How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by darwin142 » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 5:50 PM UTC

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…

So we have improved the lives of some and toxified our planet in the process, potentially making it completely unlivable. Do you actually think that is a good deal?

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

#52

Post by ForRealsies » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

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.

Adam's law of Slow-moving diasters:

'Whenever humanity can see a slow-moving disaster coming, we find a way to avoid it.'

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

#53

Post by GW150914 » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

olefoo wrote: post #38

The thing is; there won't be a "the Event" there will only be a long emergency and it's already in progress. Systems won't fail all at once and new temporary systems will be built as things change. But if these fools think that that they will be able to keep their power and influence by doing the same things that made them wealthy they will be an amusing and schadenfreude inducing sideshow that most people will barel…

The funny thing is really that they’ll hoard resources and power, but all of their power will mean nothing. A warlord isn’t some clever, greedy dick, it’s the guy who murders that dick and takes over his hoard. If you really want to prepare for an apocalypse, be the head of one of these idiots’ private armies. When it falls apart, you casually blow his brains out and take over.

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

#54

Post by GW150914 » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

na85 wrote: post #16

Steltek wrote: post #13

It's intriguing to see rich people feeling just as out of control as the rest of the planet's population. I wonder what that really says about the current state of society? It seems like wealth inequality really benefits no one at all.

Well, I know that I don't have the funds to preemptively build a giant shelter, wall off some fertile land, and then store some seeds in the shelter so that I can grow food after society collapses. I can't afford to buy a giant container ship and ride out the apocalypse offshore by farming on the deck, away from the angry mobs. But I bet Thiel or Zuck could afford that. Seems to me that wealth is a definite means to…

A giant container ship with food is just pirate bait. A walled off region full of food is raider bait. Hoarding resources in the face of desperate people in the absence of law and order is suicide, but these guys can’t conceive of a future in which they don’t command some form of control and respect so they plan this way.

The only feasible way to survive long term is either to form a large, well armed group of raiders, or a larger, better armed community full of skilled people who have each others’ backs, probably intermarried and interbred; clans and tribes in other words.

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

#55

Post by cmiles74 » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:44 PM UTC

darwin142 wrote: post #50

cmiles74 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It sounds like you are arguing that manipulating genetics is an easier way to encourage intelligence then education and environment. Is that really what you are trying to say?

Because that sounds ridiculous to me.

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

#56

Post by olefoo » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

GW150914 wrote: post #53

olefoo wrote: post #38

The thing is; there won't be a "the Event" there will only be a long emergency and it's already in progress. Systems won't fail all at once and new temporary systems will be built as things change. But if these fools think that that they will be able to keep their power and influence by doing the same things that made them wealthy they will be an amusing and schadenfreude inducing sideshow that most people will barel…

The funny thing is really that they’ll hoard resources and power, but all of their power will mean nothing. A warlord isn’t some clever, greedy dick, it’s the guy who murders that dick and takes over his hoard. If you really want to prepare for an apocalypse, be the head of one of these idiots’ private armies. When it falls apart, you casually blow his brains out and take over.

Keeping a private army fed, equipped and healthy is a hard problem; especially if you cannot rely on the large scale infrastructure systems that provide all of the advanced technology, effective medical care and civil order we take for granted.

What you are describing is a fantasy that would collapse with the first cholera outbreak.

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

#57

Post by mariushn » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 7:09 PM UTC

cmiles74 wrote: post #37

nohat wrote: post #28

What percentage of your networth is considered socially acceptable to spend on preparing for disasters? For a billionaire buying a new zealand vacation home is like most of us spending a couple hundred bucks on, eg a water filter, first aid kit, and non perishable food, standard preparations that FEMA recommends.

I think this is a big part of the problem. That the 1% has become so insanely wealthy that they believe it is less expensive to prepare for the end of the world rather than take on some the cost of preventing it. Their belief that it would be better to start over with a small population (the 1% themselves, obvs) then to work to improve the world as it currently stands. And, of course, the naive belief that they can m…

Playing devil's advocate: Why wouldn't the 1% plan work?

They would settle in NZ & AU, with a marine army defending against the rest of the world, which would be busy anyway fighting for survival against one another and climate. Use latest tech to keeps these lands habitable and self-sustaining. Maybe even expand to a space station in 50 years.

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

#58

Post by na85 » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 7:15 PM UTC

GW150914 wrote: post #54

na85 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I know that I don't have the funds to preemptively build a giant shelter, wall off some fertile land, and then store some seeds in the shelter so that I can grow food after society collapses. I can't afford to buy a giant container ship and ride out the apocalypse offshore by farming on the deck, away from the angry mobs. But I bet Thiel or Zuck could afford that. Seems to me that wealth is a definite means to…

A giant container ship with food is just pirate bait. A walled off region full of food is raider bait. Hoarding resources in the face of desperate people in the absence of law and order is suicide, but these guys can’t conceive of a future in which they don’t command some form of control and respect so they plan this way. The only feasible way to survive long term is either to form a large, well armed group of raider…

You might be right but I think that's entirely beside and irrelevant to my point, which is that with money, you have a greater capacity to effect change of any sort than without. Including in terms of prepping for the apocalypse.

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

#59

Post by cmiles74 » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 7:19 PM UTC

mariushn wrote: post #57

cmiles74 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a big part of the problem. That the 1% has become so insanely wealthy that they believe it is less expensive to prepare for the end of the world rather than take on some the cost of preventing it. Their belief that it would be better to start over with a small population (the 1% themselves, obvs) then to work to improve the world as it currently stands. And, of course, the naive belief that they can m…

Playing devil's advocate: Why wouldn't the 1% plan work? They would settle in NZ & AU, with a marine army defending against the rest of the world, which would be busy anyway fighting for survival against one another and climate. Use latest tech to keeps these lands habitable and self-sustaining. Maybe even expand to a space station in 50 years.

I think it's just too brittle.

If we look for examples of similar bunkers, there are a couple military sites but nothing (AFAIK) that's been inhabited long term. Their concerns about keeping the guards on their side seems valid, that could turn out to be intractable. If the whole world does crumble, they'll have to be able to build everything from raw materials, including sourcing all of those raw materials. And so on and so forth.

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

#60

Post by darwin142 » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

cmiles74 wrote: post #55

darwin142 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It sounds like you are arguing that manipulating genetics is an easier way to encourage intelligence then education and environment. Is that really what you are trying to say? Because that sounds ridiculous to me.

Really? Care to point out which part of "Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics" implies that I think manipulating genes is easier than changing education or environment?