Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

#41

Post by cmiles74 »

wolfgke wrote: post #19
JTbane wrote: post #6

Pretty saddening to read- instead of spending their billions to fight climate change, the rich have the "fuck you get mine" viewpoint. Hell, some of 'em probably made their fortunes on coal and oil. Then again this could just be human nature.

> Pretty saddening to read- instead of spending their billions to fight climate change A pretty good way to fight climate change would be to mostly stop breeding, because fewer people means less energy consumption and thus less climate change.

That's a pretty anti-capitalist attitude: who would buy all of the apps and other consumer durables that would enable companies to keep reaping quarter on quarter growth?

It also presumes that climate change is caused by the number of people on the planet, which is demonstrably untrue. If we're willing to contemplate anti-capitalist (and thus anti-corporate) solutions, why not just fix the problem at it's source and make it illegal to burn fossil fuels, etc.? I think the idea that people need to "stop breeding" is somehow easier is somewhat stomach-turning.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-compa...

Re: How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

#42

Post by caymanjim »

ALittleLight wrote: post #7

Maybe I'm just in a skeptical mood this morning, but I have a hard time believing that a cabal of really rich CEO types are going to turn to a single person to field technology questions ranging from crypto currency preferences to how you manage your guards in a dystopian future. The intro to the article has the author reviewing a wide and diverse number of topics with these business guys for an hour. It made me curi…

They work for hedge funds. They are used to aggregating information from a number of sources to, literally, hedge their bets. You can be sure that he was one of many experts they consulted.

Re: How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

#43

Post by qbrass »

arethuza wrote: post #23
dk1138 wrote: post #18

I'm not wealthy. I've had these same concerns. My wife and I have looked at locations to buy a house in an area that is least likely to be impacted by shifting weather, has farmable land, and is isolated from the coasts to avoid the ~1Bil+ migration once the mideast gets too hot. There are a lot of really smart people on this site. Am I being crazy? I look at the modern political scene and things going the opposite w…

If you build an army why would they remain loyal to a rich person once riches and legal ownership cease to become meaningful concepts?

Because you built the army properly and instilled that loyalty in your troops before needing to test it.

Re: How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

#44

Post by cmiles74 »

tuesdayrain wrote: post #31
wolfgke wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty saddening to read- instead of spending their billions to fight climate change A pretty good way to fight climate change would be to mostly stop breeding, because fewer people means less energy consumption and thus less climate change.

Unfortunately the people who should consider breeding less will never consider this. And anyone on HN who is conscientious enough to actually stop reproducing because of this post will probably cause a net loss for society by doing so.

AFAIK, there's no scientific basis for this argument, it strikes me as tone deaf and possibly racist or classist. While there is some basis on which to argue that genes may influence intelligence, it is certainly not the easiest or most direct way to influence intelligence: education, economic and social stability, general health, etc.

If everyone on HN stopped having children, I am sure the world would get along just fine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-r...

Re: How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

#45

Post by ordinaryradical »

This article misses how "unbridled capitalism" has radically improved the lives of the global poor. While I consider myself left-leaning, but it's amazing how often left-of-center folks get this one wrong. I don't want a corporate dystopia either, but the number of people that have been lifted out of extreme poverty by the globalized economy is staggering.

What I think these articles truly represent is the psychic unease of the Western middle class, which has not been helped by this revolution but has seen their influence and social mobility wane. They realize (rightly, I think) that their societies face an existential risk from extremely concentrated wealth and concoct these narratives as a way of trying to signal that problem.

Re: How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

#46

Post by Sangermaine »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #25
dk1138 wrote: post #18

I'm not wealthy. I've had these same concerns. My wife and I have looked at locations to buy a house in an area that is least likely to be impacted by shifting weather, has farmable land, and is isolated from the coasts to avoid the ~1Bil+ migration once the mideast gets too hot. There are a lot of really smart people on this site. Am I being crazy? I look at the modern political scene and things going the opposite w…

I am skeptical there will be an 'Event', something more like a gradual decline seems more likely (so, more British Empire than Roman). But if there were a complete collapse, I doubt your preparations could be really save you. Or in other words, it isn't the apocalypse if you can survive it.

>I am skeptical there will be an 'Event', something more like a gradual decline seems more likely (so, more British Empire than Roman).

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The (Western) Roman Empire's decline was not caused by "an Event" either, it was a gradual process with many causes over several centuries.

Re: How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

#48

Post by jupp0r »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #45

This article misses how "unbridled capitalism" has radically improved the lives of the global poor. While I consider myself left-leaning, but it's amazing how often left-of-center folks get this one wrong. I don't want a corporate dystopia either, but the number of people that have been lifted out of extreme poverty by the globalized economy is staggering. What I think these articles truly represent is the psychic un…

I agree wholeheartedly. When having this discussion I like to show people this graphic [1].

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Two-ce...

Re: How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

#49

Post by blacksmith_tb »

Sangermaine wrote: post #46
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am skeptical there will be an 'Event', something more like a gradual decline seems more likely (so, more British Empire than Roman). But if there were a complete collapse, I doubt your preparations could be really save you. Or in other words, it isn't the apocalypse if you can survive it.

>I am skeptical there will be an 'Event', something more like a gradual decline seems more likely (so, more British Empire than Roman). I'm not sure what you mean by this. The (Western) Roman Empire's decline was not caused by "an Event" either, it was a gradual process with many causes over several centuries.

Yes, we have an overly simple picture of Visigoths etc. - I meant to suggest a scenario where there isn't chaos after empire, just a sort of reduced set of circumstances.

Re: How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

#50

Post by darwin142 »

cmiles74 wrote: post #44
tuesdayrain wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the people who should consider breeding less will never consider this. And anyone on HN who is conscientious enough to actually stop reproducing because of this post will probably cause a net loss for society by doing so.

AFAIK, there's no scientific basis for this argument, it strikes me as tone deaf and possibly racist or classist. While there is some basis on which to argue that genes may influence intelligence, it is certainly not the easiest or most direct way to influence intelligence: education, economic and social stability, general health, etc. If everyone on HN stopped having children, I am sure the world would get along jus…

From your own source "While maybe half of our intelligence as we currently define and measure it is inherited."

So the author admits that probably half of intelligence is inherited. Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics.

Post reply on HN