I think it was Chris who said, 'all we are left with now are bad options'. My own take on number three goes a little darker. People aren't imprisoned within the Matrix against their wishes, rather they willfully accept it as the only viable choice to remain happy consumers. As the operational costs grow exponentially human babies are swapped with programs to reduce the energy costs and Homo Sapiens become no more.
But coming back from the deep end for a second I look upon the outcomes from the theory/implementation lens. That it, lets establish the theory, then lets see how we implement it. As you go on to say;
I think that is what you will see, system withdrawal by some. Another question to ask is whether you see the future system being highly centralised or highly localised? Or perhaps somewhere in between the two? I think LTG will severely hamper the central authority's ability to exercise power at the fringes of its borders. Gail Tverberg mentions something along similar lines. Rome had the same problem - it couldn't summon the energy requirements to tame the Germanic tribes and so grew a counter culture. A constant menace much like those pesky terrorists which we can't seem to destroy. Somewhere in the middle of all the madness I believe pockets of resilient people will spring up - at least I'm hoping so, almost creating a micro-civilisation (OK, perhaps I'm romanticising).
I think of it this way - people desire health, food and shelter. In the UK the health service is currently nationalised but I think as the costs grow we'll see a transition to privatisation. Food is currently in the hands of the giant supermarkets and shelter will slowly slide into corporate hands with government subsidies to enable a generation of squatters. Why do corporations crave control of these necessities? Simple, to remain masters of their cattle. To avoid becoming dependent on the twisted machinations of our masters I believe control of these 3 necessities; health, food and shelter, must remain universal. I'm hoping automation reduces the costs and increases the practicality of this but I think only those who develop the technology will have access to it and the know-how to repair it (or can trade their skill-set for access to it). As for the rest, well, it's kind of choose your poison and deal with the consequences I guess. I've heard the quote that democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Well I'll go on record as saying that modern democracy is like asking the slave which master he wants to be kicked in the ribs by.
Given all that we've witnessed I still don't understand the hope of a benevolent overlord arising from the Deep State to defend our liberties and grant us the freedom to indulge in the pleasures of civilisation. That isn't how a sociopath functions.
The problem that I see with the triggered mass die off meme is that it also would mean the end of the entire system that currently exists. Money, debt,How does one square that off with the fact that the Great Plague caused an increase in per capita wealth and a power shift to labour resulting in a collapse of the feudal system? The difference now is the diminished relevance of labour as it is replaced by automation. But to what end purpose is all this enhanced productivity if not to mollify the population? War. It is for this reason that this expanded productivity must be deflected towards colonising the la Grange points. Otherwise it will turn destructive.
How does one square that off with the fact that the Great Plague caused an increase in per capita wealth and a power shift to labour resulting in a collapse of the feudal system?Less people for the same wealth (tangible in those days, land, gold etc) means greater per capita wealth. Fewer people to spread it around to.
Less labour meant the need to attract extra hands at a rate faster than they could be grown from scratch. That meant competition, wages and the beginning of the death knell for feudalism. When the Industrial Revolution came along in the coming centuries that sealed it.
Draft mare that is. We dropped out long ago. still in somewhat, but voluntarily. still fear the land taxes. producers will all be milked.
I understand the logic that TPTB needs humanity to be the work-horses of the global wealth generating empire that they skim from.
And the impression that "they" are not able to make long term coherent plans.
And it is possible that history will show that this was the correct view.
But, I would not feel certain about that.
The awesome novel Wool, explores a possible future path that TPTB take when they believe that the world will eventually be destroyed in conflict, then decide to take the reins and destroy it themselves, in their own way, and with their own timing. The goal is to have their own descendants emerge from the silos (multigenerational underground bunkers) 500 years in the future to rule the now empty world.
The key to the ethnocentric thought process is that we identify with "our social or racial group" and view other groups as "junk races" (to quote from a recent article). Where is the division between "us" and "them?" The ethnocentric in-group can be a nationality, religion, or race or any other powerfully held group identity. We empathize with our group, but not with "others," which are seen as objects.
An ethnocentric thinker may have greater loyalty to unborn generation of their own group than to currently living out-groups. "Cleansing" resource rich ares of out-groups can make sense from this viewpoint.
From an discussion on Race and Racism by Ken Wilber and Mark Palmer
[H]aving found an ethnocentric identity (and having given it all due respect and honor), how does one move beyond that ultimately limited identity in order to find a deeper, wider, higher identity, a worldcentric identity, that includes all human beings?
Sand_puppy,
I've got Wool on my impossible to conquer shelf of reading material already. Just awaiting the proper moment to read a book for pure enjoyment!
As a 'save the genes' strategy the silos (aka lifeboats) make sense but I don't think that wealth, power and position would translate very well across the 500 years. I'll have to read the book to see how they handled it though.
You've whetted my appetite.
Mark
The reviews for "Wool" are very positive on Amazon; looking forward to checking it out!
The understanding of the big picture emerges very gradually in the day to day experiences of people living in a Silo. And I told you about what they discover well into the story. Sorry.
Heck, I wouldn't have even known the book existed if you hadn't suggested it! 
Oops! Duplicate post.
An amazing conversation. Wow! The process of integration of new paradigms is making all our heads spin. I do appreciate Chris ever so briefly at the 38 min mark referencing the underlying "ecological system" that is after all the foundation of economic system. The central reference point is in the process of being transformed, which is so difficult. It was addressed in the conversation broadly as the discussion talked about the end of the road being near for the current financial constructs and those committed to the "system" (boomers) and those not (millennials). Which then brings us to the central question - fear. As an aside; the "ecological system" is of course just one of the many doors into a broader "reality" which is generally more culturally acceptable to discuss.
It is fascinating how cultural macro perceptual realities transform, and it always does through crisis, like the one that we are in. Being from a different planet allows me to observe as a somewhat disinterested party, objectivity and compassion. Central to the transformative process is the transmutation of fear. Sitting on the edge, peering into the emptiness is always a bit unnerving, but we always have the option of being in "contact" with "reality", the problem seems to be that we get sleepy and drift completely into the "rational" mind.
Its was fascinating how this come to light in the conversation about Ben Bernanke and the discussion about certainty, 100% certainty. The subtext of course is that Bernanke is not 100% certain about the point of fact about which the discussion was about, but what he does feel 100% certain about the need to control perception. This points to a deeper delusion, or disassociation from "reality", but in a strange way this is progress. The state where we believe that human perception alone creates reality. It is true that perception does create reality, but we error if our understanding is that human beings are the sole creators. We are co-creators.
But in the end we come back to the need to the wisdom of "owning" "precious" metals, something again tied to limited and time relative human perceptual consciousness. How did we do that?
This video was excellent. 30 minutes well invested to hear Grant's whole story.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-04/gold-unsurance-policy-love-it-or-loathe-it