I'm being a realist. There will always be classes, and making socialism to be the answer to this question is regtarded, as socialism doesn't even end the classes. It just replaces the elites.
Your type are really good at misconstruing meanings. Refer to the previous sentence for why your argument is hollow. Please go to North Korea to live your socialist dreams.
Are you bombs literal or do you mean figuratively? If literal, then the commoners always take the brunt force of any attack. It's been this way ever since we had civilization. And that's because commoners are the majority of the population. In modern times however the elites have more opportunities and means to not be harmed.
Their lifestyle is still primitive, as their food source is not guaranteed. Again, with the removing classes thing.
You seem to be conflating culture with human nature. Human nature is the integral part of being a human. Humans will do anything to get food when pushed to starvation, even cannibalism. But there used to be tribes who had cannibalistic rituals as part of their culture. The former is human nature, the second is culture. When there's a tribe, there are always tribal leaders. It may be a tribal chieftain or a group of tribal elders. For there to be order, there must be a hierarchy. Thus from this hierarchy can the upper class be born, be it in priesthood or nobility.
this is still bullshit by the way, farming is still super fucking far from guaranteed, just more scaleable. the ridiculous number of chinese famines, from flood and drought and pestilence and simple shit weather, say hi. not to mention with land absorption/concentration, for the majority of peasants even with decent harvests food wasn't guaranteed, so there's that. (grain silos, anyone? national emergency food reserves?)
there will always be classes
you say this, but while the variety of classes has changed and to a degree grown (not so much if you consider the hindu* caste system, or say india under the british raj), the layers, and interpenetration of classes, has changed dramatically, and can continue to change dramatically.
You see that there are trees and say "there will always be trees," oblivious to the changes within each grove, within the mountain and the streams, within the distributions and borders.
You say some trees will always be higher, and fail to notice that the height difference in some groves has gone up in recent decades, only to start sharply dropping again in the most recent years. (not to mention the between group-scatter has in some cases dropped drastically)
So yeah. You are a doomer. Because your framework is literally one dimensional (single bit binary, even). It's not because you say "humans need to breathe," it's because you say "humans have invented nukes, therefore we're guaranteed to die in nuclear hellfire. (because people in the past have never shied away from using the most destructive weapons at their disposal)"
(as an aside, humans need to breathe, but different humans literally don't need to breathe the same amount, now that you mention it. almost like... and hear me out, we can, if not totally eliminate class, at the
very least organize class struggle and society as a whole to reach a minimum-hierarchy end result, which may end up being close enough to 0, or in other words, 'effectively classless'!)
