Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickjj | Hacker News Reader

> For these people who want to save themselves, what on earth do they expect to find after 'the event'? How will they fuel their planes, spend their money, how will they have a future?

I'm not part of the club or have anything prepped but I'm guessing being alive is more than enough of a reason.

Personally if it came down to having a 100% chance of death on the spot or a 100% chance of surviving but then life being drastically different where money is valueless I'd choose survival in that world every time. Even if it meant having a high chance of suffering 40-50 years in the future from radiation exposure.

View on HN

Consciousness/existence is the only valuable thing, in the face of losing it.

I can't believe all the comments are talking about "who will run their farm" and "what will they do with no jet fuel."

Everyone is so used to insulting wealthy people, they're grasping at straws here.

This seems so massively self-centered to me. There is plenty of value to be found in the idea of sacrificing oneself for others or a greater cause.

If you think your death is the worst thing that could happen to you, you're not thinking big enough.

And what do you perceive the cause would be here, or that any sacrifice was achieve?

When World War 1 was happening, it was being actively deemed "The War To End All Wars." What could possibly be more noble? Of course in the end it not only failed to end war but set directly the stage for far deadlier conflicts shortly to come. It's all just so often utterly bizarre when you look at the big picture. A Bosnian Serb assassinates an Austro-Hungarian royal, and the next thing you know Brits and Germans are killing each other over it? Commoners nobly dying for noble's ignoble causes.

And now, over a 100 years later, the same underlying issues that led to the initial assassination still exist.

I think giving your life for something else is the only altruistic act.

But in general, I think there are almost zero situations where my death is worth more to others than my continued life. I don't live in a movie plot.

I, for one, will set about hunting the rich in their little bunkers for loot and sport.

It always felt to me that this post nuclear war sounds like choosing to be tortured until you die vs just dying on the spot.

We are talking about full on nuclear annihilation.

Its not 40-50 years of suffering, it sounds like generations of suffering, early struggles not to starve to death (if you are not a remote farmer or remote isolated community with farmers - tough luck scavenging vs hordes of other survivors).

Soon if you managed to be part of community that managed so far, you will be faced with other communities. Fighting over resources or farmland, resources are scares human lives are not. Eventually everything will fall under tyrannical local warlords, who will be constantly fighting too.

Daily fighting for resources, no medications or people who can heal you. Stupid cuts can become lethal, huge number of birthing deaths as c-section is quite common (google says 31.8%) so on and on

The lone survivor rebuilding nation is a romantic view, but I think realistically staying alive will be a grim premise that I'd rather skip.

Would you still be ok going through above scenario?

The scenario you paint could easily describe most of human history and even describes some places in the world today.

That you are here to write this suggests that a long chain of people found something worth living for even in such environments.

Well yes and no, I think in my scenario people would fall to strange quasi bronze age era with modern equipment but no means to produce anything but basic primitive tools (only some would have capabilities/knowledge to produce tech)

So first gen survivors would remember the good times.

There is a difference between 'you were born and live your whole live in a 13th century hovel' vs 'you were eating pizza a year ago watchin Netflix and now you live in 13th century hovel for the rest of your life'.

I have never done heroin but I have a friend that did and stopped. Our experiences are vastly different, even though we are both not on heroin.

> Would you still be ok going through above scenario?

Yep 100%, I would take uncertain life vs certain death in the above scenario. If you truly believe this is your one shot at life then giving that up isn't an option.

I would without a second thought chose death, provided that my whole family does as well (i.e. nobody is left behind).

Death is just this: death. A blank and it is over.

This compared to barely survive in a world of desolation without any hope of improvement, the choice is crystal clear to me.

If for some reason I survived I wild like to make sure I have quick and painless means to commit suicide.

And those of us that go on, salute you! For reducing the load on necessary resources, and clearing the board for people ready to work for a future.

My choice? Ground zero, if you please.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com