Yep. Super rich people have a strong tendency to abuse everyone else (often without even realizing that what they do is abusive), and if you abuse people enough then sooner or later they're going to try to kill you, because there isn't any other way to make the abuse stop.
This is touched on in the article, but I never understood why billionaires think that they’ll be able to ride this out.
They’ll likely be the number one targets of armed mobs or other looters (or even sovereign nations armed with nuclear weapons themselves), since it’s no secret where most of these well-stocked self-sustaining bases are (since they won’t stop talking about how they _have_ them).
But more importantly: why would their hired security forces, farmhands, maids, etc serve them when their money and status is worthless?
Unless the Thiels, Zuckerbergs, etc. have something else of tangible value, the rest of the compound is going to define their own hierarchy real quickly, and it likely won’t end up with the billionaire sleeping in the master bedroom.
That's the model that worked for kingdoms, dukedoms and fiefdoms for ages, I don't know why you think it wouldn't work now.
The hierarchy establishes itself under a figure they feel will protect them and keep them safe. It's a personality cult. They work. Don't ask me why, but they do.
It was as totally different scenario ? The fiefdoms weren’t living through the apocalypse and had something to offer? Zuck will have nothing to offer when the money is worthless.
fiefdoms only work under specific material conditions. assuming we're referencing Europe, part of those conditions include cultural and economic isolation. even if the current global order collapsed violently, nobody is starting from scratch. especially for the first couple of generations, people will remember that there is a wide world out there. people now at least have been exposed to the idea of governing through consent and basic democratic principles. these guys are talking about putting shock collars on their body guards. they aren't going to be kings after the end of the world, they can't even imagine having loyal bodyguards
Come the apocalypse, nobody is going to seek shelter under the iron fists of Zuckerberg. He lacks raw power (where is his army?) and if he had it, the stomach to ruthlessly apply it.
Ruthlessly exploit teens mental wellbeing through a website is quite something else than being seen to wield deadly physical force yourself.
And for ages, those kingdoms, dukedoms and fiefdoms had revolts, revolutions and displacements. I don't know why you think they wouldn't in the future.
Zuck and the rest aren't trying to become a 'figure they feel will protect them and keep them safe', they're building fortresses so when SHTF they won't be bothered with the rabble.
The odds of disaster are >10%, if history is any indicator. We had two world wars in the last century, for example. Events happen. Past doesn't predict future, but there are dozens things which can go wrong.
If I had $100B, it would make sense, from purely an expected value perspective, to invest up to perhaps $10B preparing. An expected value perspective isn't the right way of looking at this, but it's hard to argue that a <$1B investment doesn't make sense. That's 1% of an ultrawealthy person's wealth, and almost not noticeable to lifestyle.
The ultra-prepper lifestyle is irrational, but it's the rich person version of having a stock of non-perishable emergency food and medicine in the basement. If I had $100B, and didn't care about other people, I'd do the same.
Footnote: spending $1B on prepping is enough to change the lives of a million of the very poor. That's 3 years income for people making $3/day times a million people.
To give an extreme, hedonistic utilitarianism says it is.
I'm not that extreme, but there are limits to what I'll spend money on, in light of the opportunity cost of helping others. Sending my kid to college for the equivalent of providing full cost-of-living to a thousand people for 200 days? Gladly.
Buy a car for the same amount? No matter my income, I wouldn't do it. It's a frivolous expense in comparison.
I'm not trying to push my philosophy on anyone, but at some point, almost everyone will agree that e.g. spending a billion dollars on a party, while your home is surrounded by starving people, without thinking to help them would be crass and immoral.
I don't see how picking a philosophy then claiming the outcome is rational, while picking a different philosophy will lead to a claim that the outcome is irrational is anything more than just quibbling over inconsistent semantics.
Rational just means that the logic is sound and valid. If each philosophy's axioms change, both can be rational, logically speaking, but be incompatible.
My perspective on this changed after I had a daughter. I used to think, “we have to look out for everyone”. But now, my mindspace is occupied with my kid’s safety and wellbeing.
Sure, we should look out for everyone, but my kid comes way ahead. If I had $100 and I had to spent $1 to increase her safety profile, I’ll happily do it.
That's what I tell everyone who advocates for defunding food stamps. The bread we throw to the poor is the only thing that keeps their knives away from your throat.
Americans think gun ownership is some sort of compensating factor...as though sieges in America have ever ended well for the defending team.
The problem with food stamps is program abuse: about 25% is spent on junk food. And then there's outright fraud, which as a percentage is small but still a lot of money. Who knows how much is spent on uber eats/doordash.
I'm fine with tax spending to feed the poor, but I don't agree with spending on luxury foods and luxury food services that I wouldn't even spend on myself.
Every government program will see fraud and I don't even see how junk food is a real problem? The point is calories. Sure, healthier food would be better, but there are other efforts to get people of all income brackets to eat healthier. The government should not limit what people are permitted to eat just because they're poor enough to qualify.
How is "that thinking" the problem? A problem for what exactly?
Junk food is a problem because it's vastly overpriced relative to the amount of nutritional value.
In terms of material cost, the dollar amount actually necessary to feed poor people is a tiny insignificant fraction of what is being spent now. That's inefficient.
Not to even mention how junk food contributes to obesity and other health problems, effectively creating a second-order tax unto the health care system.
The max benefit for EBT in ND is $250-ish for a single person essentially making nothing.
The whole point of EBT is to keep people fed. If they are eating junk food and not maximizing their nutritional value to your satisfaction that’s fine because they’re still eating.
All prepared food is banned in ND for EBT. Meaning you can’t order Taco Bell through door dash.
If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion.
> The whole point of EBT is to keep people fed. If they are eating junk food and not maximizing their nutritional value to your satisfaction that’s fine because they’re still eating.
They could eat for much less than that. Again, why should the taxpayer be subsidizing luxury spending? Junk food is a luxury.
> If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion.
I would continue discussing this with you, but if you object to people buying a bag of chips, I can draw a relatively easy conclusion to your overall opinion on the social safety net and probably tax policy.
If you "legitimately" want efficiency then you support just giving people $250 outright in cash, not locking it behind food stamps. How inefficient is it to give people 250 that theyre locked to spending on only one aspect of their lives? I would posit, having done it myself, that you could easily feed yourself and probably at least 2 people on half that. If the people are left with 125 that they can ONLY use on food, of course they'll use it for junk - at least that gives them some value at least as far as life enjoyment even if it's bad for them. Give them cash and I would bet they'd put it to much better use on bills, outstanding debts, laundry, etc.
Junk food is popular for many reasons. Beyond “tasing good”, most of it is readily accessible, requires no prep, and is calorie dense. It certainly lacks nutrients, but it does keep people going.
I know any people take this for granted, but knowing how to prepare food from scratch is a skill. It takesa time, it takes effort, it takes knowledge that some people simply don’t feel they have.
Anyone with kids knows the gut instincts that suddenly pop up, but unless you can insulate them for a billions worth, your best bet is still to make sure things are evenly spread enough so there's nobody who thinks they need to topple whatever status quo you've got going. The instinct was not told about how were pretty much shoulder to shoulder on Earth now.
Same sentiment for me too. I became super vulnerable at first ,but that vulnerability was a healthy thing. I realized how precious my children and their life and future are, and that has inspired me to try raise the bar for everyone around me where possible. Not just my own child.
52 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadThey’ll likely be the number one targets of armed mobs or other looters (or even sovereign nations armed with nuclear weapons themselves), since it’s no secret where most of these well-stocked self-sustaining bases are (since they won’t stop talking about how they _have_ them).
But more importantly: why would their hired security forces, farmhands, maids, etc serve them when their money and status is worthless?
Unless the Thiels, Zuckerbergs, etc. have something else of tangible value, the rest of the compound is going to define their own hierarchy real quickly, and it likely won’t end up with the billionaire sleeping in the master bedroom.
The hierarchy establishes itself under a figure they feel will protect them and keep them safe. It's a personality cult. They work. Don't ask me why, but they do.
The life outside the compound may be less attractive than pulling weeds on the inside.
Ruthlessly exploit teens mental wellbeing through a website is quite something else than being seen to wield deadly physical force yourself.
Zuck and the rest aren't trying to become a 'figure they feel will protect them and keep them safe', they're building fortresses so when SHTF they won't be bothered with the rabble.
the biggest bastard in terms of local warfare got to be a warlord, and kingdoms were created when they fought and beat other nearby warlords
then to stay king you need to win battles against other kings who want your kingdom, and so on
if society collapses I'd be surprised if zuck survives his own security forces beyond the first hour
The odds of disaster are >10%, if history is any indicator. We had two world wars in the last century, for example. Events happen. Past doesn't predict future, but there are dozens things which can go wrong.
If I had $100B, it would make sense, from purely an expected value perspective, to invest up to perhaps $10B preparing. An expected value perspective isn't the right way of looking at this, but it's hard to argue that a <$1B investment doesn't make sense. That's 1% of an ultrawealthy person's wealth, and almost not noticeable to lifestyle.
The ultra-prepper lifestyle is irrational, but it's the rich person version of having a stock of non-perishable emergency food and medicine in the basement. If I had $100B, and didn't care about other people, I'd do the same.
Footnote: spending $1B on prepping is enough to change the lives of a million of the very poor. That's 3 years income for people making $3/day times a million people.
To give an extreme, hedonistic utilitarianism says it is.
I'm not that extreme, but there are limits to what I'll spend money on, in light of the opportunity cost of helping others. Sending my kid to college for the equivalent of providing full cost-of-living to a thousand people for 200 days? Gladly.
Buy a car for the same amount? No matter my income, I wouldn't do it. It's a frivolous expense in comparison.
I'm not trying to push my philosophy on anyone, but at some point, almost everyone will agree that e.g. spending a billion dollars on a party, while your home is surrounded by starving people, without thinking to help them would be crass and immoral.
- The greatest good for the greatest number, where good is defined by happiness
... by self-growth
... by adherence to a code of behavior
- Loyalty to family and country
- Improve humanity by euthanizing inferior individuals
- Save the environment from humanity
- Subjugate the environment for humanity
... and so on. Those have no logic behind them. They're just values. They're arbitrary.
Logic comes in after that, in what you do from there.
Sure, we should look out for everyone, but my kid comes way ahead. If I had $100 and I had to spent $1 to increase her safety profile, I’ll happily do it.
Americans think gun ownership is some sort of compensating factor...as though sieges in America have ever ended well for the defending team.
I'm fine with tax spending to feed the poor, but I don't agree with spending on luxury foods and luxury food services that I wouldn't even spend on myself.
Every government program will see fraud and I don't even see how junk food is a real problem? The point is calories. Sure, healthier food would be better, but there are other efforts to get people of all income brackets to eat healthier. The government should not limit what people are permitted to eat just because they're poor enough to qualify.
Junk food is a problem because it's vastly overpriced relative to the amount of nutritional value.
In terms of material cost, the dollar amount actually necessary to feed poor people is a tiny insignificant fraction of what is being spent now. That's inefficient.
Not to even mention how junk food contributes to obesity and other health problems, effectively creating a second-order tax unto the health care system.
The whole point of EBT is to keep people fed. If they are eating junk food and not maximizing their nutritional value to your satisfaction that’s fine because they’re still eating.
All prepared food is banned in ND for EBT. Meaning you can’t order Taco Bell through door dash.
If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion.
The poors aren’t the ones screwing you.
They could eat for much less than that. Again, why should the taxpayer be subsidizing luxury spending? Junk food is a luxury.
> If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion.
Whataboutism. Two things can be true at once.
It's not worth my time.
That reflects on you, not me.
Like I legitimately just want the system to be more efficient lol. It must be hard for you to talk to people?
Junk food is popular for many reasons. Beyond “tasing good”, most of it is readily accessible, requires no prep, and is calorie dense. It certainly lacks nutrients, but it does keep people going.
I know any people take this for granted, but knowing how to prepare food from scratch is a skill. It takesa time, it takes effort, it takes knowledge that some people simply don’t feel they have.
Preparing food is a red herring, there's lots of food better than junk food that takes no prep time at all.
Yeah this wouldn't go how you think it would.
We will all watch Netflix together and eat black bean hamburgers.
Anyone who speaks out is banished. They will be zapped to death by an automaton for obstructing it’s path on its daily floor buffering routine
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38644596