
Survival of the Richest (2018) - algui91
https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1
======
paganel
Iain Duncan Smith, former Tory secretary for Work and Pensions in the UK, has
just suggested that the retirement age should be increased to 75. Problem is
that in places like Glasgow men have a life expectancy of 73, so the majority
of them are expected to work till they die. If this isn't class warfare and
"survival of the richest" I don't what else is.

~~~
avip
When pension funds are not actuarily balanced, there are 3 options: raise the
retirement age, reduce monthly payments, or borrow from future generations.

It seems most countries go with the obviously wrong, yet politically plausible
option 3.

~~~
pjc50
The other two are also "obviously wrong", since people paid into the
retirement scheme on the assumption of receiving particular benefits at
particular times.

~~~
Mirioron
There's just not much you can do about it. You could argue that these programs
shouldn't have been implemented in the first place, because they weren't going
to be sustainable, but those decisions were already made. Somebody's going to
get the short end of the stick here.

~~~
pjc50
Remember that "sustainability" unavoidably depends on long term predictions of
the future looking somewhat like the past.

The value of my pension depends on economic growth between now and 2050.
Hopefully we can continue average 7% equities growth as in the past, but
everything from climate change to Brexit will have unpredictable effects on
how that turns out.

------
seren
> The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food
> supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of
> some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as
> guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.

From the 1950s to today, it means that in mere 60 years, the optimistic view
on the future has done a full U turn, and now everyone is believing we are
headed for the worst (maybe with good reasons). Still this is such a radical
change, in such a short time frame.

~~~
pluma
The thing is that the only people who can do anything about it are the people
who are the most unwilling to do so because it would jeopardize their wealth.

There are more than 2000 billionaires in the world right now. If only the
richest elite of those got together tomorrow and decided to put an end to
industrial pollution, they could do it.

However climate change is a direct consequence of capitalism. Halting
pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down, entire
categories of products could no longer be produced, masses would become
unemployed. The global financial system would tank. Surviving this change
would require abandoning capitalism.

So a naive hope might be that some of the billionaire "preppers" are planning
for exactly this scenario and intent on causing it once they've set up their
little luxury bunkers to ensure their "quality of life" once their money
becomes worthless.

A less optimistic and more realistic view would be that they know capitalism
is unsustainable but want to make sure they still get the most out of it and
ensure their comfort outlasts the civilisation they're helping destroy, i.e.
"screw you, I got mine".

~~~
growlist
> However climate change is a direct consequence of capitalism. Halting
> pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down,
> entire categories of products could no longer be produced, masses would
> become unemployed. The global financial system would tank. Surviving this
> change would require abandoning capitalism.

I believe this also. But the consequences are even more profound than they
might appear: it's not just the pointless excesses of capitalism we would
likely have to do without (e.g. new car on finance every 3 years, food flown
halfway around the world for processing then back again, 1 zillion brands of
shampoo in the supermarket) - but also many of the things we no longer view as
luxuries i.e. modern housing, healthcare and medicine, choice over what we eat
etc.

~~~
pluma
I didn't say it would be comfortable. But most "climate-friendly" policies
already affect consumers (and often much more so than they affect industry,
making them entirely pointless).

Keep in mind capitalism not only means producing excess junk. It also means
producing unnecessary excess junk: overproduction and shredding/landfilling
the surplus because selling it would harm the desired price point or create
unwanted market dynamics (i.e. people waiting to buy at a discount later).

"Modern housing" often means tearing down existing McMansions in order to
build new ones on top of them. "Choice over what we eat" often means importing
produce that would be available locally but is currently out of season, or
producing ready-to-eat meals only to throw them out at the end of the day,
always stocking hundreds of an item in dozens of variations just to give an
illusion of choice, etc etc.

And that's only the immediately obvious harm of "consumerism". Industry also
means shipping parts around half the world to process them with cheap labor,
then ship them all the way back so you can add a sticker to the finished
product saying it was "made" locally. And with "just in time" production this
means repeating that process dozens, hundreds and thousands of times with
individual packaging, repackaging, shrinkwrapping, unwrapping, loading and
unloading -- a simple cardboard box can end up going through three different
factories (being itself unpackaged and repackaged at every new location)
before being thrown out after a single use for, again, transport of other
goods.

Recycling and renewable energy are bandaids. The current production levels are
unsustainable, especially if we seek to lift the developing world out of
poverty to similar levels of comfort as the average person in the West.

Sure, it'll suck for the average person and society and economy will have to
change drastically. But it'll suck even more for the billionaires because
their very existence is subject to maintaining the current status quo.

We can't sustain the "consumerist excess" of the middle class, but we
certainly can't sustain that of the very rich. And they know this, which is
why they would rather let "the Event" happen rather than give up their
luxuries and join the rest. Because even if they have to protect their rusting
food bunkers with armed slaves wearing shock collars, at least they'll still
be better off than the rest.

------
hyperpallium
I think this is fiction.

We have lived in a creator-based morality ever since behavioural modernity
(50-70,000 years ago). Teaching, trading, inventing, etc - because two heads
(perspectives) are better than one. Small, isolated societies stagnate. Over
time, "societies" have grown larger, more open, more inclusive.

Over time, the larger open society beats the small closed one. (even if that
larger group isn't recognized as a "society", it need only communicate, share
ideas and build on them).

So we needn't fear a tiny billionaire society, even with a head start (at
least, not in the long term...).

> What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader?

Historically, this is a hard problem ( _et tu, Brutus?_ ). It's easy to keep
the masses in check; just create a "nobility" who also benefit from
subjugation, all the way down. Resource them, health, education, training,
armoury. Propaganda that they are better (fairy tales, clothes, etc). But hard
to be safe in that inner circle... Power is a problem.

> if they can’t get a seat on the rocket to Mars.

After the worst possible imaginable apocalypse, Earth will still be far more
habitable than Mars.

~~~
mistermann
> Over time, the larger open society beats the small closed one. So we needn't
> fear a tiny billionaire society, even with a head start (at least, not in
> the long term...).

What happens when all societies have been essentially merged into one, largely
run in a coordinated manner by sociopaths and useful idiots who control what
facts the bread and circus obsessed citizens are allowed to consume?

This is one of my largest concerns with globalization - integration and
optimization indeed increase efficiency and material wealth, but in doing so
reduces redundancy and diversity. Evaluating these risks and making a
calculated decision to proceed is one thing, completely ignoring it is
something else entirely.

~~~
hyperpallium
The source of wealth is creativity, which requires diversity (not
optimization). Present globalization does not prevent competition between
different parts, with competing levels of homogenity.

For example, China has had spectacular long-term growth but now that it has
caught up, it must instead create, which is a different game, requiring
different approaches and institutions. I think China will either open further
(which it's been doing) or stagnate.

For a dsytopian total globalization that controls everything (like _The
Matrix_ )... I think it's literally impossible long term, because (1) people
are smart (including every one of the masses); and (2) reality is open and
infinitely complex and textured.

While specific facts about a society can be hidden, misrepresented, drowned
out, not all facts about reality can be. This is perhaps a slim hope in the
short term (and has been in totalitarian states throughout human history), but
will win out eventually - because reality and intelligence cannot be
controlled totally, and they inevitably cause change. The more perfectly
optimised the State is for one situation, the less adaptable it is to another.

~~~
mistermann
> The source of wealth is creativity, which requires diversity (not
> optimization).

Creativity requires diversity? Optimization does not create wealth? Could you
share where you learned this?

> Present globalization does not prevent competition between different parts,
> with competing levels of homogenity.

Well sure, you can literally try to compete with companies paying their
employees a few dollars an hour, and operating in environments with little
environmental or workplace safety standards if you'd like. You will obviously
lose, but you are not technically prevented from competing.

> For a dsytopian total globalization that controls everything (like The
> Matrix)... I think it's literally impossible long term, because (1) people
> are smart (including every one of the masses); and (2) reality is open and
> infinitely complex and textured.

Of the new wealth created in the world, how is it distributed? From everything
I've read, it mostly goes to the top <10% of people. Do the "smart" masses not
desire wealth?

> not all facts about reality can be

There's no need to conceal all facts.

> because reality and intelligence cannot be controlled totally, and they
> inevitably cause change

Is that so? What's your sample size?

Lots of things have been declared impossible over time, until suddenly they
weren't. As the saying goes, past performance is no guarantee of future
results.

------
pfdietz
Reminded of this classic Bob, The Angry Flower: Atlas Shrugged, One Hour
Later.

[http://angryflower.com/348.html](http://angryflower.com/348.html)

~~~
roenxi
That is a subtle misreading of Rand; and all the more interesting because it
precisely misses what she was trying to say. The sort of people who cook in
return for pay or who operates machinery to till soil were the core of the
world that Rand was envisioning. The vision wasn't anti-labour, it was anti-
redistributive-policies. Philosophically there was a great deal of support for
people who worked hard and earned a wage. If I recall correctly, its been a
while, the condemnation was for the sort of people who said "I don't think you
need this, so I'm going to take it and do a better job with it because you
aren't moral enough".

Obviously Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, a community as small as was in
the book couldn't match the productive output of city with a large labour
force and not everyone is going to buy in to a capitalistic utopia. But the
idea was never that the rich should dominate by virtue of being rich; the
philosophy was that people should become rich because others agree that they
are creating wealth. And the method for determining what people think should
be a free market, and everyone should be left alone apart from that.

~~~
apocalypstyx
I'll argue that textual evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

Look at when Rearden finally decides to bail of society. He takes his top /
mangers / engineers with him. What about all those other workers in Rearden
Metal? The most of them are shown as hard working. But that's not enough. They
(along with the d'Anconia's employees, etc, in a more explicitly cruel
fashion) get left in a society that is purposefully being put into apocalypse
mode in order to prove why certain people should get what they want. They get
left there because they have to be. The Randian-moochers, would probably never
humble themselves to ever invite the exceptional back. It's only going to be
the impoverished workers who are going to have to throw off the yoke of the
moochers and acknowledge how the world should be. So without the honest hard
workers of the novel in such a position, the central conceit doesn't work.

People like Galt start as mere workers but only so their exceptionality can be
established by their ascendancy.

The common worker is cannon fodder.

In the world of Ayn Rand, the worker only exists to acknowledge the
superiority of the exceptional.

~~~
roenxi
Some of these points are convincing, so I shall slightly modify my argument.

If Galt's Gulch had taken in the hardworking labourers as well as the
management Ayn would have basically been writing a parable of the US vs the
USSR. She might have been happy to do that too, but with Atlas Shrugged she
clearly wasn't satisfied saying "Capitalism is better". She wanted to say
"Communism doesn't work, and the driving idea here is really bad and should be
rejected".

So although horrible things did happen to the workers in the story of Atlas
Shrugged, it wasn't at all because Ayn's message was anti-labour. Her point
was that if the power of labour was being directed by people who wanted to
redistribute capital based on need/fairness/something-other-than-ability-to-
use-capital then the story would not go to a good place.

Her philosophy had nothing bad to say about people who worked hard and earned
money. It had a lot of unkind things to say about people who worked hard to
support involuntary redistribution, and stood idly by without understanding
that power was shifting away from the capable people.

> In the world of Ayn Rand, the worker only exists to acknowledge the
> superiority of the exceptional.

If I look around my room, I can't really name a person who could create any
item in it except some of the technical writings. If I could, it would be the
very small fraction of my acquaintances who are not clerks, office workers,
administrative types or in the health or service sector. I rely pretty heavily
on exceptional people of superior creativity to myself. I suspect most of the
people on this forum do too.

------
PorterDuff
My guess is that the article is fiction, or a highly modified version of the
truth to make some point.

It is interesting to think about societies that can handle strong shock.
Looking back, my guess is that the modern West doesn't have that capability
built in. A proven model is one of a very strong hierarchy (monarchy perhaps)
with strong social glue.

That isn't to say that you shouldn't go on extended vacation at your estate in
Spain when a slave rebellion starts up near your place in Capua.

------
ciconia
I think the article hits the nail on the head. The problem with climate change
and the threat to humankind is not about technology, nor politics.

It's about values. It's about consciousness. It's about understanding that we
humans are still a part of nature, not apart from nature.

------
basicplus2
Alternate fee free

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-
the-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-wealthy-
are-plotting-to-leave-us-behind.html)

~~~
nighthawk648
Damn thought this would’ve been the link to the advice on how to stop my robot
guard from being installed with a virus via radio waves and slitting my throat
at night.

~~~
selimthegrim
They’d probably just go with a hunter seeker like Dune given drones and CV

------
motohagiography
Not sure what are they so worried about. Las Vegas exists in an environment
totally dependent on the outside. Paying guards is trivial when you pay them
out of providing another service.

If they were actually in a bunker because of nuclear fallout, just be the guy
with the promises a few can believe in, and use them to keep the others in
line. It's not a few guards with guns that keep prisoners the world over from
revolting, it's hope.

~~~
specialist
Recap: Hedge fund managers asked Rushkoff for thoughts on how to "hire" loyal
people during the doomsday. His answer was something like "treat them and
their families nicely".

I thought the answer was obvious: Start a prepper cult. Or buy your way into
the upper tiers of an existing cult.

Quakers are a reasonable bet. Mormons are the best available bet. Plus you get
your own planet to rule.

------
kalado
I guess it's nice to know that these super rich guys think about exactly the
same stuff as I do when I'm taking a stroll.

------
pojzon
This is a really good article. I fail to understand why it does not create
huge discussion forum on HN where people seem to actively promote climate
change discussions.

Because its an old article ?

~~~
apo
Maybe because:

> You've completed your member preview for this month, but when you sign up
> for a free Medium account, you get one more story.

Not gonna happen.

~~~
nosianu
Anonymous mode? Alternatively, this URL has the exact same text:
[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-
the-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-wealthy-
are-plotting-to-leave-us-behind.html)

------
chasd00
eh saying the "others" are the enemy is as old as civilization. If you think
people wealthier than you are the enemy just wait until you hear about people
less wealthy than you.

~~~
blueline
>If you think people wealthier than you are the enemy just wait until you hear
about people less wealthy than you

what? one of these groups has the power/influence to systematically rig the
law in their favor and the other... doesn't. how can you possibly compare the
two?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
To those less wealthy than you, you are part of the category "those more
wealthy than me" \- that is, part of the enemy. They aren't joining with you
to fight against the people richer than you. They're intending to fight
against _you_. (At least, I believe that's chasd00's point.)

------
teekert
If you even think thoughts like "... making guards wear disciplinary collars
of some kind in return for their survival" you are unworthy of your wealth in
my eyes. Apparently they are also unworthy in their own eyes, I mean they have
very little faith in their ability to reason with people and get a fair
(micro) economy going based on fair capitalistic principles without any
coercion of free minds. These are not people you want around when rebuilding
society and not people that have an intrinsic feeling for the "golden rule". I
have the feeling the author met a particular small group of rich sociopaths. I
wouldn't want to insult any social rich people by grouping them with this kind
actually.

In any case, someone will kill you while you are putting that collar on
someone else.

~~~
GVIrish
I think it's because for the most rapacious capitalists, the human experience
is solely governed by 'might makes right'. For them, the only reason people
cooperate or do something kind, is either for some reward or to avoid
punishment. These are the people that got to the top by being ruthless and/or
immoral, so their world view is built on naked self-interest.

Without governments to enforce the law or money to keep people in line, they
believe that things will immediately revert to the law of the jungle.

------
Kecelij
Tell me, how does one get 85k claps on medium?

------
BrendanD
eat the rich

------
yellowstuff
I can't defend billionaires proposing having their employees wear shock
collars, but I still think the article is unfair in 2 important ways.

1) The capitalism he decries is making the poorest people in the world much,
much better off. Here's life expectancy:
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-
globally-...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-globally-
since-1770), but if that doesn't appeal to you there are lots of other
L-shaped charts showing good things happening in poor places in the last 50
years. There's an argument that middle class people in wealthy places are
worse off today over the last 50 years, but there is not a credible argument
that poor people are.

2) I completely understand the discomfort of being around billionaires
speculating about how to save themselves when everything goes to hell, but it
doesn't mean they want or expect things to go to hell. Investors are trained
to think about the effects of plausible worst case scenarios, separately from
considering probabilities. If you have a billion dollars it may be worth
spending a million dollars preparing for societal collapse, even if that's a
very unlikely outcome. The sad fact is that societal collapse is normal in
human history- most currency that's ever existed has become worthless, most
governments that have formed no longer exist. Rich countries since 1950 are an
exception to this rule, but accepting that it's possible they will collapse
doesn't mean it's any more likely now than it was 50 years ago. I think a
billionaire spending some time thinking about how he would handle societal
collapse is reasonable, even though focusing only on their individual survival
rather than how they could help society is not especially admirable.

