What the billionaires have in store for us: The plausible scenario — step by step 1) The diagnosis: elites see big systemic risk coming Many wealthy people privately recognize severe risks from climate, supply-chain shocks, or geopolitical instability. Evidence: reporting on luxury bunkers, land/island purchases, and “bolthole” interest among the very rich. The Guardian+1 What that creates: a split in incentives. Publicly, elites don’t want panic or regulatory backlash; privately, some prepare to survive major disruption. 2) The strategy: make fragmentation politically profitable and reduce the chance of unified public responses Actors who benefit from weak public institutions have several levers: ● Amplify culture-war messaging and normalize dehumanizing rhetoric (via sympathetic media, political speeches, and platform dynamics). That mobilizes a loyal base and corrodes trust across groups. Evidence: measured spikes in hate and toxic replies after platform/policy shifts. PLOS+1 ● Push deregulation or delay climate policy through political influence, lobbying, and distraction. That keeps the status quo profitable and slows structural solutions. (Reporting and analysis document these patterns across industries.) Why it helps them: Fragmentation prevents effective collective action (taxes, massive public infrastructure, aggressive emissions limits). If society can’t organize at scale, privatized solutions become more valuable. 3) The technology lever: invest in AI, data centres, and infrastructure that both centralizes power and increases energy demand Large AI projects and hyperscale data centres need massive electricity and water; building them expands control points (who runs the infrastructure, who pays for power, who controls data). Recent analyses show AI/data-centre buildouts are rapidly increasing energy demand and emissions. IEA+1 Why this matters: ● These projects produce new concentrated assets (compute farms, logistics networks) that can be privatized and monetized. ● They raise the stakes of energy control and give owners leverage over essential services during crises. 4) The survival hedge: buy/secure physical escape routes and key resources Parallel to political and technological moves, some wealthy people buy land, islands, or fortified properties and invest in private supply chains. This preserves safety for a tiny cohort if public systems fail. Reporting shows clear interest and purchases across various elites. Interesting Engineering+1 Net effect: If the public commons degrade, a small, well-prepared group can maintain relative comfort and control critical assets — water, food, energy, security — that others cannot. 5) The outcome (short to medium term) — gated decline If the steps above continue, the most likely near-future outcome is a managed decline with strong inequality: ● Periodic climate shocks and supply disruptions erode public services. ● Privatized providers step in (paid water/food distribution, private security, gated utilities). ● Political polarization makes coordinated national responses slow or impossible. ● Wealthy enclaves secure safety and influence policy to protect their assets. This is not a single-moment “cull” conspiracy; it’s an emergent system where incentives, policy, media, and investment produce a durable, unequal landscape. 6) The worst plausible outcome — accelerated collapse for many, survival for a few If multiple severe feedbacks occur (major climate tipping points, large wars, systemic financial collapse), and the political system fails to respond, the combination of fragmentation + privatized control could produce catastrophic, large-scale suffering while a small elite remain insulated. This is the scenario you described: most people suffer, a tiny group survives in fortified comfort. It’s plausible given the pieces above — though it requires a cascade of severe events rather than a single deliberate plot. (Evidence shows the individual components exist; proof of a coordinated “let it burn” plan is circumstantial.) The Guardian+1 Which parts are well supported vs. speculative ● Well supported: elites are prepping (bunkers/land buys); AI/data centres are increasing energy demand; platform changes have increased hateful, high-engagement content. The Guardian+2Newsweek+2 ● Moderately supported: elites profit from fragmentation and use political/media levers to delay regulation (strong circumstantial evidence; plausible from incentives). IEA ● Speculative but coherent: a coordinated, explicit plan by elites to cause collapse to concentrate survivors — we have motives and behaviors that make such an outcome possible, but not public, provable secret orders directing mass harm. Probabilities (subjective guide) ● Short-term gated inequality and worsening civic breakdown: high probability if current trends continue. ● Large climate shocks producing severe national stress within decades: high probability (scientific consensus points to worsening impacts). ● A tiny elite surviving in fortified comfort while mass suffering occurs: plausible (medium probability) if multiple negative trends compound. ● A single coordinated conspiracy to kill or cull most people: low probability (requires proof we do not have), though the incentives and preparations make the fear understandable. Why this explanation fits your observations ● You see louder, more hateful public discourse — that’s consistent with platform amplification and weakened moderation. PLOS ● You see wealthy people buying remote land and paying for security — that’s consistent with hedging/bolthole behavior. The Guardian ● You see rapid AI/data-centre expansion that increases energy demand and can be used to centralize control — that’s documented. IEA Taken together, those visible facts map directly onto the pathway described above. That’s what I meant when I said your theory is “consistent with the incentives and behaviors we see.” What this means for you (practical takeaway) ● The big structural trends are scary and real; you’re not imagining it. ● The most likely immediate result is political and economic erosion (growing inequality, privatization). ● The truly catastrophic “everyone dies except a few” outcome is possible but would require compounding shocks — not a single decision. ● You can’t stop global elites alone, but actions that reduce risk and build resilience locally (community organizing, supporting climate policy, civic engagement, and decentralized mutual aid) make a difference and lower the chance of the worst outcomes.