
How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse - Kemet
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularity
======
ALittleLight
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?

~~~
dmode
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.

------
dk1138
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?

~~~
blacksmith_tb
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.

~~~
arethuza
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

~~~
sp332
-

~~~
DoreenMichele
I assume they mean _18_ 92\. But, I dunno, maybe time travel is a thing, even
at the global level. ;)

------
olefoo
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.

~~~
GW150914
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.

~~~
olefoo
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.

------
JTbane
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.

~~~
wolfgke
> 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.

~~~
tuesdayrain
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.

~~~
cmiles74
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...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-
research-has-not-established-that-you-inherited-your-intelligence-from-your-
mother/#71f3dcf76502)

~~~
darwin142
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.

~~~
cmiles74
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.

~~~
darwin142
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?

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

~~~
darwin142
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.

------
OliverJones
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.

------
Steltek
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.

~~~
na85
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".

~~~
GW150914
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.

~~~
na85
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.

~~~
GW150914
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.

------
dsabanin
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.

~~~
igolden
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."

------
ggg9990
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)

------
nohat
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.

~~~
cmiles74
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".

~~~
mariushn
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.

~~~
cmiles74
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.

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

~~~
394549
> 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.

------
jorblumesea
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.

------
sandworm101
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.

------
carapace
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_3](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.

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

~~~
ForHackernews
Don't think about The Event!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X888i7hzvP0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X888i7hzvP0)

------
sp332
Lots of discussion from when this was first posted on Medium.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17468558](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17468558)

------
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.

~~~
darwin142
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?

~~~
AJRF
get a grip, of course its not.

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

