How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse | Hacker News Reader

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

theguardian.com

64 pointsKemet73 comments

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 curious what his qualifications were. His website mentioned that he's a "Professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics at CUNY/Queens". Again, not the first person I'd turn to if I wanted to talk technology.

I just have a hard time believing the story in the beginning. The author thought he'd be giving a presentation to an audience. Instead, he's in an hour long counseling session with some executives. Why would they do it that way? Why wouldn't you tell the expert what you're doing in advance and the topics you're interested in so he'd have time to prepare? Why not talk to individual domain experts in subjects you're curious about?

Yeah, that's the first thing I thought. Note that their questions were also not limited to technology, but veered into philosophical questions like "how do I maintain authority". If the author is an expert in that many fields, probably deserves his speaking fees.

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.

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.

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 way of improvement. I look at corporate endeavors to privatize vital commodities (looking at you, Nestle and water). We are seeing each year get worse and worse from a climate perspective, and while there are a lot of brilliant scientists and engineers working through solutions, a lot of eager youth to fix the sins of their elders—is it too late? Or at the very least, isn't it a valid to think that we may be too late and plan accordingly?

For the mega-rich, how is the process different from any other time in history? Isn't the answer to build an army?

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.

The British Empire was at its peak in 1922 and was largely gone by the 1960s - I think that is actually rather faster than the decline of the Roman Empire!

edit: 1992 to 1922

I think the point is that people in the UK are mostly happy, healthy and better off in many ways than when there was an actual empire.

That's not true of a lot of places when things 'go south'.

I assume they mean 1892. But, I dunno, maybe time travel is a thing, even at the global level. ;)

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.

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.

It might be possible, but is it a future you want to live in? How do you want to spend your time, effort and money, fighting it or preparing for it?

I don't think there is a right answer to this.

Given enough time, it's certainly possible if not even probable. But whether that is within 20 years or 200 years is likely impossible to predict.

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 barely notice because they're too busy figuring out how to beat the heat.

The way to survive the transitions we are facing now is not to use today's wealth and influence to make yourself a warlord of a post-apocalyptic desert. It's to build cooperative societies that can make deserts bloom in difficult places and provide shelter from the storms to come. You cannot expect to maintain effective technologically adept societies by fear and coercion. You must be able to offer hope and inspiration if you want assistance of any level of cognitive complexity.

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.

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?

"not producing electric cars fast enough" Oh, you mean literally lying about how many cars he is producing, fabricating timelines when he knows they are 100% impossible, libel-ing people, lying about self driving and giving a dangerous name (autopilot) to his driver assist, going on insane witchunts, and taking all the credit for other peoples work (e.g. martin eberhard)? All while producing crap tons of scrap and rework in his factory that literally invalidates the thesis that the cars are somehow environmentally friendly? Cars that are great at accelerating and suck at stopping, and thus have a much higher fatality rate than other luxury vehicles (on par with sports cars)? Yep pretty sure we're still calling elon a scammer and a fraud.

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.

> 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...

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?

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

Considering I never even used the word manipulate your attempt at putting words in my mouth is even more see through than the previous reply's.

Yes, that's the quote that led me to my conclusion. ;-)

Which part? You seem to be having a massive failure of reading comprehension and I would love to help improve your ability to read.

We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> fewer people means less energy consumption

Is that how markets work?

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...

It's kinda fun to have backup plan upon backup plan. I've definitely gone down this rabbit hole with online account security; was considering buying a safe to store a backup yubikey & some paper passwords, but then I had to consider how I might store the safe combo if I forgot it, and so on - your contingency planning creates more surface area from which additional problems grow.

I suspect that many of them are putting resources into both fighting it and escaping it. At least that's what I would do.

Check out Neal Stephenson's fine novel SEVENEVES for a vision of what happens at The Event.

Yeah, and the final few minutes of Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove.

These plutocrats are indulging themselves in a fantasy about their inherent superiority.

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.

It looks like people who have power are so used to shirking responsibility that when an actual crisis comes up they don't even seriously consider that they might be able to affect the outcome.

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 surviving "the Event".

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.

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.

Did you get a chance to read the Atlantic's "The Birth of a New American Aristocracy?" That's one of the paradoxes of inequality: as inequality increases, the value of your money decreases. It also increases the anxiety of the rich as the fall from their lofty perch is more dramatic.

I think it also says a lot about the human condition — wealth and power just bring a new set of worries and psychological conundrums, especially if you’re already inclined to want to be in control of your life.

Could be also that it says something about mental illness (in particular: anxiety and paranoia) being present on all the rungs of society.

Thanks you for resuming our injust era.

I feel like this rich people paranoia can be summed up as an old adage: the more you have, the more you are afraid to lose it.

Right. "No one would help me protect my bunker out of respect, trust. Let's put electric collars on all the guards and horde the food source."

I’ve read so many stories about these plans and they all have the same flaw... nothing stops an ex-Navy SEAL from taking all of this stuff from them when money is worth nothing (as it will be in an apocalypse)

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 make plans robust enough they might somehow survive "The Event".

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.

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.

Sorry, I was really fixated on the bunker idea.

I agree that setting up their own little city out in AU or NZ might be a better idea than the bunker. Maybe they can even take over a large section of the land mass.

In my opinion, it'll still be tough to fabricate all of the things that modern society depends on today. Maybe they can do it if they really put their minds to it, but I would be surprised.

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.

What world will you inherit, provided you survive? Short term thinking is exactly the problem. We are all in this together, and your millions in stocks and etfs are worth nothing if the entire world goes to shit.

Sadly Gates is the outlier, not the norm, when it comes to how you use wealth.

Fools and thier money. If they want to spend thier millions preping for the zombie outbreak, so be it. Id rather them hire people to build bunkers than sink those dollars into bitcoin futures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_3

> Purporting to be an investigation into the UK's contemporary "brain drain", Alternative 3 uncovered a plan to make the Moon and Mars habitable in the event of climate change and a terminal environmental catastrophe on Earth.[1]

> The programme was originally meant to be broadcast on April Fools' Day, 1977.

Def going to start referring to the apocalypse as "The Event" from now on.

Don't think about The Event! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X888i7hzvP0

Lots of discussion from when this was first posted on Medium. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17468558

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.

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...

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?

get a grip, of course its not.

Bezos' 10000 year clock would be a good place to hide a hidey hole like these guys are planning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com