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

61–70 of 77 posts

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

#61

Post by mariushn »

cmiles74 wrote: post #59
mariushn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

We're talking about 2 small continents: entire AU & NZ, not bunkers. They can definitely be self-sustaining.

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

#62

Post by Yetanfou »

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?

They won't if you don't make it worth their while by sharing of your resources. There's many an apocalyptic novel which contains just that scenario where some rich person created himself a hideout stuffed with tech and food and weapons (and more weapons, and even more of them - the genre might as well be called 'gun porn') only to be denied access (or killed) by his own people.

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

#63

Post by 394549 »

qbrass wrote: post #43
arethuza wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

That presumes a lot more focus and attention than I'd assume a hedge fund billionaire would be able to devote to a low-probability bet. Also, unless your name is Erik Prince, you probably don't even have the skills. When the SHTF, your head of security (who put in the time to earn the loyalty of the troops) is going to be king.

Honestly, I think the best survival strategy for a billionaire in a post apocalyptic world is to stockpile supplies to be explicitly given as gifts to whatever community forms near your hideout. It's foolish for the ex-CEO to try to be king of a new world where he has few valuable skills, but he may be able to survive by ingratiating himself with the the nearby communities.

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

#64

Post by 394549 »

mariushn wrote: post #61
cmiles74 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

We're talking about 2 small continents: entire AU & NZ, not bunkers. They can definitely be self-sustaining.

> We're talking about 2 small continents: entire AU & NZ, not bunkers. They can definitely be self-sustaining.

Why would the existing populations of AU & NZ consent to becoming the subjects of some billionaire aristocracy? We're talking about millions of people formed into actual nation states with sizable and competent militaries. Not even the combined private security forces of 100 billionaires and 1,000 millionaires could take control and dominate something that large. Elon Musk isn't going to be able to wow them into submission with minisubs and beads.

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

#65

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

kanox wrote: post #9
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.

> instead of spending their billions to fight climate change Does Tesla count or are we still calling Elon a scammer and fraud because he's not producing electric cars fast enough?

I think the two things we should be doing are 1. Working on getting off the planet and 2. Working to save the planet. Elon is working on both. I'm a believer.

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

#66

Post by kgin »

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…

This story is a great conversation starter that will spark a lot of great discussion. But it's so perfect, I have a hard time believing it actually happened the way it's told.

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

#68

Post by GW150914 »

na85 wrote: post #58
GW150914 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it irrelevant that the day after the apocalypse, when money is meaningless and law and order are gone, all of that preparation is just free for the taking by someone stronger? What does a CEO have to offer in that scenario? Leadership? Lol. No. Unless their prepping isn’t all about relying on people they pay to do things for them, they’re screwed.

Before an apocalypse they have a lot of power, but only as long as they’re still just trying to accrue wealth. Within the system of scrabbling formevery nickel and dime, they have power, but outside of that? For all of his massive wealth and philanthropy, Bill Gates for example, is hardly saving the world.

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

#69

Post by manicdee »

darwin142 wrote: post #60
cmiles74 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The part where you claim that the easiest part to manipulate is the most important contributor to intelligence.

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

#70

Post by manicdee »

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.

Why would AU and NZ be a place to go? Australia is in the middle of a fascist meltdown. The sensible people will be leaving here for somewhere stable like China.
Post reply on HN