4 ms·

What percentage of your networth is considered socially acceptable to spend on preparing for disasters? For a billionaire buying a new zealand vacation home is

by nohat 8y ago

What percentage of your networth is considered socially acceptable to spend on preparing for disasters? For a billionaire buying a new zealand vacation home is like most of us spending a couple hundred bucks on, eg a water filter, first aid kit, and non perishable food, standard preparations that FEMA recommends.

cmiles74 8y ago
I think this is a big part of the problem. That the 1% has become so insanely wealthy that they believe it is less expensive to prepare for the end of the world rather than take on some the cost of preventing it. Their belief that it would be better to start over with a small population (the 1% themselves, obvs) then to work to improve the world as it currently stands. And, of course, the naive belief that they can make plans robust enough they might somehow survive "The Event".
- mariushn 8y ago
  Playing devil's advocate: Why wouldn't the 1% plan work? They would settle in NZ & AU, with a marine army defending against the rest of the world, which would be busy anyway fighting for survival against one another and climate. Use latest tech to keeps these lands habitable and self-sustaining. Maybe even expand to a space station in 50 years.
  - cmiles74 8y ago
    I think it's just too brittle. If we look for examples of similar bunkers, there are a couple military sites but nothing (AFAIK) that's been inhabited long term. Their concerns about keeping the guards on their side seems valid, that could turn out to be intractable. If the whole world does crumble, they'll have to be able to build everything from raw materials, including sourcing all of those raw materials. And so on and so forth.
    - mariushn 8y ago
      We're talking about 2 small continents: entire AU & NZ, not bunkers. They can definitely be self-sustaining.
      - 394549 8y ago
        > We're talking about 2 small continents: entire AU & NZ, not bunkers. They can definitely be self-sustaining. Why would the existing populations of AU & NZ consent to becoming the subjects of some billionaire aristocracy? We're talking about millions of people formed into actual nation states with sizable and competent militaries. Not even the combined private security forces of 100 billionaires and 1,000 millionaires could take control and dominate something that large. Elon Musk isn't going to be able to wow them into submission with minisubs and beads.
      - cmiles74 8y ago
        Sorry, I was really fixated on the bunker idea. I agree that setting up their own little city out in AU or NZ might be a better idea than the bunker. Maybe they can even take over a large section of the land mass. In my opinion, it'll still be tough to fabricate all of the things that modern society depends on today. Maybe they can do it if they really put their minds to it, but I would be surprised.
  - manicdee 8y ago
    Why would AU and NZ be a place to go? Australia is in the middle of a fascist meltdown. The sensible people will be leaving here for somewhere stable like China.

by nohat 8y ago

cmiles74 8y ago

I think this is a big part of the problem. That the 1% has become so insanely wealthy that they believe it is less expensive to prepare for the end of the world rather than take on some the cost of preventing it. Their belief that it would be better to start over with a small population (the 1% themselves, obvs) then to work to improve the world as it currently stands. And, of course, the naive belief that they can make plans robust enough they might somehow survive "The Event".

mariushn 8y ago
Playing devil's advocate: Why wouldn't the 1% plan work? They would settle in NZ & AU, with a marine army defending against the rest of the world, which would be busy anyway fighting for survival against one another and climate. Use latest tech to keeps these lands habitable and self-sustaining. Maybe even expand to a space station in 50 years.
- cmiles74 8y ago
  I think it's just too brittle. If we look for examples of similar bunkers, there are a couple military sites but nothing (AFAIK) that's been inhabited long term. Their concerns about keeping the guards on their side seems valid, that could turn out to be intractable. If the whole world does crumble, they'll have to be able to build everything from raw materials, including sourcing all of those raw materials. And so on and so forth.
  - mariushn 8y ago
    We're talking about 2 small continents: entire AU & NZ, not bunkers. They can definitely be self-sustaining.
    - 394549 8y ago
      > We're talking about 2 small continents: entire AU & NZ, not bunkers. They can definitely be self-sustaining. Why would the existing populations of AU & NZ consent to becoming the subjects of some billionaire aristocracy? We're talking about millions of people formed into actual nation states with sizable and competent militaries. Not even the combined private security forces of 100 billionaires and 1,000 millionaires could take control and dominate something that large. Elon Musk isn't going to be able to wow them into submission with minisubs and beads.
    - cmiles74 8y ago
      Sorry, I was really fixated on the bunker idea. I agree that setting up their own little city out in AU or NZ might be a better idea than the bunker. Maybe they can even take over a large section of the land mass. In my opinion, it'll still be tough to fabricate all of the things that modern society depends on today. Maybe they can do it if they really put their minds to it, but I would be surprised.
- manicdee 8y ago
  Why would AU and NZ be a place to go? Australia is in the middle of a fascist meltdown. The sensible people will be leaving here for somewhere stable like China.