11 ms·
Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich
- throwaway2016a 10y agoThis is a duplicate. The previous discussion is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865
- FLUX-YOU 10y agoIt 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 10y agoThe 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.
- lawless123 10y agoYou have a point. A modest clandestine bunker close to but not directly in a population centre might fare a lot better than these pinatas. Especially if everyone else has run off to raid the Theil compound. I think if i was this rich i wouldn't just build a bunker in the middle of nowhere but invest in existing town, help them become more independent/self sufficient. Same for wherever i lived, the more people protected from a disaster the quicker they can rebuild.
- forgetsusername 10y ago>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 10y ago* 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 10y agoIt'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.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
- xenihn 10y ago>The smart looters would identify those spots in NZ now, and loot them when they're relatively unoccupied and not in alert state. The military (or whatever it turns into) would be the ones who gain control of fortified locations, and whatever resources they contain.
- rb808 10y agoFrom what I know of New Zealanders they still are very egalitarian and generally hate wealthy billionaires. I think if these rich people actually move there they'd regret it.
- peatmoss 10y agoI don't know why you're being downvoted. Having lived in NZ, kiwis are a fiercely egalitarian society. Looking at pretty landscapes in solitude doesn't strike me as a great living.
- knz 10y agoI'm not sure "hate" is the correct word but "Tall Poppy syndrome" is real in NZ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome The egalitarian ideal is also declining rapidly in NZ.
- Hydraulix989 10y agoHow do they view Kim Dotcom then who has a giant mansion there with Mercedes cars with license plates like GOD, HACKER, CRIMINAL?
- knz 10y agoKiwi here - no thanks. The last thing New Zealand needs is more politicized money flowing into the country. C.f: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/323098/'exceptional-circumstances'-behind-peter-thiel-citizenship http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/323098/'exceptional-c... and http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/323107/nz-back-at-top-of-anti-corruption-list http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/323107/nz-back-at-top-of... are both headlines on most major NZ news websites today. It didn't work out too well for Kim Dotcom either (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradition_proceedings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradit...).
- goombastic 10y agoThe 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 10y agoI 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.
- f- 10y agoThe 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.
- 10y ago
- dsl 10y agoDoes anyone have a point of contact for joining this group? My email is in my profile.
- ifdefdebug 10y agoShow me your money and I'll sign you up.
- jonathankoren 10y agoIf you have to ask you're not invited. You're going to the high density cannibal feed lot with rest of us.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- aub3bhat 10y agoI 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.
- debt 10y agoThe wealthy in this scenario assume they'd be the first to know of the fall of civilization. If they were further down on the chain, still would require a ton of infrastructure(planes, roads, etc.) to move people to these locations.
- arouqa 10y agoIn the past, they would have founded their own nation with a personal army by now.
- arethuza 10y agoMaintaining 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_Britain#Gildas.27_De_Excidio_et_Conquestu_Britanniae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Brit... 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...
- Balgair 10y agoThe quote: "There is no arguing with the barrel of a gun" springs to mind here. Money means nothing if you don't have the ability to protect it. Interestingly, regulations and the spaghetti mess that is the banking system kinda serve as a means of protection; only certain clerks know the safe pathway in the network of laws and files that otherwise hide dragons of fines and the dreaded lawyers.
- jbyers 10y agoDiscussed two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865
- throwaway2016a 10y agoI'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 10y agoSorry, I scanned the thread but missed your link.
- philippnagel 10y agoI bet this will be in Silicon Valley (the TV show).
- FabHK 10y agoOh, that'll be fun, can't wait :-)
- UweSchmidt 10y agoRealistically, 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.
- robertk 10y agoNot AI.
- gallerdude 10y agoI mean, with AI we end up with utopia for everyone forever OR a mass extinction event. Seeing I'm going to die anyways, I'll take those odds.
- jdc0589 10y agounless there replicators are involved. then we are screwed, no chance of utopia. sci-fi has taught us this.
- m3rc 10y agoThis sort of "prepper-ism" is just masturbatory self indulgence, it's adults playing with toys while getting to play out fantasies in their head every night before bed.
- forgetsusername 10y ago>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 10y ago
- analogmemory 10y agoI 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 10y agoBut 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-nuclear-apocalypse/ https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-nucle...
- analogmemory 10y agoRight 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 10y agoYour 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
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
- dynofuz 10y agoit 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 10y agoSmaller 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.
- gnarbarian 10y agoSmaller 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.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
- bas 10y agoIt is my opinion that one's time is better spent preventing the collapse of civilization than preparing for it.
- zeamaize 10y agoThat ship seems to have already sailed.
- zyxzkz 10y agoYes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4
- m3rc 10y agoIf you're seriously convinced structure has already passed the point of no-return what are you doing commenting here on some internet site?
- duozerk 10y agoNot the person you're responding to but being convinced that modern civilization is doomed - even if you're convinced it'll collapse during your own lifetime - doesn't preclude you from enjoying all of its benefits (like the Internet). If anything, it makes you more likely to enjoy them "while they last".
- michaelsbradley 10y agoUninformed 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 10y agoJust 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 10y agoI'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 10y agoThose that are well prepared, or those that belong to a particular religion/denomination?
- michaelsbradley 10y agoThat'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/
- lngnmn 10y agoStopped 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 10y agoFuel 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 10y agoYeah, 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.
- mccoyspace 10y agoIt'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 10y ago> 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.)
- jaypaulynice 10y agoSorry, 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...
- tomc1985 10y agoRich old men hugging their toys. It's a shame they're given any press time at all.
- tcfunk 10y agoOff-Topic: Is that photo real? It looks computer-generated to me.
- lampzzy 10y ago“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 10y agoWell, 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.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- stupidcar 10y agoWould 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.
- DanBC 10y agoOne 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
- rboyd 10y agoHa! 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.
- grondilu 10y agoI'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.
- Frondo 10y agoYou 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?
- anabis 10y ago> 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.