
Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich - shawndumas
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich?currentPage=all
======
throwaway2016a
This is a duplicate.

The previous discussion is here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865)

------
aub3bhat
I think a lot of rich people underestimate the importance of law and order
which allows them to benfit-from/wield their wealth. A bunch of guns, food
packets or gold bars are unlikely to be of any use in case of a true
catastrophe. The sense of power that wealth brings evaporates quickly, a quick
litmus test is how few wealthy like Maddoff can escape law enforcement, even
when having complete knowledge of their own certain doom in near future.

~~~
arouqa
In the past, they would have founded their own nation with a personal army by
now.

~~~
arethuza
Maintaining the loyalty of those you invite to protect you can be a bit tricky
- according to one source that's how the Anglo Saxons were invited to what
became England to help protect a post Roman society of Britons from attacks
from what is now Scotland (Picts and Dalriadic Scots):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-
Saxon_settlement_of_Brit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-
Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#Gildas.27_De_Excidio_et_Conquestu_Britanniae)

I'd expect the loyalty to a rich employer would last right up to the point
where money becomes worthless - after that exactly what bargaining power would
a rich person have? Up to a certain point in history you achieved and
maintained royal status largely by being a stupendous bad-ass...

~~~
arouqa
There needs to be a sense of shared purpose.

I would think the easiest way would be to start a religious sect, as this
would give you non-monetary legitimacy, akin to a modern day Mandate of Heaven
or Divine Right of Kings.

Or if religion isn't your flavor, then some type of
philosophical/political/national organization. However, I think it works
better with religion because of the afterlife component.

It would also be best to get your followers when they're young. So perhaps
start an educational fund that helps underprivileged families, with one of the
requirements being to study your organization's ideology. Even better would be
to fund multiple orphanages and have them run by members of your sect.

~~~
Apocryphon
The Mormons and Pentecostals will inherit the Earth (or at least LA):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13484925](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13484925)

------
lampzzy
“A group of centi-millionaires and a couple of billionaires were working
through end-of-America scenarios and talking about what they’d do. Most said
they’ll fire up their planes and take their families to Western ranches or
homes in other countries.” One of the guests was skeptical, Dugger said. “He
leaned forward and asked, ‘Are you taking your pilot’s family, too? And what
about the maintenance guys? If revolutionaries are kicking in doors, how many
of the people in your life will you have to take with you?’ The questioning
continued. In the end, most agreed they couldn’t run.”

This is a great point and I think we can even add more to it: Will your pilot
even wait for you? I guess he/she will just put his/her family on your plane
and take off without you!

~~~
0xfeba
Well, it's lower hanging fruit but, if that anecdote is true, it sure sounds
like most of those bourgeoisie don't really have a clue what "end-of-America"
would really entail. That is, the infrastructure of people that normally do
what you pay them to are all going to have different motives.

The people in this story are still counting on quite a bit of society to exist
to ferry them to their fancy secure locations.

Which, to be sure, isn't unrealistic. Just interesting.

~~~
stupidcar
Would society really collapse overnight though? Other than a few scenarios,
such as a sudden, all-out nuclear war, it seems like you'd have some build-up
in advance. There'd be a period when things were getting progressively worse,
but there was enough social inertia to keep things going.

You don't have to look far in history to see examples of this. 3rd Reich
Germany kept functioning well past the point where it should seemingly have
collapsed. Even as the Red Army were shelling Berlin, there were low-level
people continuing their work when the sensible thing to do would surely have
been to get their family and flee.

More recently, the Greek financial crisis put a major strain on institutions
that were weak to begin with, but there was no rioting or major breakdown of
order.

I think modern, Western societies are surprisingly resistant to a breakdown in
order, simply because most people have never experienced anything _other_ than
order. As a result, acting in an anarchic, non-system way simply isn't
something that would occur to them. Even in the face of an existential crisis,
they would "keep calm and carry on", because they can't imagine doing anything
else.

~~~
Apocryphon
Even in the modern day, it's pretty amazing how in the midst of the Syrian
Civil War, life goes on in areas of cities that are actually experiencing
fighting. Not only does regular life continue, but somehow the economy isn't
completely gone.

------
FLUX-YOU
It must be great to be known as a doomsday escape haven like New Zealand. When
the world actually goes tits up, you have a whole bunch of rich people
bringing supplies and survival gear to your country for you to take.

~~~
runjake
The smart looters would identify those spots in NZ now, and loot them when
they're relatively unoccupied and not in alert state.

You see these OPSEC fails in the middle class, too, with the NRA/AR-15/"Molon
Labe" bumper stickers on their cars. Thanks for letting me know you have cool
firearms, ammunition, and god knows what else.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _Thanks for letting me know you have cool firearms, ammunition, and god
> knows what else._

I'm pretty sure many of those card carrying NRA members would _love_ for you
to show up on their doorstep to take possession of their firearms and survival
stash...

~~~
scarecrowbob
* That love pending being home to enact their castle-doctrine fantasies.

It's only anecdotal, but the one thief that I knew loved handguns as they are
small, have real value, and are easy to sell.

The fact that no one is going to go into a house to steal stuff if they think
someone is there to protect it pairs just fine with the fact that often folks
aren't home.

~~~
0xfeba
It's not so anecdotal. The majority (70%) of gun homicides in the US are with
(cheap) handguns[1]:

Total firearm homicides: 8,454

Handgun homicides: 5,782

Rifles, Shotguns, other: ~700

Which, with other stats, goes to show IMO, that "Assault Weapon Bans" are more
grandstanding than anything else.

[1] - [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-
the-u.s.-...](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-
the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-
homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls)

------
bas
It is my opinion that one's time is better spent preventing the collapse of
civilization than preparing for it.

~~~
jessriedel
That's certainly the altruistic choice. But it would be foolishly arrogant for
anyone, even Bill Gates, to think they had more controllable influence on the
fate of the world than they do on their own safety.

~~~
erikpukinskis
The probability of you having significant controlled influence on the fate of
the world is much higher than the probability of total meltdown of society
necessitating a stockpile of guns and bunkers and your preparations having a
significant controlled influence on your experience of it.

So no, focusing on the actual problems is actually less foolish than "doomsday
prepping".

~~~
MaxfordAndSons
Is there a solid actuarial calculation behind either of the probabilistic
claims you're making? Don't get me wrong, I certainly hope you're right and gp
is wrong, but I imagine it's pretty hard to decide either way.

I think Bill Gates is a flawed example, since he is focused on philanthropic
charity, which is unlikely to have a transformative/exponential effect on
societal survivability proportionate to the effect his wealth could have on
his personal survivability. But, if he were more focused on potentially
transformative "moonshot" investments then I think it might be close.

In any event, I don't think you can really assert either way with confidence,
so for any individual it's a more or less blind choice between being
optimistic and altruistic or pessimistic and selfish. Unfortunately capitalist
logic pushes us strongly away from altruism and towards maximizing individual
outcomes. Of course as many have pointed out it's not actually a binary choice
if you're sufficiently wealthy, the survivalism is just a form of hedging, but
it does have a potentially significant opportunity cost.

~~~
erikpukinskis
No, it's just intuitive. But at the scale of my city I can at least make up
plausible stories about things I do strengthening the social fabric.

I have yet to hear even a vaguely plausible story about how total societal
meltdown in California would occur.

------
analogmemory
I find it curious that people prepare for a "Doomsday" scenario. I can fathom
a localized catastrophe like an earthquake, or extreme weather, or even a
horrible bomb attack. But the extreme examples seem more related to our
entertainment consumption than based on a real reality.

I feel like we're more likely to die from old age than anything from space or
zombies. Maybe I just can't do the level of paranoia that some people take on.
It seems an unnecessary waste of your brain space to always be on alert.

or maybe i'll just be the first to die. _shrug_

~~~
jseliger
_But the extreme examples seem more related to our entertainment consumption
than based on a real reality._

It would be interesting to have the same perspective in, say, 1913. In that
period virtually no one expected the catastrophe that would become World War
I, which led into the catastrophe of WWII. Really, really bad things can
happen; because they haven't since 1945 doesn't mean they won't again. The
1913 mindset is part of what I channeled when I wrote this:
[https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-
nucle...](https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-nuclear-
apocalypse/)

~~~
analogmemory
Right but it was still contained to a country or region. People in Mexico we
not affected by World War I/II that required a bunker and ammunition.

~~~
tatterdemalion
Your point is sound but that's an incredibly bad example. Mexico was already
embroiled in the Mexican Revolution by the time WWI started.

> "This armed conflict is often categorized as the most important
> sociopolitical event in Mexico and one of the greatest upheavals of the 20th
> century."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution)

------
lngnmn
Stopped reading after "stocking bitcoin and cryptocurrencies". For the love of
god, who will maintain the internet access and enough peers for a transaction
to be made? Golden coins sounds better, but a hundred thousand liters of good
old diesel and high octane petrol is even better.)

~~~
imglorp
Fuel is great to trade. So is ammo and horses. The latter are especially
versatile because they can often feed themselves, make more horses, provide
truly all terrain transport after the fuel turns to varnish, and you can even
eat them if needed.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Yeah, it depends on how far down the collapse goes.

Diesel is good if collapse doesn't go all the way down. If it does, plain old
horses are better.

------
UweSchmidt
Realistically, society can make a comeback from pretty much any conceivable
catastrophy. Similarly to the situation in communist countries, where
important things were scarce and money was worthless, surviving would depend
on cooperation and mutual trust, not on defending your bunker and playing out
a Mad Max movie.

While self-defense has its place I wonder which attitude would prevail.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _society can make a comeback from pretty much any conceivable catastrophy_

I agree. Where disaster preparation matters is in that period between
"catastrophe" and "recovery". How long before things are normal again? Is that
period a week? A month? A year? How bad will it get in between? That's what
you need to survive.

~~~
UweSchmidt
"Things get normal again" only if people come out of their bunkers and put
away the gun and pick up a shovel and a hammer instead. Build huts, clear the
debris and plant seeds, not take the remaining fuel for the helicopter.

If this concept is not clear anymore after too many seasons of Walking Dead
then I don't know.

------
jbyers
Discussed two days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865)

~~~
throwaway2016a
I'll probably get down voted for asking but why post this yourself rather than
up-vote me when I posted the exact same link 40 minutes earlier?

~~~
jbyers
Sorry, I scanned the thread but missed your link.

------
jaypaulynice
Sorry, but if we are to learn from history, there is no hiding place in the
world. Barricading yourself in a bunker would be like building your own
prison. How long could anyone really survive before emerging back? And if the
super rich did survive, how long before they destroy themselves again? You
would have an accelerated log(N) kind of self-destruction. First year of
survival = 1%, 2nd time = 1% of 1% and so on...

------
f-
The last time this story made rounds on HN, quite a few readers were ripping
into the people described in the article, and it sure feels good to do so,
but... I don't know about you, but if I had more money than I conceivably ever
needed, I sure would contemplate having a helicopter on standby and a luxury
compound in some scenic part of the world. You know, just for fun, just in
case.

In fact, I suspect that once you're in that particular wealth bracket, it's no
longer about people who have contingency plans versus the ones who don't. I'm
pretty sure that almost every Fortune 100 CEO has private security parked in
front of their house and a plan to get out quickly something bad were to
happen. There are many security consulting companies that cater exclusively to
this segment - and they are doing very well. It's just that most of the CEOs
won't talk about it to The New Yorker - partly because of opsec concerns, but
partly because such revelations would make it even easier for us to vilify
them.

And before we assume that their plans are lopsided and irrational, I think
it's worth keeping in mind that the article is written to be entertaining. The
author wants to tell us about the stuff that is out of ordinary and out of
reach of mere mortals. That doesn't mean that the people featured in the
article don't also have a fire extinguisher and some tarp and nails in their
garage. Heck, perhaps 95% of their prepping goes toward more pedestrian risks?
Perhaps they practice defensive driving and situational awareness? Perhaps
they go camping or hiking every other week? Perhaps they take EMT courses and
participate in community preparedness drills? Who knows... that stuff is
boring. ICBM silos and helicopters are fun.

We should also remember that unlike many many of the stars of "Doomsday
Preppers" who seemed inexplicably frightened by the prospect of social unrest
in the US, the ultra-rich may actually have something to worry about. When
angry masses take it to the streets, it's not the cookie-cutter, mixed income,
urban sprawl neighborhoods that are going to be set ablaze. We had quite a few
big revolutions, and it's usually the heads of the variously defined
aristocracy that roll. It's not ancient history, too.

Lastly... one viewpoint presented in the article is that it's somehow immoral
for the CEOs to worry about self-preservation instead of trying to give back
to the community. I think that's a non-sequitur - is it also immoral for them
to buy a fire extinguisher or install sprinklers before making the world a
better place? - but more importantly, the two goals are not mutually
exclusive.

PS. Disclaimer - I'm the author of
[http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/](http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/), so I
might be not entirely impartial.

~~~
pjc50
> ultra-rich may actually have something to worry about

True, especially in less-developed or stable countries where kidnap gangs are
a real problem.

> it's not the cookie-cutter, mixed income, urban sprawl neighborhoods that
> are going to be set ablaze

It tends to be the dense, liminal, downtown areas that are set ablaze. Being
well off certainly does help you get away from the fires.

But I think a lot of people dislike preppers because of the implication that
this effort is a substitute for being involved in preventing the disaster in
the first place - or, on the nuttier fringe, seemingly trying to accelerate
it. _Especially_ political involvement.

Remember, for many people having insecure accomodation, food supply, and
access to medical care is everyday life.

(your advice page seems to be from the sensible wing of "preparedness",
assigning sensible probabilities to risks)

~~~
zeveb
> But I think a lot of people dislike preppers because of the implication that
> this effort is a substitute for being involved in preventing the disaster in
> the first place

I had _literally_ never heard of this criticism until I read this article and
the ensuing discussion.

It seems a little odd, too, like saying, 'why hedge the risk of an unfriendly
regime when you can vote?' Even Bill Gates or Carlos Slim can't ensure that a
disaster won't happen to him or his family; while I'm sure that they take
steps to prevent them, I'm equally sure that they also have plans in place for
how to respond to unprevented disasters.

------
mccoyspace
It's informative to look at actual examples of SHTF scenarios, war zones for
example. In Afghanistan, Chechnya, Syria and so on, groups band together for
survival. As far as I can tell it isn't particularly about the fortified
redoubt. And armed militias seem to be the form that the groups take. I don't
think it is the wealthy business executives that rise to head those militias.
So maybe these rich peppers will just provide targets to more ruthless and
bigger bands of raiders.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't think it is the wealthy business executives that rise to head those
> militias.

Wealthy capitalists and other top elites most usually use their resources to
protect themselves and relocate before, during, or shortly after the collapse,
rather than hanging around to lead militia groups for any extended period
after the collapse.

But that still takes resources of the right kind at the ready.

(Though it's often the wealthier of those remaining behind -- usually middle
to upper-middle class -- that end up leading groups.)

------
michaelsbradley
Uninformed by sound teleology, and unguided by divine revelation regarding The
Last Things, it would seem many women and men feel driven to construct their
own eschatology ~ largely shaped by fear and other basic instincts ~ which is
then coupled to rational actions based on that foreseen/considered-probable
ending.

~~~
MaxfordAndSons
Just to clarify, you're implying that the teleologically sound course of
action is to simply await the sounding of the trumpets and then get on your
knees, clasp your hands and close your eyes, right?

~~~
michaelsbradley
I'm suggesting that having–constructing a vision of "the end of all things"
(or "practically the end..."), and then living–preparing according to that
vision, seems to be something human persons are wont to do, whether they are
religious or areligious.

In the Christian vision, the important thing is to prepare by living a life in
correspondence with the double-precept of charity, "love God, love your
neighbor" ~ cf. Matthew 22:35-40, Matthew 25:31-46 and the preceding text, to
the beginning of chapter 24; also Romans 2:1-11. Jesus describes "the end" in
a manner that is quite frightening (earthquakes, wars, famines, lots of
suffering), but it's clear that those who are well-prepared will be able to
rejoice when all is said and done.

~~~
FabHK
Those that are well prepared, or those that belong to a particular
religion/denomination?

~~~
michaelsbradley
That's a big topic of discussion, probably best hashed out elsewhere, and I
won't pretend to be able to simplify it.

But, for a start, take a look at the verses from the Christian Bible
referenced above.

Mat 22:35-40 ::
[https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/mat/22/35/](https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/mat/22/35/)

Mat 25:31-46 ::
[https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/mat/25/31/](https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/mat/25/31/)

Mat 24:1-51 ::
[https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/mat/24/1/](https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/mat/24/1/)

Mat 25:1-30 ::
[https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/mat/25/1/](https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/mat/25/1/)

Rom 2:1-11 ::
[https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/rom/2/1/](https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/rom/2/1/)

------
DanBC
One of my favourite Youtube channels at the moment is a guy who opens, and
attempts to eat, very old ration packs. And he recently did a review of a new
range of long shelf life camping meals.

I didn't really know who the target audience for those meals was, but this
article explains it nicely.

I guess there's a market for exclusive, private, lessons about repair and
maintenance of generators and air filters and etc.

Steve1989 MRE Info:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2I6Et1JkidnnbWgJFiMeHA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2I6Et1JkidnnbWgJFiMeHA)

The review:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZjCiEjZaw0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZjCiEjZaw0)

------
Frondo
You know what I wonder?

Who _wants_ to keep on living, in a sheltered compound, for any length of
time, if the world around them has collapsed?

Especially if your lifestyle up to then consisted of jet-setting to different
locales, eating all kindsa fancy food, listening to DJ sets or seeing Broadway
shows.

So you've got your gilded, gunned-all-to-heck compound, but there's no
Internet, no culture being produced for you to consume or take part in,
nothing left of the day-to-day human experience. Your life is now canned food
and worrying about the zombie hordes knocking on your door.

What, at the end of the day, is the point of living?

------
grondilu
I'm a bit surprised not to find any occurrence of "SpaceX", "mars" or "Musk"
in this discussion page.

Elon Musk stated many times that he wants to colonize mars in order to prevent
a collapse of human civilization. I've always found this idea ludicrous as in
my opinion for this purpose it makes much more sense to prepare for the
meltdown on Earth, and as far as I understand that's precisely what
survivalists do, even if their motives are probably much more selfish than
Musk's.

------
dynofuz
it seems that living in an apartment would be safer than a stand alone house.
at least in the apartment even if you dont know your neighbors there may be
some sense of community -- if we protect the apartment then we all have some
safety. also surface area wise, an apartment has many more people to defend
than a standalone house. personally if i were going to route of the people in
the article, id get a boat and live on the coast.

~~~
gnarbarian
Smaller towns often have a far more fierce sense of community. Most of the
time people are drawn to them out of shared values and beliefs.

Here in Alaska the small towns fall into a few categories: native villages,
churchy types, and fishing towns. The native villages and churchy communities
are extremely close knit and wary of outsiders. Nearly everyone is armed to
the teeth up here too.

While the logistics of defending a single large apartment building might seem
beneficial over a few houses in the middle of nowhere, the big difference is
the apartment building is in the middle of the city where all the unprepared
people are. In a huge crisis it would be difficult to justify the expense of
gas to reach the remote village for a raid. (especially those off the road
system).

Also, if you live in the woods you have easier access to wild game with less
competition.

------
rboyd
Ha! Laugh at fools.

Take stock. Pizza box and half a bottle of ketchup in the fridge.

Close tab.

Trust that Silicon Valley will come together and science its way out of
disaster scenario.

------
tomc1985
Rich old men hugging their toys. It's a shame they're given any press time at
all.

------
anabis
> keep a set of bags packed for themselves and their four-year-old daughter

I thought this was common sense. You need to survive a maximum of 3 days by
yourself after a disaster.

------
tcfunk
Off-Topic: Is that photo real? It looks computer-generated to me.

------
philippnagel
I bet this will be in Silicon Valley (the TV show).

~~~
FabHK
Oh, that'll be fun, can't wait :-)

------
dsl
Does anyone have a point of contact for joining this group? My email is in my
profile.

~~~
jonathankoren
If you have to ask you're not invited. You're going to the high density
cannibal feed lot with rest of us.

------
goombastic
The first big disruption of civilization will be fuelled on facebook. Look at
what happened in the middle east and is happening else where. Starts out slow
and happy and descends into violence and chaos which in large part will be
started by police themselves.

~~~
jaypaulynice
I see it the other way around. I think Facebook and Twitter's goals are to
disrupt that kind of chaos with their "trending" section. While these
platforms can be used to mobilize, they can pinpoint exact location of unrest
and try to prevent that kind of stuff from happening.

