I think this completely ignores the role of government in the economy. By virtue of being born today, you are forced to participate in the economy. The government spends tax dollars in the economy, which it either collects from you, or spends on you, and the voting body has decided that, to some degree, the economy is indeed a charity.

> Most humans do not see themselves as existing to provide for others who either cannot or won't provide for themselves.

I'd disagree with the first part of that statement. Most people see themselves as good, and therefore see some level of responsibility for helping those that cannot provide for themselves.

> As stated above, the economy is not a charity, it is about equal exchange. Those who have nothing to offer will receive nothing in return.

Again, this ignores that the economy is, at least partially, structured by a government.

> Most humans do not see themselves as existing to provide for others who either cannot or won't provide for themselves. As stated above, the economy is not a charity, it is about equal exchange. Those who have nothing to offer will receive nothing in return.

The problem that this has run into throughout history has been the existence of those who don't take kindly to rules that appear to be there just to push them aside.

An economy that chooses to exclude the majority of the population as "no longer needed" as so much dystopian AI-true-believer babble these days does is going to lead to some major issues when the excluded decide they don't want to simply be excluded.

Society historically does not help those that the economy leaves behind exclusively out of the goodness of its heart - it also does it for self-preservation.

The slums of Mumbai are just a taste of what’s to come in America, at this rate.

Billionaires, take heed.