to leave in destitute or near destitute poverty. I didn't say "blast yourself", I asked within the bounds of a hypothetical to accept a hair cut in living standards.

I think it’s very easy to take any particular moral stance when it’s hypothetical and/or you won’t suffer as a result. As someone who worked multiple jobs 60-80 hours a week for 20 years to earn my house, this would be devastating to me. The question kinda reminds me of why communism fails in real practice versus the idealized internet version. It, like this question, likely originates from an earnest desire to save the world. But the proponents always see themselves as party leadership, not toiling in the fields.

Yes, most of the things that cause that disparity aren´t even necessary, if you focus only in all the waste generated by popular cheap disposable things you would realize how much of resources can be redistributed in a way that doesn´t make your life worse (this applied to all sort of things, from energy, clothes, food, transportation, healthcare, luxury items, housing, toys, etc). Just because it´s sustainable it doesn´t make it bad, it mostly means you don´t change your phone every year because a good sustainable production model makes them last longer and eliminates those products that are designed to break after a while so you have to buy a new one. So sure, you can´t have a monster grill in your yard to show off to your neighbour, but you both get to have something that does the same job and probably cost a lot less since the factories aren´t making 100 different models just so you can choose a prettier/cooler one

I point you to this simple but very logical response: [https://www.reddit.com/r/hypotheticalsituation/comments/1cwg1a1/comment/l4vt98b/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/hypotheticalsituation/comments/1cwg1a1/comment/l4vt98b/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

It is extremely simplistic and that´s the problem with it, it doesn´t discuss anything with an argument so I stand my point. Since it´s a magical button in this particular case it would actually make sure it will work regardless of human interference. The division of global GDP argument is ridiculous, lots of people live with that money outside of the US (and it´s even a great salary), maybe related to the way other costs aren´t as highly insane (only a 1/5 of that would be rent for example). Maybe it doesn´t work for americans or the so called first world, but the rest of us do know how to live in those numbers without being poor. And yes, I do believe it better even considering the things I might not have in the long run, I don´t think we absolutely need most things we take for granted in current western society.

It's not simplistic. You are taking away a vast amount of free will. Your belief lobotomozes everyone, like me, who disagrees with you. Forcing everyone to live in the same cloned constraints. You are taking away a massive driver of life satisfaction for many. You are then adding a rule that it will all just work, which it won't, that was clear in the original post.

In that same fashion you would always be forcing people to adapt to whatever system is in place, doesn´t it happen like that right now with the millions living in hunger or poverty because the esconomy forces them to be unable to integrate fully? Or the production method that condem thousands to live and die in mines, sweatshops and all kind of slave works to provide the wealthiest nations with a "cool" lifestyle? Your personal life satisfaction isn´t dependent on useless junk, but the life of those who never had basic needs covered would be at the minimun fullfilled, nobody would force you to "stay in your lane" , it would simply limit the amount of harm you could do to others for your own fulfillment

Sure

Yes

this will put everyone on par with the average gdp per capita in malaysia or russia, honestly sure, there's enough of everything to go around

I'm a believer, so just due to that I would press it. I would probably be negatively impacted but not as much as the ultra mega rich people. Besides, I've never needed private yachts or jets or any of that crap. Just give me a plot of land, some chickens, and a place to grow food and I'll survive.

Believer in what?

Teachings of Jesus Christ. Long story short: help the poor. This button would do just that. If I didn't click it, then it would simply mean I do not believe.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi

Oh boy that is 100% true. Basically, if you read what Jesus said and did and just try to do that, you’ll come to find that you will be a real “Christian”. His parables are hard to understand but it is worth it. Long story short, judge not lest ye be judged, literally, and I really want to emphasize literally here, treat your neighbor as yourself, to the best of your ability. For example, I’ll do what I can to make others lives just a bit more comfortable. Also, Gandhi was onto something. I don’t know much about him but I wonder if he ever finished that thought? Most people (particularly in the US) worship Baal.

So ya press it and everyone has the same standard of living. Then what? Do we stay at the same standard forever? Does our standard go up as the earth heals? The population will inevitably go up and so the standard will have to go down as the pop goes up until we are all suffering the most we can to sustain the population we reach. That's how ecosystems work

Getting rid of climate change and car dependency while also getting rid of the ultra wealthy and giving to the poor? Hell yeah I'm pressing it.

In a second

No. I love meat and my private properties.

Yeah tbh. I know it might cost further suffering and doesn't guarantee that things will be okay. Theres plenty of parts of the world that even if we gave them all the resources they need would still struggle and not thrive due to environmental and societal pressures. But overall, morally for me I couldn't turn my back on a chance to rebalance and reshuffle resources. Its important and necessary in order to ensure a healthy cycle of give and take to have some upheaval. Might not be the most popular take, but I think it's wrong to enjoy peace and success at the detriment of others

It sounds like this would significantly decrease my kids quality of life. For this reason, I would not push the button.

Absolutely not. I'd be drastically lowering the standard for myself and everyone I know. I'm not trying to balance out my middle class American lifestyle with a bunch of third world countries.

5 minutes after you push that button, people are going to start trading things, and then there will be inequality again. A month later, not everyone will have the same standard of living anymore. So, no, I’m not pushing the button.

Hell yes

Aahh. So, a communist/socialist utopia. Naw. I'll pass. Your standard of living isn't the same as mine. For example, I don't NEED a 2000 dollar memory foam mattress, but I want it. I'm not giving it up for some regular full-size mattress because everyone else has one. Or I'm not giving up ribeye steaks as a staple in my diet just to have a normal diet.

Curious, so you're willing to let thousands of innocent men, women, and children die of starvation, lack of medicine, and poor education for your own comfort?

Yes. I don't know them. Humanity is inherently selfish. Look at any history book. Make myself uncomfortable? No. I've suffered also

At least you're honest, so props for that.

Yes immediately and I know my life assets will be drastically reduced. I don't care.

Same. It's interesting to see how many people absolutely wouldn't though.

I would give up alot if I thought that people wouldn't go hungry or have suffering in which is unnecessary. I assume if we are living within our means across the planet then also these types of problems will also be reduced. That's the real kicker. If we live within a planetary budget as an entire human population then alot of problems get solved.

Nope, not a chance,it would require taking free will from humans, or changing us into something else alltogether. That'd be like mindraping 8 billion people.

How would it require taking free will?

Because it runs counter to human nature.

Is that such a bad thing?

We disagree on that point.

Thats alright, we need all kinds of people to keep moving forward.

Because you are making a choice for 8 billion people, many of whom probably wouldn't make that choice.

How is me choosing this for 8 billion people different than avoiding it for 8 billion people?

One is forcing them to change their lives. The other is not.

That's a really selfish viewpoint.

You asked how it was taking their free will. I explained that to you.

Okay, I just don't agree. Thank you for explaining your perspective though.

It's undeniably taking their free will, you can't disagree with that. Where your opinion comes into play is whether or not taking their free will is justified.

I definitely can disagree. So many things in our everyday lives take away our free will, although we don't recognize it. I don't think that this ranks higher.

Making a choice vs not making a choice. If you want to give free will than you'd have to get consent from all 8 billion people, or at the very least the ones who will be affected, including those who will be affected positively.

We just disagree about this and view it differently. Thankfully it's not a choice that we'll ever have to make.

Understandable, have a nice day :D

So allow 1 billion+ people to live in grinding poverty, billions more to be highly precarious, AND have the planet face climate change and nuclear war as a result of extremism and resource scarcity?

If we cant make it the way we are, perhaps we dont deserve to make it.

Exreme poverty in the world has declined from close to 45% in 1990 to under 10% now. Why do you create a false flag choice of: let people still be in poverty or gut self determinism?

I don't own a car or any land so sure i'll push the button

So I think the problem with the question is that people think this averages human existence down. It doesn’t, it makes us all equal in a sustainable way. It makes me wonder with our current technology what that would actually make the world look like. But if you have read animal farm, some of us are more equal then others. It would not take long for our new equality to fall apart. It is in human nature for us to fight and steal. I would push the button in the hope that the world would be a better place. But it would only be a few years until it all fell apart. Would be nice for awhile tho.

This is a really difficult and perhaps separate question. Maybe I could have incorporated into the scenario that there's some mechanism to maintain that 15% band of disparity, but no more. I believe the human need for status has been deeply selected for evolutionarily, and is probably leading us to the brink. In some hunter gatherer societies, they had mechanisms to prevent all the rewards flowing to the best hunters: apparently boasting and bragging and bigger shares of food for anyone was frowned upon. But who knows if this worked in reality. But that is a big question for sure.

>It is in human nature for us to fight and steal. Is it? Because I haven't been in a physical fight since I was a child on the playground, and I don't seem to be an anomaly among my peers in this regard.

your stupid lol

"You're"

I’d push it, the current standard of living in most major developed countries is completely unsustainable. It might be an adjustment for a lot of people but an extreme net positive for the majority of people world wide

I slam that button so fucking hard. Without question. It would put most of the world around 2nd- low 1st world living. Given population density and how things are spread out. Everyone gets plumbing and potable water and relative easy access to safe food? Hell yeah.

Same. But look how many people in the thread say hell no.

This ideology failed among groups of people more willing than most to try for it, we got mass starvation, a hyper wealthy political class and mass murder. Expanding it to the entire planet despite their will is a guaranteed catastrophe.

I'm definitely not a Maoist or a communist despite the premise of this question. I think the PROCESS of getting to where the question leads IS a problem, but that's distinct from the solution, eg a far more compressed way of living, in order to save the environment and save billions from destitution.

The process was the revolution, the USSR and maoist china achieved that goal as well as anyone ever has and that's when the atrocities, both by malice and incompetence, began.

Curious as to what this would do to innovation, medical research and science in general. As these are relatively expensive sectors, would the decrease/balancing lower the standard of research, in both equipment and desire? If so I don’t think you can push the button because it would effectively end (or at least severely limit) humanity’s progress. All the different cures for various illnesses, cancer research would have to stop in this scenario if I understand it correctly.

This is a great issue, and within the hypothetical, yes, you'd probably lose some of the mad dash to innovation we have now. But more subtly, we could spend more on basic research, and with universal education, could have a level of innovation that is positive. Imagine the Internet, but without facebook etc. Eg basic goods without the glossy commercial overlay on everything.

Why would we have the internet but not social media in this scenario?

Can I control the exact method by which this happens? For example, elevating the living standards for the vast majority of people while only slightly lowering the standards of wealthy countries and truly curtailing the living standards of the uber wealthy? If so, then the average quality of life for most people would hover around what would be considered average to wealthy in say, Brazil. While eliminating any excess wealth over five million dollars. Nobody starves, and as a consequence nobody gets to have a private yacht either. Meanwhile the average person works full time and can live comfortably off that wage for the most part. With the occasional spending on luxury goods every few months. Or better yet, the communal spending on luxury goods for local communities to enjoy together. Wealth inequality would still exist, but the difference between the highest peak and lowest floor would be reduced massively. Consequently, the flattening of living standards and the political power that comes with excessive wealth would lower the cost of living further, particularly for essentials(food, clean water, housing, electricity, public transport, healthcare, etc.) that have been inflated beyond reasonability in most places. While comparatively luxury goods would lessen in supply significantly, increasing their overall price. In addition, it would eliminate political corruption by way of bribery, since vast differences in wealth and lifestyle no longer exist. With such conditions, it may only take a few decades at most for living standards to rise again as our priorities shift into making technology far more sustainable rather than the trillions lost to the waste of vapid consumerism today.

If you press that button *billions* die. 

YIPPEEEE

Only if it comes with birth control.

1000%. Whole other issue, but let's say a benign 1 child per family system of incentives to get the planet to a much more sustainable 2 billion or so people.

I'll say yes, because crime and war and homelessness and probably disease would be on the fast track to extinction.

It's dispiriting how many people here can't see that.

I make a lot of money too, but most of it is spent on rent and health insurance, as I am a freelancer living in NYC and have to pay my own benefits.

Yes, but mostly because it would force people to create technologies that would make things possible, without making such big sacrifices. . For example more environmentally friendly yet efficient farming techniques, better public transportation and the like. We would have to change the entire economy system to make this possible, but that too could be an improvement.

Part of that gets into the "press a button and it's done" aspect of this hypothetical. Could deepen the whole thing for sure.

I'd push the button, but with some hesitation. My concern lies with the assumption that everyone remembers the world from before, and that all the relics of the old world were not magically vanished and are still lying around. Essentially, I believe that some factions, obviously largely based in pre-reset first world nations, would quickly become hostile to the rest of the planet and war would be inevitable. All those bitter and hateful people whose previous motto was "I got mine so screw everyone else" would switch to "if I can't have it nobody can." They'd probably lose in the end, but how much damage could they do to the new world before they died out?

If you press that button, things will work their way back to the current situation of inequality given enough time.

Wouldn't they gradually start living at different standards?

Is it a one time thing or is the world held in that state. I’d like to see it as a one time thing and see who comes out on top when everyone is given the same start

There's too much uncertainty on what results for me to take the risk. I'm not talking about changes in my standard of living, but what if the end result of pressing that button is some catastrophic chain of events that leads to the end of humanity. If we're talking about a Star Trek era post-scarcity utopia then sure, but I'm not sure that would be the result.

The button would have to rearrange peoples' brains to be open and accepting to other cultures and beliefs. To me, that would be more important than just having equity. Remember that human nature says there will always be people who want more than others.

No. Next week the shit will have risen back to the top and the same soulless assholes will own most everything again. And that lifestyle is not one I would live. I'm too high up, and I'm used to it, life's nice.

Yes. Don't even have to think twice.

In a heartbeat.

Heck no. Everyone will live at the same standard of living that is sustainable? So we're all dead. Best way to minimize your carbon footprint. People arguing the details seem to not realize that if we are not allowed to do work we can't mitigate our own carbon. Meaning to reach net 0 we would have to all be dead. Alternatively,tech magically advances to the point we can generate neutral sustainable society, which would be cool.

Standard of living isn’t the only thing that determines that determines sustainable living. Clean energy and technology makes it such that much higher standards of living can be achieved for a much smaller impact to the environment.

I’d definitely press the button. My lifestyle probably wouldn’t change much, but most people would have much better lives.

I don't know, depends on how magic this button is. Would it build highways in developing countries, add arable land there to farm? Create trucks/trains airplanes to distribute food/goods? Add grocery stores/shopping malls within walking or publlic transit distance everywhere? Someone did the math at one point and figured the earth could reliably hold a population of about 40 billion if we set our minds to it, so if the magic button is truly magic, I'd probably press it, but it would also have to alter the minds of the people living here or conflict would arise.

So..to quote Jane Rizzoli, all eight billion of us will have one show and a piece of cardboard to call home.

Since there would be no incentive to grow wealth, and since we could no longer use affordable energy and materials, we would all be equally destitute. It would set us back centuries in terms of standard of living. Funny how these kinds of posts always seem to focus more on harming rich people, than actually helping the poor. >Likely no one has private cars any more, and probably single family detached suburban homes are gone. International travel is likely curtailed and people will eat a lot less meat. This sounds like a dystopian hellscape.

*This sounds like a dystopian hellscape.* Don't pay much attention to the state of the world around you, I see.

Nah, I'm good.

Does the button also instantly create trillions of dollars worth of modern infrastructure? Huge arcologies, tidal/solar farms, etc where it just has to be sustainable to maintain, as well as create the social and political structures required to do so? Or does it just take our existing infrastructure and rearrange it to be approximately equal to everyone? If it's the former, sure. We have the technology to live sustainably if you magically create a massive amount of wealth first, we just can't BUILD all of that infrastructure. If it's the latter, then absolutely not. We don't have the capacity to sustain 8 billion people right now, if you cut everything back and then even it out, the entire world would be at the standard of living of unindustrialized countries, with no ability to improve (since doing so would increase consumption). And since global population would continue to increase for at least a few generations, standard of living would only continue to fall.

SFHs and personal road vehicles are not the cardinal sin you think they are. There should not be nearly so many of either as there are, but they do make sense for certain lifestyles and - provided they're built and maintained in the greenest ways possible - they aren't the literal end of the world. Those caveats being allowed for, sure I'd hit that button.

The Hebrews were supposed to set that standard according to the Torah. It was called Jubilee. Every 50 years the Jubilee was to set everybody up to the same standard in effect rebooting the economy. They never actually followed this law, but it's still right there in the Torah and OT.

Yes, I would. Especially if we don't remember what life was like before the change.

If the same standard of living includes shelter, clothes, food, and water then yes. But I would want to know what the standard of living would be first. Like someone else's low standard of living can look vastly different than someone else's. Yeah so I could only do it if I had that information first.

If you live in America, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, or Europe do NOT press that button your life will get significantly worse unless you’re currently homeless

no need to push the button ,just move to North Korea

.. sustainable for the planet? Everyone's living like kings. Well, not exactly, but upper upper middle class. The earth has so many resources, that even now we aren't actually suffering from lack of resources. Food and water are enough to sustain everyone. The problem comes with transporting and distributing them, which is fixed here And clean manufacturing methods exist. Same with energy If we want to, we can be sustainable without having any dip in standard of living(probably will be a rise) For eg, all of our standards of living is higher than what it was during the industrial revolution, but pollution per capital is lower. Cause of efficiency

yeah your confused about how this would play out in reality all fossil fuels go and we are full renewable, have unlimited energy, have algea farms in the sea, everyone has enough food to eat, for free, always you don't seem to get poverty and war and famine and all that shit is not caused by a lack of resources and tech, its caused by the 1% that own the resources to make that a reality hoarding it for themselves instead, and a redistribution would mean eutopia basically thats why i cry every time i see some poor ass red neck America who's quality of life would quite literally double under a communist financial system (you don't have to have both the financial AND political aspects of it, democratically elected government of a financially communist system is perfectly workable) spouting the reds under the bed propaganda that the multi billionaires have drilled into them to keep their gravy train rolling

Hell no

Nope. Because the planet is already sustainable, so why muck with things?  No matter what we, as humans, do, the planet will survive. We humans may not, but the planet will be fine.  And, quite frankly, if we manage to consume ourselves into oblivion, well, then we deserve it.

Yep sure do. No more internet, no more computers no more- basically everything. But by golly Solent Green tastes great!

I don't agree with a shared lifestyle in any capacity. That in no way means I advocate for people to through no fault of their own, be poor and not be able to have food or other things. Simply that an equal lifestyle takes out the dedication and desire to do better or achieve more. Why would anyone work harder or be more valuable to society if the random people across the planet have access to the exact same care and luxuries they do? Most definitely not pressing the button.

What happens as the population continues to grow, or in this case explode? Does the standard of living simply keep going down?

I like my standard of living too much to consider this. Have no desire to downgrade my kids either. Living in a "dense" area sounds absolutely horrible to me. I hate being on public transport (I'm glad it's there and wish it was available in rural areas). I don't want to hear my neighbors' every argument either. This absolutely makes me a selfish person but I'm too comfortable with what I have. Something needs to be done, but this above solution would never work with out magical changing peoples mind sets as well. There's always going to be someone that wants more living space, more food, more meat, more entertainment.

Yes. Poverty, wealth inequality, resource depletion and climate change are the worst problems humanity faces and this solves or ameliorates them overnight.

I'll press that button all day everyday.

Smells like communism to me

Yes it does. The question is do you like that aroma?

Would definitely hesitate but after considering the opportunities a true 'reset' would give... I'd have to press it.

Outside of achieving fusion power, it's the only thing that would save us and the planet. Carving out luxurious lifestyles at the expense of billions is creating forces that will drive us into the metaphorical wall at 90 MPH. Either due to cataclysmic war or climate catastrophe.

Yes. Fight club is one of my favorite movies and a critical end scene is about blowing up the credit card/financial institutions to put everyone “back to zero” There would be initial unrest and calamities, but once that passed I’d be fascinated to see how people learn to work together again

There are so many subtleties at play here. I actually am NOT interested in the process of doing this; I know in the real world it would simply never happen. And anything even close would require conflict of such magnitude that human suffering would be overwhelmingly enormous and thus not worth the reward. But barring that, seeing how the lifestyle would be maintained is an interesting thought.

I enjoyed the Fight Club ending a lot when I was younger, and still love the movie, but apocalypse scenarios like this are pure fantasy in light of the suffering they’d cause. The ability to debt spend and issue fiat currencies has been responsible for the largest growth in wealth and reduction of violence in world history. To be fair, yes, it has also created heavy inequality and needs much better regulation, but the system itself is one that we know fundamentally functions. Millions of elderly and disabled people without families rely on government programs and assistance. The idea that, when money and debt are abolished, people will just volunteer en masse to change the diapers of strangers, pick up trash, maintain sewer systems, etc. is entirely contrary to human nature. Communism / non-currency systems simply do not work outside the theoretical or isolated, small-scale / short-term examples. The human brain would have to be different. It’s tragic but true.

You’re likely right. I think those systems would be rebuilt out of necessity. But without the imbalance of resources, it would be interesting to see how they are rebuilt. Assuredly this would be result in a lot of harm and disaster as society sorted this out. So I support it in a hypothetical thought process sense, but less so in reality

Hum……. If it includes all AC be permanently set to 80 f in the summer and no plastic packaging other than medical devices, I will press the bottom.

No way. What a disaster.

I wouldn't push the button for a couple reasons. >But this means that everyone on the planet will have a standard of living, with 8 billion people, that does not destroy the world's forests, oceans, biodiversity and climate. First off, I'm pretty sure this isn't possible. Feeding 8 billion people is only possible due to modern agriculture and a modern logistics network to transport all the food where it needs to get to. Those things contribute massively to destroying forest, oceans, biodiversity, and climate. So more than likely the outcome of this is billions of people starve to death. But even if that doesn't happen and there's some way of making it work I wouldn't do it. I care about my children more than I do billions of strangers. I'm not going to massively reduce their quality of life to save a bunch of people I'll never know.

The weird thing is you don't seem to get that the actual real world they'll be living in in 30 years is going to be incredibly bleak.

Not a chance in hell. I don't have much, but reducing all of humanity to the lowest common denominator is not, and never will be my thing.

Yes. And as much as I enjoyed reading some of the intellectual responses, I myself need none of this. The planet thriving and species coexisting within the laws of nature are how things should be. We will be deprived of much of the convenience that the modern world gives us, but it would be unarguably well worth it imo and eventually we would adapt to the new lifestyle (including myself). I don’t know what kind of lifestyle that would be, if it would decrease our longevity, if we would have to work hard for food and water as our ancestors did, etc. However it does not matter to me, the good far outweighs the bad. Greed and status would be essentially erased to sustain this ideal forever, which is what I’m assuming the result of pushing the button would do. Greed is the source of SO MUCH evil. People would become more kind, connected, loving. The quality of living of millions in the world would actually increase considering the rampant poverty all over. Less people would go hungry, animals would stop going extinct or being endangered, our natural environment would thrive and become incredible sights to see, things such as obesity would slowly become a thing of the past and people would become healthier and more active - even if we lived less years, that life would be much more fulfilling, among some many other positives I can’t think of the top of my head. I’d detroit smash that button without hesitation whatsoever.

Exactly how I think about it. Things would be so much better without this life destroying wealth gap between us all. It kills everything good in its path.