I wonder if the author has ever played Diplomacy. You have to fight the perennial sense that you have nothing and can be replaced. All your opponents have to do is band together against you. A similar generalization to OP would say everyone loses. And it would be wrong. This post shows the dangers of over-generalization more than anything else. The state isn't just about war. Each person in the line of dominoes the author has set up doesn't just care about what the author thinks they care about. In particular, people have agency and can run cartoon thought experiments like this and react to them. Billionaires won't just sit around and not develop military power, for one. We already have billionaires owning satellites in large numbers and creating geopolitical consequences. You better believe they have cards to play. And hopefully so does everyone else.

I have no idea what that looks like, because if I did I wouldn't be here commenting on HN :D But I suspect some people will play their cards well and get some luck, and come out on top, just like some people have always done.

> Billionaires won't just sit around and not develop military power, for one.

I argue against this here: https://borretti.me/article/on-vulgar-materialism

Of course I don't expect a single post to erase a huge divergence in worldview about the relationship between money and power, but that's my argument.

I agree with your last sentence, but its prophetic value depends on exactly what you mean by “people”.

Some people will indeed play their cards well and come out on top, but they won’t be made out of meat.