7 ms·

I'm not wealthy. I've had these same concerns. My wife and I have looked at locations to buy a house in an area that is least likely to be impacted by shifting

by dk1138 8y ago

I'm not wealthy. I've had these same concerns. My wife and I have looked at locations to buy a house in an area that is least likely to be impacted by shifting weather, has farmable land, and is isolated from the coasts to avoid the ~1Bil+ migration once the mideast gets too hot. There are a lot of really smart people on this site. Am I being crazy? I look at the modern political scene and things going the opposite way of improvement. I look at corporate endeavors to privatize vital commodities (looking at you, Nestle and water). We are seeing each year get worse and worse from a climate perspective, and while there are a lot of brilliant scientists and engineers working through solutions, a lot of eager youth to fix the sins of their elders—is it too late? Or at the very least, isn't it a valid to think that we may be too late and plan accordingly? For the mega-rich, how is the process different from any other time in history? Isn't the answer to build an army?

gxs 8y ago
I don't think there is a right answer to this. Given enough time, it's certainly possible if not even probable. But whether that is within 20 years or 200 years is likely impossible to predict.
arethuza 8y ago
If you build an army why would they remain loyal to a rich person once riches and legal ownership cease to become meaningful concepts?
- qbrass 8y ago
  Because you built the army properly and instilled that loyalty in your troops before needing to test it.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Because you built the army properly and instilled that loyalty in your troops before needing to test it. That presumes a lot more focus and attention than I'd assume a hedge fund billionaire would be able to devote to a low-probability bet. Also, unless your name is Erik Prince, you probably don't even have the skills. When the SHTF, your head of security (who put in the time to earn the loyalty of the troops) is going to be king. Honestly, I think the best survival strategy for a billionaire in a post apocalyptic world is to stockpile supplies to be explicitly given as gifts to whatever community forms near your hideout. It's foolish for the ex-CEO to try to be king of a new world where he has few valuable skills, but he may be able to survive by ingratiating himself with the the nearby communities.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  They won't if you don't make it worth their while by sharing of your resources. There's many an apocalyptic novel which contains just that scenario where some rich person created himself a hideout stuffed with tech and food and weapons (and more weapons, and even more of them - the genre might as well be called 'gun porn') only to be denied access (or killed) by his own people.
dogprez 8y ago
It might be possible, but is it a future you want to live in? How do you want to spend your time, effort and money, fighting it or preparing for it?
blacksmith_tb 8y ago
I am skeptical there will be an 'Event', something more like a gradual decline seems more likely (so, more British Empire than Roman). But if there were a complete collapse, I doubt your preparations could be really save you. Or in other words, it isn't the apocalypse if you can survive it.
- arethuza 8y ago
  The British Empire was at its peak in 1922 and was largely gone by the 1960s - I think that is actually rather faster than the decline of the Roman Empire! edit: 1992 to 1922
  - sp332 8y ago
    -
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      I assume they mean 1892. But, I dunno, maybe time travel is a thing, even at the global level. ;)
  - davidw 8y ago
    I think the point is that people in the UK are mostly happy, healthy and better off in many ways than when there was an actual empire. That's not true of a lot of places when things 'go south'.
- Sangermaine 8y ago
  >I am skeptical there will be an 'Event', something more like a gradual decline seems more likely (so, more British Empire than Roman). I'm not sure what you mean by this. The (Western) Roman Empire's decline was not caused by "an Event" either, it was a gradual process with many causes over several centuries.
  - blacksmith_tb 8y ago
    Yes, we have an overly simple picture of Visigoths etc. - I meant to suggest a scenario where there isn't chaos after empire, just a sort of reduced set of circumstances.

by dk1138 8y ago

gxs 8y ago

I don't think there is a right answer to this. Given enough time, it's certainly possible if not even probable. But whether that is within 20 years or 200 years is likely impossible to predict.

arethuza 8y ago

If you build an army why would they remain loyal to a rich person once riches and legal ownership cease to become meaningful concepts?

qbrass 8y ago
Because you built the army properly and instilled that loyalty in your troops before needing to test it.
- 394549 8y ago
  > Because you built the army properly and instilled that loyalty in your troops before needing to test it. That presumes a lot more focus and attention than I'd assume a hedge fund billionaire would be able to devote to a low-probability bet. Also, unless your name is Erik Prince, you probably don't even have the skills. When the SHTF, your head of security (who put in the time to earn the loyalty of the troops) is going to be king. Honestly, I think the best survival strategy for a billionaire in a post apocalyptic world is to stockpile supplies to be explicitly given as gifts to whatever community forms near your hideout. It's foolish for the ex-CEO to try to be king of a new world where he has few valuable skills, but he may be able to survive by ingratiating himself with the the nearby communities.
Yetanfou 8y ago
They won't if you don't make it worth their while by sharing of your resources. There's many an apocalyptic novel which contains just that scenario where some rich person created himself a hideout stuffed with tech and food and weapons (and more weapons, and even more of them - the genre might as well be called 'gun porn') only to be denied access (or killed) by his own people.

dogprez 8y ago

It might be possible, but is it a future you want to live in? How do you want to spend your time, effort and money, fighting it or preparing for it?

blacksmith_tb 8y ago

I am skeptical there will be an 'Event', something more like a gradual decline seems more likely (so, more British Empire than Roman). But if there were a complete collapse, I doubt your preparations could be really save you. Or in other words, it isn't the apocalypse if you can survive it.

arethuza 8y ago
The British Empire was at its peak in 1922 and was largely gone by the 1960s - I think that is actually rather faster than the decline of the Roman Empire! edit: 1992 to 1922
- sp332 8y ago
  -
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I assume they mean 1892. But, I dunno, maybe time travel is a thing, even at the global level. ;)
- davidw 8y ago
  I think the point is that people in the UK are mostly happy, healthy and better off in many ways than when there was an actual empire. That's not true of a lot of places when things 'go south'.
Sangermaine 8y ago
>I am skeptical there will be an 'Event', something more like a gradual decline seems more likely (so, more British Empire than Roman). I'm not sure what you mean by this. The (Western) Roman Empire's decline was not caused by "an Event" either, it was a gradual process with many causes over several centuries.
- blacksmith_tb 8y ago
  Yes, we have an overly simple picture of Visigoths etc. - I meant to suggest a scenario where there isn't chaos after empire, just a sort of reduced set of circumstances.