If you're not 100% certain that the complete details of your trip will be stored for the indefinite future in Ft. Meade or Utah, I have a bridge across the Grand Canyon I'd like to sell to you.
Oh yes, and thank you, Edward Snowden, for courageously doing what is right.
He suggested a number of different futures (none resembling the future you seem to have in mind). In one of these futures, the 99% revert to subsistence agriculture. It's an interesting idea to contemplate. I suppose that if such were to happen, the new farmers would eventually produce something valuable that the 1% want, and we'd be back to square 1.
What route do you expect the 1% to take to eliminating the surplus population? Will they do it Adolph HItler style, with purpose built facilities where the 99% will be rounded up and exterminated? Will they do it Joseph Stalin style and simply deprive the vast population of food and other needed necessities?
It seems more probable that in a future dystopia, they might claim the best resources for themselves, set up their own communities with heavily armed guards, and live the good life while the masses eat one another to survive.
Second, I am still royally pissed at Bush for blowing up the deficit to 500 billion.
I once gave a five-hour interview to a small American company where the entire team was English-speaking Americans and received a one sentence rejection from them telling me that I didn't fit their culture. Never again! If a company wants more than a few hours of my time for an interview, they have to pay for it!
Hard to grow a bunch of humans with a gene deletion, wait until they're old, euthanize them and then slice them up for analysis. Even if you did that with lawyers and politicians, you'd have to wait an awful long time to get any results.
I must say, if you did that with enough lawyers and politicians, it might make research easier for generations to come!
I know it's a worn-out analogy, but look at the fight to decriminalize cannabis. One activist told a reporter in an interview that years ago, one could not even discuss the issue in polite company, and now it's been taken to its logical conclusion in a handful of states. If these people had just given up and said "no chance in hell", we would still have the status quo from years ago.
Therefore, I'm glad that *someone* in the halls of power is standing up for the little man, even if things look extremely bleak for his cause today.
Suppose that a scientist "copies" Alex's mind to a robot, destroying Alex's body in the process. Most people say that the scientist murdered Alex and the robot is just a simulation of Alex.
Suppose that the same scientist invents a new therapy for brain injury where a very small part of the brain is replaced with a prosthesis. A man named Bob receives this therapy. Most people call the scientist a hero and a pioneer in medical technology. They credit him with saving Bob's life.
Now, suppose that Bob suffers injury after injury after injury with each injury requiring small parts of his body (including the brain) to be replaced with prostheses. At the end, Bob is just like Alex, having essentially been turned into a robot, destroying his body in the process; only most people would more readily accept Bob's humanity while regarding Alex as a mere simulation.