It occurs to me that I'd argue we're heading towards a forced scarcity society rather than post scarcity. That's the only way they can make sure we don't get a Star Trek type future if/when we figure out fusion power. Hell, we've already basically been able to feed everyone for ages.

While post scarcity is excellent and I do believe it is possible in theory, it's used as a buzzword to handwave away all the dystopian things being pushed.

Depending on how serious you are:

Choose weed instead

Or the crisis line. You probably already know where to find it. Help is available. You do not have to suffer alone. I love you homie.

"Everyone and everything will end in my lifetime. I'll be here to see it all crumble just before I am incinerated in the blast."

is another popular escapist fantasy.

No one wants to believe they'll just have to hobble through a slow and painful decline.

yes but do you consider that important in any way? if you do you are closer to the person on the left

The thing about Anarchy is that, for many people, the cashless society where you own nothing and are fully removed from the machine of industry is already here. Its just called "poverty".

The problem is that this kind of poverty isn't equally distributed. You've still got this large, heavily armed occupying force that preserves money, capital, and the painful prodding of induced productivity for everyone else.

And blue light does keep you awake. Are we team Esotheria?

Depends on how literally you mean it, in general, those most likely to say it wont think that humans are literally designed not to die and only do so because someone made a mistake, but more that humans might be redesigned or modified not to (or at least not from biological aging). Not a hard to find sentiment if you hang out in spaces with transhumanists, but I find the ones that overlap with AI bros, that tend to have an attitude like "this will totally happen in my lifetime and with no effort because the AI singularity is going to come and give us everything in a few years" impossible to talk to, because all too often they will cite even the tiniest listed improvement in any AI system as proof that literally everything possible or impossible is about to happen and then insist you arent paying attention when you give them skeptcism.

I believe this is an idea most legitimately championed by Nick Bostrom. Here is a video explaining his perspective.

I feel like, at least from the stance of abstract philosophy, he makes some good points. And I'm not enough of a philosopher to refute them (though I'm sure some have). Personally, my stance is "I'll cross that bridge when I arrive at it" - I expect to die before that happens.

I’m also hung up on “Crypto is UBI”. Surely this is a one off crackpot quote and not a thing, right?

Yes, there are people who believe we will find a way to transcend death via technology. I personally think a world ruled by immortal omniwealthy methusalas that will never let even death release their boot from the necks of the common man is a bad thing, but...

We were meant to subsist off of grubs, berries, and whatever your extended family could hunt as we trekked around, dying randomly of infections and bear attacks. Then some fucking asshole started farming and it's all been downhill since!

It's funny, just yesterday I looked at RAM prices randomly for the first time in months, thought "wow, that's high", and today I see reference after reference after reference about how high it is.

That's pretty cool in nature, especially with plants and fungi that don't think. But applying it to people is kinda eugenics-y. "Billions should die so that our genes can improve"

That's just the guy on the right but with less hope and no capitalism.

Stop looking at the cheeks, grit those teeth, and give that anus a good gander.

(Full disclosure: I am not a therapist, but it's good advice.)