3 ms·

So. You're not one of the 0.1%. Society "collapsed", whatever than means. You did go through hardship, hunger, lack of Instagram, pain, loss of loved ones, loss

So. You're not one of the 0.1%. Society "collapsed", whatever than means. You did go through hardship, hunger, lack of Instagram, pain, loss of loved ones, loss of property but also amazing feats of solidarity and human compassion. It still doesn't really look OK and you're daily mourning the life you and society lost. Then there lands a Gulfstream, out climbs a well fed billionaire straight out his fancy bunker. There's a street lamp nearby and a little bit of rope could be found..

nickff 10y ago
Envy does not justify murder. Most modern philosophers have taken the view that envy itself is immoral.
- woofyman 10y ago
  >Envy does not justify murder In a post apocalyptic society it's kill or be killed.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    In a sense. The size of the group matters - inside the group you have trusted allies. Two foragers are safer than one; three are safer than two. And so one.
- ucaetano 10y ago
  Try to explain that to a hungry crowd watching your well-fed family leaving a bunker. "Oh please, what you're doing is morally wrong. Shame on you!"
  - nickff 10y ago
    I'm not saying that immorality alone will stop many people, but your rationale proves too much, and would stop you from intervening in any immoral act.
ucaetano 10y ago
How would the gulfstream land without a crew properly maintaining the landing strip, clearing it of debris, providing air control, etc? Not to mention that fuel spoils fast. Gasoline lasts only a few months in normal conditions, up to a year in optimal conditions. A small detail that almost all apocalypse movies seem to ignore...
- yourapostasy 10y ago
  If you have that level of financial resources, then a natural gas-powered or propane-powered (liquefied, of course) plane is not infeasible. Survivalists favor those fuels because long-term storage is about managing the containers; the fuel itself will keep indefinitely. In general however, most of these HNWIs' plans assume a resumption of status quo ante, or at the very least that they will find a spot on the planet where that happens. A Roman Empire-type civilization-wide collapse where knowledge outright disappears is extremely challenging to prepare against; at our tech level, you are essentially figuring out how to build much of a space habitat or generation ship. The population infrastructure to maintain the operational knowledge to sustain and produce at that tech level (not to speak of advancing it) is vast: tens of millions at a minimum. If you prepare for that kind of end-of-civilization catastrophe with private resources, even billionaire resources, then you necessarily are building at a far lower tech level (a mix of 1800s and later periods' tech that can be recreated with more primitive tech, like transistor production), creating small villages and towns, and I have yet to hear of someone even doing that. Sid Meier's Civ series only barely nods at a hint of the vastness of the challenge to completely decouple indefinitely from civilization and keep going at a specific tech level: the skill tree to my knowledge hasn't been mapped out even for 1800s-level tech, such that a group of people with basic literacy can recreate the skill bases required.

nickff 10y ago

Envy does not justify murder. Most modern philosophers have taken the view that envy itself is immoral.

woofyman 10y ago
>Envy does not justify murder In a post apocalyptic society it's kill or be killed.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  In a sense. The size of the group matters - inside the group you have trusted allies. Two foragers are safer than one; three are safer than two. And so one.
ucaetano 10y ago
Try to explain that to a hungry crowd watching your well-fed family leaving a bunker. "Oh please, what you're doing is morally wrong. Shame on you!"
- nickff 10y ago
  I'm not saying that immorality alone will stop many people, but your rationale proves too much, and would stop you from intervening in any immoral act.

ucaetano 10y ago

How would the gulfstream land without a crew properly maintaining the landing strip, clearing it of debris, providing air control, etc? Not to mention that fuel spoils fast. Gasoline lasts only a few months in normal conditions, up to a year in optimal conditions. A small detail that almost all apocalypse movies seem to ignore...

yourapostasy 10y ago
If you have that level of financial resources, then a natural gas-powered or propane-powered (liquefied, of course) plane is not infeasible. Survivalists favor those fuels because long-term storage is about managing the containers; the fuel itself will keep indefinitely. In general however, most of these HNWIs' plans assume a resumption of status quo ante, or at the very least that they will find a spot on the planet where that happens. A Roman Empire-type civilization-wide collapse where knowledge outright disappears is extremely challenging to prepare against; at our tech level, you are essentially figuring out how to build much of a space habitat or generation ship. The population infrastructure to maintain the operational knowledge to sustain and produce at that tech level (not to speak of advancing it) is vast: tens of millions at a minimum. If you prepare for that kind of end-of-civilization catastrophe with private resources, even billionaire resources, then you necessarily are building at a far lower tech level (a mix of 1800s and later periods' tech that can be recreated with more primitive tech, like transistor production), creating small villages and towns, and I have yet to hear of someone even doing that. Sid Meier's Civ series only barely nods at a hint of the vastness of the challenge to completely decouple indefinitely from civilization and keep going at a specific tech level: the skill tree to my knowledge hasn't been mapped out even for 1800s-level tech, such that a group of people with basic literacy can recreate the skill bases required.