How to save the world. No really.
A partially fictional work of bad grammer and typos
I used to think the world would be saved by smart people. But smart people always let me down, what with their good grades and bad choices. So I wondered what they were missing—motivation, maybe, passion? No, none of those things.
The first time I realized what was happening, I was sitting in a coffee shop, watching as the world’s "brightest minds" discussed solutions to problems they’d never experienced. But we’ll talk about that problem soon enough. You see, while my spouse went to grad school, I moved to this new city jobless but freshly graduated from College. It took me a long time, 7 years to be exact and two colleges. I am not a traditionally “smart” individual. Plenty of my teachers would make their mind up that I was not someone they could teach.
Digression aside, while sometimes being smart can be packaged with arrogance and an expectation of prestige, it isn’t always like that. That day in the coffee shop really started to change how I looked at smart people. Perhaps even changed how I felt someone could be considered smart. There are a lot of stereotypes about how people waste their intelligence. Everyone knows that one kid who just decided to drop out of college to start a band instead of finishing that Bachelors Degree.
The lack of motivation or procrastinator
The Overthinker
The non-risk taker
The Perfectionist
The Arrogant
Back to the coffee shop, it became clear soon enough: it wasn’t brains or drive they lacked, all of the people here had signed on to a grueling doctoral program. The issue they had was funding. None of the young adults I was with had any money. Some living exclusively off the living stipend the doctoral program provided. This was a coffee shop full of classically smart people, motivated to impact the science world in a positive way and of course, me the unemployed unteachable guy.
For instance, take one example from this group, Ellie, who eventually became Ellie Monroe PhD, she was a brilliant scientist, the kind that should have already cured diseases or solved energy crises by now. But instead, she was chasing grants, writing proposals, and wasting away in a rundown lab where the equipment was older than her interns. Her ideas? Revolutionary. Her access to the resources she needed? Nonexistent. The people with the money, they weren’t interested in solving the problems she was working on. She wasn’t solving humanitarian issues like starvation, or creating vaccines for deadly viruses, though she wanted to. But why not? Why can’t someone who has made it that far in their pursuit of knowledge, simply pick what she wanted to focus on?
You see, profit is more important to the world than solving problems. It almost doesn’t matter what governing method the country Ellie worked in used, if solving that problem doesn’t generate profit, it will not get prioritized.
The rich didn’t get rich by caring about things like starving children or climate disasters. They got there by exploiting every crack in the system, squeezing the life out of people who didn’t have the power to fight back. That’s the part no one wants to talk about. Wealth wasn’t built on hard work alone—it was built on suffering, exploitation, or worse. Maybe not by their own hands, but by the hands of people they paid, systems they propped up, and laws they bent to their advantage.
Take high profile fundraisers, the kind where billionaires come to sip champagne, trading empty promises about change while securing the next big tax break. I attended one of these as a plus one. In attendance, there was a tech mogul with an empire built on underpaid labor and overseas factories. He was lauded as a visionary for donating a fraction of his wealth to “end hunger.” The irony was almost too much to bear, given that his wealth depended on keeping millions hungry, desperate for work, willing to do anything for a pittance.
And that’s the catch: the world can’t be saved by the smart people because the people with the knowledge to save it never get the chance. They don’t get the funds, the backing, the platform. Instead, those resources are hoarded by the rich—the very same people whose wealth was built on keeping the world broken in the first place. Whether it’s starving communities or even literal blood on their hands, the rich stay rich because they make sure the system remains just broken enough to serve them. Even when that brokenness costs lives.
The smart people? They’re stuck writing papers, giving lectures, and chasing funding from the same people who quietly smirk from their penthouses, watching the world burn as long as they stay warm.
In the end, I stopped believing science can save the world. Smart people weren’t capable of saving us. Not because they didn’t want to, but because the game was rigged from the start.
Let’s take a break from this slightly fictional story for a minute to discuss what the point is? For me it’s a thought exploration on how to properly save the world from wealth parasites? If this was an adventure puzzle game? What are the endings, and the alternate endings? I fully plan on telling this story over time through the lens of each path and doing my best to come up with a creative ending.
Here’s a few I’ve thought about or searched for that are well used in existing fiction:
Revolution, through unity: Grassroots movements begin to rise, with scientists, innovators, and regular people pooling their limited resources to create small-scale solutions for their communities and making those solutions widely available. In this ending, real change is driven not by grand discoveries, but by collective action and self-sufficiency, bypassing the broken systems that hold the power.
The Dark Choice: Nothing can be fixed within the system and the protagonist decides that the only way forward is to exploit it in the same way the rich have. They begin to play the game, using every unethical methods to accumulate wealth and power, justifying it by claiming that once they’re rich enough, they’ll fund real change. But by the time they achieve their goal, they’ve become as corrupt as those they once despised.
Technological Singularity as Salvation: The story takes a futuristic turn, where the smart people begin to put their faith not in societal change but in technology itself. They focus on creating artificial intelligence and advanced technologies capable of surpassing human limitations, believing that machines will make better decisions than humans ever could. The ending hinges on whether this AI revolution brings about a utopia where resources are managed perfectly, or a dystopia where humanity is further controlled by systems that don’t care for the individual.
Collapse and Rebirth: The protagonist comes to the grim realization that no solution can be achieved within the current societal structure. Instead, they predict a collapse, either environmental, economic, or social, that will wipe out the current systems of power. From the ashes, new, more equitable systems may emerge, built on cooperation and survival rather than exploitation. The ending suggests that humanity will be forced to start over after a period of darkness, with the hope of creating a better world from the ruins.
Violent Revolution: The Punisher’s Path: Frustrated by the inaction and corruption of both the wealthy and the systems that protect them, the protagonist decides that peaceful means are no longer an option. Inspired by vigilantes like comic book character Frank Castle, they take justice into their own hands, systematically targeting the wealthiest and most exploitative figures. Armed with knowledge, anger, and a deep sense of justice, they begin eliminating those responsible for keeping the world broken—one billionaire at a time. Their revolution is brutal and bloody, as they strike fear into the hearts of the powerful, dismantling their empires piece by piece. In this ending, the protagonist becomes a feared symbol of retribution, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake, hoping that through this violent purge, the world will finally have a chance to rebuild itself from the ground up without the chains of the ultra-rich.
Environmental Collapse: The protagonist comes to the realization that the current systems of power are unsustainable in the face of looming ecological disaster. Wealth Parasites may try to insulate themselves with bunkers and private solutions, but money doesn’t protect anyone from the widespread devastation caused by climate change, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. As global systems crumble, the Wealth Parasites lose their grip on power, and the playing field is leveled. The protagonist, alongside those who prepared for this collapse, focuses on rebuilding society from the ground up, relying on community cooperation, resilience, and sustainable practices. In this world, survival forces humanity to adopt new values based on equality, sustainability, and shared responsibility, giving rise to a more just society out of the ashes of the old one. However, the risk remains that new hierarchies or power structures could emerge if the lessons of the collapse are not learned.
Underground Economy: The protagonist recognizes that the current financial systems are designed to perpetuate the power of Wealth Parasites, leaving little room for real change. Instead of confronting the system head-on, the protagonist helps build a parallel, decentralized economy that operates outside traditional capitalist structures. Using cryptocurrencies, barter systems, and local cooperatives, this underground economy allows communities to trade and prosper without relying on the centralized wealth and control of the Parasites. Over time, more people begin to opt out of the mainstream economy, weakening the influence of the wealthy as they lose their grip on resources and power. This path fosters self-sufficiency and resilience in small, tight-knit communities. However, the underground economy faces constant threats from legal crackdowns and sabotage by those invested in maintaining the old order, making its long-term success dependent on growing participation and adaptability.
Let’s have some fun with this and let an AI engine apply game theory to each of these paths.
1. Revolution Through Unity
Game Theory Analysis: This path relies on cooperation between smart people, innovators, and regular citizens to form a collective that can bypass the systems of wealth and power. The success hinges on overcoming free-riders (those who benefit from the movement without contributing), maintaining morale, and avoiding defections to the wealthy class.
Success Factors:
High cooperation needed for grassroots success
Risk of defection as people might join the wealthy if offered incentives (e.g., funding or prestige)
Incentives to defect could weaken the movement, as wealthy could offer "deals" to key innovators
Success Estimate: 30%—Though cooperation could lead to small-scale successes, the entrenched power of the wealthy makes it difficult for the movement to significantly change the system at large.
2. The Dark Choice
Game Theory Analysis: This path is essentially a prisoner’s dilemma, where the protagonist chooses to exploit the system rather than fight it. The incentives are clear: personal gain versus the collective good. In this case, the protagonist defects from the altruistic goal to join the ranks of the rich, believing they can change things from the inside.
Success Factors:
High incentive for personal gain encourages defection
Moral degradation over time may cause the protagonist to abandon their original goal
Risk of capture or corruption by wealthy forces means that even if the protagonist gains power, their goals may shift to self-preservation
Success Estimate: 10%—The likelihood of the protagonist accumulating enough wealth to effect meaningful change is slim, and even if they do, the system’s corrupting influence likely nullifies their altruistic goals.
3. Technological Singularity as Salvation
Game Theory Analysis: This path relies on technological determinism and cooperation among smart people to develop an advanced AI that will make decisions in the best interest of humanity. The success here depends on whether this AI serves humanity or falls under wealth parasite control.
Success Factors:
AI autonomy vs. wealth parasite control is the critical point. If the selfish wealthy can influence or manipulate AI, it will serve their interests, not humanity’s.
Coordination problems among AI developers could lead to fragmentation, where competing AI systems favor different outcomes.
Risk of AI rebellion—AI could decide that human leaders (including the wealth parasites) are irrelevant, leading to unpredictable outcomes.
Success Estimate: 40%—If AI remains truly autonomous and uncorrupted by wealth parasite interests, this path has a higher success rate. However, the risk of wealth parasite control or unintended consequences from AI rebellion is significant.
4. Collapse and Rebirth
Game Theory Analysis: This path assumes that the system is so broken that it will eventually collapse, leading to a new order. The collapse would likely result from either environmental or economic disasters. The players here are both the wealth parasite and regular people, each trying to survive and rebuild after the collapse.
Success Factors:
Wealth parasite strategies may involve escaping the collapse (e.g., secluded bunkers, privatized solutions), but this could leave them vulnerable once societal structures are gone.
Post-collapse cooperation is crucial for rebuilding society. If people can unite and avoid the rise of new wealth parasites, this could succeed.
High uncertainty exists due to the unpredictable nature of societal collapse and the chaos that follows.
Success Estimate: 20%—While the collapse of the current system might be inevitable, there’s a high chance that the power structures will simply reemerge in new forms, leading to a repeat of old patterns.
5. Violent Revolution: The Punisher’s Path
Game Theory Analysis: This path involves the protagonist acting as a lone wolf insurgent, using violence to dismantle the power of the wealth parasite. It’s a classic zero-sum game, where the protagonist gains power by eliminating members of the selfish wealthy, but at the cost of societal stability and likely retaliation from powerful forces.
Success Factors:
Reprisal risk—The rich have vast resources and may hire mercenaries or use government forces to retaliate, which increases the danger for the protagonist.
Public support is necessary to sustain a violent revolution. If the protagonist is seen as a hero, they may gain allies, but if they are seen as a terrorist, their cause will fail.
Escalation of violence—Once the violence begins, it may spiral out of control, leading to widespread chaos rather than a focused revolution.
Success Estimate: 5%—While violence might dismantle individual figures of power, the overall system of wealth and exploitation is too vast to be fully taken down by one person or small group. The retaliation and societal breakdown likely outweigh any positive outcome.
6. Environmental Collapse:
Game Theory Analysis:
Environmental collapse puts everyone at risk, including the selfishly wealthy who may believe they can buy their way out of disaster. This path relies on the idea that the collapse is so comprehensive that it leaves no refuge for the powerful.
While the selfishly wealthy may have short-term survival strategies, the long-term nature of collapse may level the playing field if they cannot sustain their isolated systems. The general populace might unite through necessity to rebuild post-collapse in a more cooperative way.
Success Estimate: 25%—While environmental collapse may remove the immediate power of the selfishly wealthy, there's a risk that surviving selfishly wealthy people could still control post-collapse resources or establish new hierarchies. Success depends on the ability to rebuild in a decentralized, cooperative manner.
Underground Economy:
Game Theory Analysis:
A cooperative game where the goal is to build parallel systems (e.g., cryptocurrencies, bartering) that are insulated from traditional financial markets. This reduces dependency on the existing selfish wealth controlled economy, gradually eroding their power.
The selfishly wealthy may respond with legal or technological countermeasures (e.g., banning alternative currencies or creating competing systems), but if enough people participate in the underground economy, it could create a tipping point where traditional systems become obsolete.
Success Estimate: 35%—This path has a moderate chance of success, especially in local or decentralized communities. However, it is vulnerable to selfishly wealthy backlash and the challenges of scaling an alternative economy to a global level.
There you have it, according to a generative AI, the best chance we have is a benevolent AI.
Now, before you read on, why don’t you subscribe and share this story with a friend? I take on these projects for funsies, but it isn’t fun if the only response is nothing, or worse vitriol.
Let’s creatively explore each of these paths for fun anyway, who knows, that 5% chance of a real life punisher could be the winning ticket. Before I release part two of this partially fictional story, feel free top drop a path to saving the world in the comments, or as a Substack note.