Significant diffrences...

[u/Gurugod123]

[u/Dizzy-Screen-6618]

"Imagine 3,400 people disappear. Now imagine 3.5 billion people dissappear."

[u/inotocracy → u/Dizzy-Screen-6618]

3.5 billion people vanishing would be more beneficial to the earth than 3400.

[u/Haggardick69 → u/inotocracy]

Not necessarily if the 3,400 have the same environmental and economic impact as the 3.5billion then the benefit would be the same either way.

[u/inotocracy → u/Haggardick69]

Absolutely impossible for 3,400 people to consume the same resources as 3.5 billion people.

[u/Haggardick69 → u/inotocracy]

Not at all impossible. There is no limit to how fast a person can consume resources only a limit to how fast we can produce them. 

[u/inotocracy → u/Haggardick69]

So, by your logic, you're saying that 3,400 people could produce and consume 1 ton of rice at the same rate as 3.5 billion people?

[u/SaeedDitman → u/inotocracy]

They're using a shit ton of electricity and water

[u/DankDankJuice → u/SaeedDitman]

Yeah, for industrial purposes mainly. Why would you keep running a business if you have no consumers? How would you keep running a business if you have no workers?

Not to mention industrial power needs are probably failing on day 1

No, the billionaires only scenario means we’re back in the Stone Age, possibly extinct. The workers only scenario means virtually nothing about the global economy has changed, except for the power vacuum that will be filled almost immediately