7 ms·

Survival of the Richest (2018)

65 points by algui91 7y ago

seren 7y ago
> The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time. From the 1950s to today, it means that in mere 60 years, the optimistic view on the future has done a full U turn, and now everyone is believing we are headed for the worst (maybe with good reasons). Still this is such a radical change, in such a short time frame.
- algui91 7y ago
  Totally... I was afraid for the future before reading this, but now... I am even more afraid.
- pjc50 7y ago
  This is classic Bond-villain material. The difference from today is that back then people more readily recognised it as villainy, and the "event" would have been assumed to be nuclear war. What it's more likely to look like today is Venezuela.
  - seren 7y ago
    You're correct there were more bunker built 50 years ago than today. I am not sure about the whole survivalist/bunker mentality, if everything goes down in flame, at most the bunker will only give you a few months respite, assuming you are not replaced by your head of security first. If you are a billionaire today, it would still be better to be a millionaire in a organized society in 50 years, that being the guy with the code for the fridge in a mad max society, so I am not even sure that rationally it is a good decision to have a bunker built.
- Kecelij 7y ago
  "combination of locks on the food supply that only they knew". In apocalyptic scenario very easily solved by torture. I guess these guys (who are empty inside and trying to fill it with money) never played Fallout, heh.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  The thing is that these people already treat us as disposably and inhumanly as they plan to treat their apocalypse guards. The situation after "The Event" is just a glimpse of some boiled down essence of how they already view the world and the rest of us. And they have always viewed us in this way, not just in the last decades. It's why so many CEOs are clinical psychopaths. Success in the rules we have set (or rather, they have set) for this world requires such a cold disposition towards our fellow humans.
- pluma 7y ago
  The thing is that the only people who can do anything about it are the people who are the most unwilling to do so because it would jeopardize their wealth. There are more than 2000 billionaires in the world right now. If only the richest elite of those got together tomorrow and decided to put an end to industrial pollution, they could do it. However climate change is a direct consequence of capitalism. Halting pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down, entire categories of products could no longer be produced, masses would become unemployed. The global financial system would tank. Surviving this change would require abandoning capitalism. So a naive hope might be that some of the billionaire "preppers" are planning for exactly this scenario and intent on causing it once they've set up their little luxury bunkers to ensure their "quality of life" once their money becomes worthless. A less optimistic and more realistic view would be that they know capitalism is unsustainable but want to make sure they still get the most out of it and ensure their comfort outlasts the civilisation they're helping destroy, i.e. "screw you, I got mine".
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    >There are more than 2000 billionaires in the world right now. If only the richest elite of those got together tomorrow and decided to put an end to industrial pollution, they could do it. This is naive. It might be possible that they could put a dent into it or maybe incite an apocalyptic war that could end it, but without something like that they can't change it. Industries make things for people. If you suddenly double the price of food and other goods, then what do you think people will do? They'll either just compete or riot. >Halting pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down, entire categories of products could no longer be produced And who do you think buys these products? Do you really think that the general population would just accept it when their entire life comes tumbling down? I don't think any country could survive something like that.
  - growlist 7y ago
    > However climate change is a direct consequence of capitalism. Halting pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down, entire categories of products could no longer be produced, masses would become unemployed. The global financial system would tank. Surviving this change would require abandoning capitalism. I believe this also. But the consequences are even more profound than they might appear: it's not just the pointless excesses of capitalism we would likely have to do without (e.g. new car on finance every 3 years, food flown halfway around the world for processing then back again, 1 zillion brands of shampoo in the supermarket) - but also many of the things we no longer view as luxuries i.e. modern housing, healthcare and medicine, choice over what we eat etc.
- specialist 7y ago
  Grew up under Reagan. I'm surprised we're still here. But to your point, America has long had subcultures with apocalyptic fetishes. Too lazy to dig it up, but once read an article which tied it back to the types of Christians initially compelled to settle here. Book of Revelations and all that. Having been raised in a church, having someone point out this elephant in our room was a facepalm moment for me.
- otakucode 7y ago
  And it is interesting that not in even the most extreme circumstances would billionaires even dream of cooperating or coexisting with others except in situations where they can dominate and control others.
- mempko 7y ago
  We are going through the 6th mass extinction and a climate crisis so...
basicplus2 7y ago
Alternate fee free https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-wealthy-are-plotting-to-leave-us-behind.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-...
- nighthawk648 7y ago
  Damn thought this would’ve been the link to the advice on how to stop my robot guard from being installed with a virus via radio waves and slitting my throat at night.
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    They’d probably just go with a hunter seeker like Dune given drones and CV
pfdietz 7y ago
Reminded of this classic Bob, The Angry Flower: Atlas Shrugged, One Hour Later. http://angryflower.com/348.html http://angryflower.com/348.html
- roenxi 7y ago
  That is a subtle misreading of Rand; and all the more interesting because it precisely misses what she was trying to say. The sort of people who cook in return for pay or who operates machinery to till soil were the core of the world that Rand was envisioning. The vision wasn't anti-labour, it was anti-redistributive-policies. Philosophically there was a great deal of support for people who worked hard and earned a wage. If I recall correctly, its been a while, the condemnation was for the sort of people who said "I don't think you need this, so I'm going to take it and do a better job with it because you aren't moral enough". Obviously Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, a community as small as was in the book couldn't match the productive output of city with a large labour force and not everyone is going to buy in to a capitalistic utopia. But the idea was never that the rich should dominate by virtue of being rich; the philosophy was that people should become rich because others agree that they are creating wealth. And the method for determining what people think should be a free market, and everyone should be left alone apart from that.
  - Applejinx 7y ago
    I'm gonna have to correct you there: Rand famously was not interested in 'others', much less a suggestion that people's success should be in any way conditional upon 'others agree' in any sense. Perhaps you have an economic philosophy which I still wouldn't like, but which is nevertheless way better than what Rand was considering.
  - entwife 7y ago
    At the end of Atlas Shrugged, one laborer with a name (Eddie Willers) is left abandoned on the tracks, presumably left to die in the collapse.
    - roenxi 7y ago
chasd00 7y ago
eh saying the "others" are the enemy is as old as civilization. If you think people wealthier than you are the enemy just wait until you hear about people less wealthy than you.
- blueline 7y ago
  >If you think people wealthier than you are the enemy just wait until you hear about people less wealthy than you what? one of these groups has the power/influence to systematically rig the law in their favor and the other... doesn't. how can you possibly compare the two?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    To those less wealthy than you, you are part of the category "those more wealthy than me" - that is, part of the enemy. They aren't joining with you to fight against the people richer than you. They're intending to fight against you. (At least, I believe that's chasd00's point.)
- pluma 7y ago
  Billionaires aren't the enemy. That's far too simplistic. But the difference between the billionaires and the "unwashed masses" is that the latter hold far less power. Even if you don't have any influence to begin with, if you have enough money you can buy influence and thus power -- if you have enough money, you don't even need to spend it to exert influence as the mere threat of using that money (or simply moving it elsewhere) can be enough. The wealthy do however routinely use the poor as scapegoats to distract the ire of the not-quite-as-poor. Especially when it comes to immigration, social welfare and other social issues. The rich are not a marginalised and victimised minority. They're the very opposite of marginalised. Because they control the economy, they can influence politics directly whereas the poor have to trust the promise that their individual voice might sway politics one way or another as long as enough of them share their personal opinions. EDIT: Point is, unlike what Ayn Rand would have you believe, billionaires are no different from those less fortunate and "their" wealth is not their just reward but the direct result of extracting value from society, leaving everyone else less poor. Jeff Bezos isn't an evil mastermind, he's just a selfish man who through a mix of luck and ruthlessness managed to get away with amassing a fortune out of mostly other people's efforts.
paganel 7y ago
Iain Duncan Smith, former Tory secretary for Work and Pensions in the UK, has just suggested that the retirement age should be increased to 75. Problem is that in places like Glasgow men have a life expectancy of 73, so the majority of them are expected to work till they die. If this isn't class warfare and "survival of the richest" I don't what else is.
- UI_at_80x24 7y ago
  I assure you, that is by design. What most amazes me is how blatant this is. Late-Stage Capitalism in it's death throes? The last time there was a multi-country, "common-goal of the general people" popular movement like we are experiencing was prior to World War 1 and the movement away from Monarchy to "Constitutional Monarch" on one end of the spectrum and Communism on the other. The overwhelming opinion of: "We don't have to live like this." has a very strong force of momentum to it.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    But the problem here isn't capitalism. Politicians certainly want to set low retirement ages and high pensions, but they have to deal with the reality that the government simply cannot afford it. If you over promise then that's going to eventually blow up in your face. Every economic system would have this problem.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      "Cannot afford" is usually a moral decision not an economic one. Nobody managed to stop the Iraq war by saying we "couldn't afford it". Besides, pensioners aren't even in the same category as unemployed people who you can attempt to shame or starve back into the workforce. Setting pension levels is effectively setting a standard of living for pensioners. What are they supposed to do if it's cut below acceptable levels?
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        >"Cannot afford" is usually a moral decision not an economic one. Nobody managed to stop the Iraq war by saying we "couldn't afford it". It is very much an economic one. It simply comes down to stuff. If you have 50 million people in your country then you need 50 million people's worth of food and other goods. If 20 million of them are retired or children then the other 30 million has to produce enough to cover themselves and the 20 million. If the balance gets worse with 30 million not working and 20 million working then you're already in a situation, where society can't really continue down that path. And this balance is getting worse in the developed world. The only way to afford this is by reducing people's quality of life by simply having less stuff for people. This means less healthcare, worse (less) food, less safe equipment, worse entertainment etc. If you don't have enough stuff, then you don't have enough stud. No moral decision is going to change this. >What are they supposed to do if it's cut below acceptable levels? Then it's below acceptable levels. Welfare programs aren't old things. They haven't been around forever. In fact, many would even argue that the way we could afford many welfare programs until now is by borrowing from future generations. Eventually that's going to catch up to us. Some generation is going to be screwed by this.
kalado 7y ago
I guess it's nice to know that these super rich guys think about exactly the same stuff as I do when I'm taking a stroll.
teekert 7y ago
If you even think thoughts like "... making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival" you are unworthy of your wealth in my eyes. Apparently they are also unworthy in their own eyes, I mean they have very little faith in their ability to reason with people and get a fair (micro) economy going based on fair capitalistic principles without any coercion of free minds. These are not people you want around when rebuilding society and not people that have an intrinsic feeling for the "golden rule". I have the feeling the author met a particular small group of rich sociopaths. I wouldn't want to insult any social rich people by grouping them with this kind actually. In any case, someone will kill you while you are putting that collar on someone else.
- michaelt 7y ago
  I'm not sure it's that they're "unworthy in their own eyes" as much as a belief (a) their current worth depends on property rights existing; and (b) that their other skills, while they may be vital to a developed economy, aren't that valuable in one based on subsistence agriculture. Everyone knows in zombie movies every band of survivors is riven with conflict and factions who end up fighting, after all!
- GVIrish 7y ago
  I think it's because for the most rapacious capitalists, the human experience is solely governed by 'might makes right'. For them, the only reason people cooperate or do something kind, is either for some reward or to avoid punishment. These are the people that got to the top by being ruthless and/or immoral, so their world view is built on naked self-interest. Without governments to enforce the law or money to keep people in line, they believe that things will immediately revert to the law of the jungle.
  - spoovy 7y ago
    "Without governments to enforce the law or money to keep people in line, they believe that things will immediately revert to the law of the jungle." If they think that they would be right. States collapse relatively regularly and broadly the same thing happens every time -- gangs, tribal affiliations etc replace the previous rule of law, and protection racketeering becomes the norm. If you think it would be any different wherever you live you're kidding yourself.
Kecelij 7y ago
Tell me, how does one get 85k claps on medium?
- spoovy 7y ago
  * Rich people are selfish (unlike everyone else, apparently) and are therefore bad; * Everything rich people do (even spending their fortunes on space exploration) is bad; * Jobs done by rich people are exploitative and therefore bad; * Jobs done by poor people are the result of exploitation and are therefore bad; * Capitalism does not make everyone rich, and is therefore bad (despite the fact that being rich is undesirable for some reason). * .. etc
pojzon 7y ago
This is a really good article. I fail to understand why it does not create huge discussion forum on HN where people seem to actively promote climate change discussions. Because its an old article ?
- apo 7y ago
  Maybe because: > You've completed your member preview for this month, but when you sign up for a free Medium account, you get one more story. Not gonna happen.
  - nosianu 7y ago
    Anonymous mode? Alternatively, this URL has the exact same text: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-wealthy-are-plotting-to-leave-us-behind.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-...
hyperpallium 7y ago
I think this is fiction. We have lived in a creator-based morality ever since behavioural modernity (50-70,000 years ago). Teaching, trading, inventing, etc - because two heads (perspectives) are better than one. Small, isolated societies stagnate. Over time, "societies" have grown larger, more open, more inclusive. Over time, the larger open society beats the small closed one. (even if that larger group isn't recognized as a "society", it need only communicate, share ideas and build on them). So we needn't fear a tiny billionaire society, even with a head start (at least, not in the long term...). > What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? Historically, this is a hard problem (et tu, Brutus?). It's easy to keep the masses in check; just create a "nobility" who also benefit from subjugation, all the way down. Resource them, health, education, training, armoury. Propaganda that they are better (fairy tales, clothes, etc). But hard to be safe in that inner circle... Power is a problem. > if they can’t get a seat on the rocket to Mars. After the worst possible imaginable apocalypse, Earth will still be far more habitable than Mars.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > Over time, the larger open society beats the small closed one. So we needn't fear a tiny billionaire society, even with a head start (at least, not in the long term...). What happens when all societies have been essentially merged into one, largely run in a coordinated manner by sociopaths and useful idiots who control what facts the bread and circus obsessed citizens are allowed to consume? This is one of my largest concerns with globalization - integration and optimization indeed increase efficiency and material wealth, but in doing so reduces redundancy and diversity. Evaluating these risks and making a calculated decision to proceed is one thing, completely ignoring it is something else entirely.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - hyperpallium 7y ago
    The source of wealth is creativity, which requires diversity (not optimization). Present globalization does not prevent competition between different parts, with competing levels of homogenity. For example, China has had spectacular long-term growth but now that it has caught up, it must instead create, which is a different game, requiring different approaches and institutions. I think China will either open further (which it's been doing) or stagnate. For a dsytopian total globalization that controls everything (like The Matrix)... I think it's literally impossible long term, because (1) people are smart (including every one of the masses); and (2) reality is open and infinitely complex and textured. While specific facts about a society can be hidden, misrepresented, drowned out, not all facts about reality can be. This is perhaps a slim hope in the short term (and has been in totalitarian states throughout human history), but will win out eventually - because reality and intelligence cannot be controlled totally, and they inevitably cause change. The more perfectly optimised the State is for one situation, the less adaptable it is to another.
motohagiography 7y ago
Not sure what are they so worried about. Las Vegas exists in an environment totally dependent on the outside. Paying guards is trivial when you pay them out of providing another service. If they were actually in a bunker because of nuclear fallout, just be the guy with the promises a few can believe in, and use them to keep the others in line. It's not a few guards with guns that keep prisoners the world over from revolting, it's hope.
- specialist 7y ago
  Recap: Hedge fund managers asked Rushkoff for thoughts on how to "hire" loyal people during the doomsday. His answer was something like "treat them and their families nicely". I thought the answer was obvious: Start a prepper cult. Or buy your way into the upper tiers of an existing cult. Quakers are a reasonable bet. Mormons are the best available bet. Plus you get your own planet to rule.
yellowstuff 7y ago
I can't defend billionaires proposing having their employees wear shock collars, but I still think the article is unfair in 2 important ways. 1) The capitalism he decries is making the poorest people in the world much, much better off. Here's life expectancy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-globally-since-1770 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-globally-..., but if that doesn't appeal to you there are lots of other L-shaped charts showing good things happening in poor places in the last 50 years. There's an argument that middle class people in wealthy places are worse off today over the last 50 years, but there is not a credible argument that poor people are. 2) I completely understand the discomfort of being around billionaires speculating about how to save themselves when everything goes to hell, but it doesn't mean they want or expect things to go to hell. Investors are trained to think about the effects of plausible worst case scenarios, separately from considering probabilities. If you have a billion dollars it may be worth spending a million dollars preparing for societal collapse, even if that's a very unlikely outcome. The sad fact is that societal collapse is normal in human history- most currency that's ever existed has become worthless, most governments that have formed no longer exist. Rich countries since 1950 are an exception to this rule, but accepting that it's possible they will collapse doesn't mean it's any more likely now than it was 50 years ago. I think a billionaire spending some time thinking about how he would handle societal collapse is reasonable, even though focusing only on their individual survival rather than how they could help society is not especially admirable.
stewofkc 7y ago
It's unfortunate that the wealthiest people are also the ones with the best access to financially literate people and resources. That's one reason why the cycle is going to continue forever...the rich have the most ways to stay rich.
PorterDuff 7y ago
My guess is that the article is fiction, or a highly modified version of the truth to make some point. It is interesting to think about societies that can handle strong shock. Looking back, my guess is that the modern West doesn't have that capability built in. A proven model is one of a very strong hierarchy (monarchy perhaps) with strong social glue. That isn't to say that you shouldn't go on extended vacation at your estate in Spain when a slave rebellion starts up near your place in Capua.
BrendanD 7y ago
eat the rich
ciconia 7y ago
I think the article hits the nail on the head. The problem with climate change and the threat to humankind is not about technology, nor politics. It's about values. It's about consciousness. It's about understanding that we humans are still a part of nature, not apart from nature.
ijiiijji1 7y ago
What do you do when vulture-cannibal capitalists don't give AFF about anyone or anything else, and are plotting to save themselves and no one else? We must strike first, because these elites are preventing action on the climate emergency, killing us.

65 points by algui91 7y ago

> The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time. From the 1950s to today, it means that in mere 60 years, the optimistic view on the future has done a full U turn, and now everyone is believing we are headed for the worst (maybe with good reasons). Still this is such a radical change, in such a short time frame.

algui91 7y ago
Totally... I was afraid for the future before reading this, but now... I am even more afraid.
pjc50 7y ago
This is classic Bond-villain material. The difference from today is that back then people more readily recognised it as villainy, and the "event" would have been assumed to be nuclear war. What it's more likely to look like today is Venezuela.
- seren 7y ago
  You're correct there were more bunker built 50 years ago than today. I am not sure about the whole survivalist/bunker mentality, if everything goes down in flame, at most the bunker will only give you a few months respite, assuming you are not replaced by your head of security first. If you are a billionaire today, it would still be better to be a millionaire in a organized society in 50 years, that being the guy with the code for the fridge in a mad max society, so I am not even sure that rationally it is a good decision to have a bunker built.
Kecelij 7y ago
"combination of locks on the food supply that only they knew". In apocalyptic scenario very easily solved by torture. I guess these guys (who are empty inside and trying to fill it with money) never played Fallout, heh.
kiliantics 7y ago
The thing is that these people already treat us as disposably and inhumanly as they plan to treat their apocalypse guards. The situation after "The Event" is just a glimpse of some boiled down essence of how they already view the world and the rest of us. And they have always viewed us in this way, not just in the last decades. It's why so many CEOs are clinical psychopaths. Success in the rules we have set (or rather, they have set) for this world requires such a cold disposition towards our fellow humans.
pluma 7y ago
The thing is that the only people who can do anything about it are the people who are the most unwilling to do so because it would jeopardize their wealth. There are more than 2000 billionaires in the world right now. If only the richest elite of those got together tomorrow and decided to put an end to industrial pollution, they could do it. However climate change is a direct consequence of capitalism. Halting pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down, entire categories of products could no longer be produced, masses would become unemployed. The global financial system would tank. Surviving this change would require abandoning capitalism. So a naive hope might be that some of the billionaire "preppers" are planning for exactly this scenario and intent on causing it once they've set up their little luxury bunkers to ensure their "quality of life" once their money becomes worthless. A less optimistic and more realistic view would be that they know capitalism is unsustainable but want to make sure they still get the most out of it and ensure their comfort outlasts the civilisation they're helping destroy, i.e. "screw you, I got mine".
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >There are more than 2000 billionaires in the world right now. If only the richest elite of those got together tomorrow and decided to put an end to industrial pollution, they could do it. This is naive. It might be possible that they could put a dent into it or maybe incite an apocalyptic war that could end it, but without something like that they can't change it. Industries make things for people. If you suddenly double the price of food and other goods, then what do you think people will do? They'll either just compete or riot. >Halting pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down, entire categories of products could no longer be produced And who do you think buys these products? Do you really think that the general population would just accept it when their entire life comes tumbling down? I don't think any country could survive something like that.
- growlist 7y ago
  > However climate change is a direct consequence of capitalism. Halting pollution would ruin the economy. Factories would have to be shut down, entire categories of products could no longer be produced, masses would become unemployed. The global financial system would tank. Surviving this change would require abandoning capitalism. I believe this also. But the consequences are even more profound than they might appear: it's not just the pointless excesses of capitalism we would likely have to do without (e.g. new car on finance every 3 years, food flown halfway around the world for processing then back again, 1 zillion brands of shampoo in the supermarket) - but also many of the things we no longer view as luxuries i.e. modern housing, healthcare and medicine, choice over what we eat etc.
specialist 7y ago
Grew up under Reagan. I'm surprised we're still here. But to your point, America has long had subcultures with apocalyptic fetishes. Too lazy to dig it up, but once read an article which tied it back to the types of Christians initially compelled to settle here. Book of Revelations and all that. Having been raised in a church, having someone point out this elephant in our room was a facepalm moment for me.
otakucode 7y ago
And it is interesting that not in even the most extreme circumstances would billionaires even dream of cooperating or coexisting with others except in situations where they can dominate and control others.
mempko 7y ago
We are going through the 6th mass extinction and a climate crisis so...

basicplus2 7y ago

Alternate fee free https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-wealthy-are-plotting-to-leave-us-behind.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-...

nighthawk648 7y ago
Damn thought this would’ve been the link to the advice on how to stop my robot guard from being installed with a virus via radio waves and slitting my throat at night.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  They’d probably just go with a hunter seeker like Dune given drones and CV

pfdietz 7y ago

Reminded of this classic Bob, The Angry Flower: Atlas Shrugged, One Hour Later. http://angryflower.com/348.html http://angryflower.com/348.html

roenxi 7y ago
That is a subtle misreading of Rand; and all the more interesting because it precisely misses what she was trying to say. The sort of people who cook in return for pay or who operates machinery to till soil were the core of the world that Rand was envisioning. The vision wasn't anti-labour, it was anti-redistributive-policies. Philosophically there was a great deal of support for people who worked hard and earned a wage. If I recall correctly, its been a while, the condemnation was for the sort of people who said "I don't think you need this, so I'm going to take it and do a better job with it because you aren't moral enough". Obviously Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, a community as small as was in the book couldn't match the productive output of city with a large labour force and not everyone is going to buy in to a capitalistic utopia. But the idea was never that the rich should dominate by virtue of being rich; the philosophy was that people should become rich because others agree that they are creating wealth. And the method for determining what people think should be a free market, and everyone should be left alone apart from that.
- Applejinx 7y ago
  I'm gonna have to correct you there: Rand famously was not interested in 'others', much less a suggestion that people's success should be in any way conditional upon 'others agree' in any sense. Perhaps you have an economic philosophy which I still wouldn't like, but which is nevertheless way better than what Rand was considering.
- entwife 7y ago
  At the end of Atlas Shrugged, one laborer with a name (Eddie Willers) is left abandoned on the tracks, presumably left to die in the collapse.
  - roenxi 7y ago

chasd00 7y ago

eh saying the "others" are the enemy is as old as civilization. If you think people wealthier than you are the enemy just wait until you hear about people less wealthy than you.

blueline 7y ago
>If you think people wealthier than you are the enemy just wait until you hear about people less wealthy than you what? one of these groups has the power/influence to systematically rig the law in their favor and the other... doesn't. how can you possibly compare the two?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  To those less wealthy than you, you are part of the category "those more wealthy than me" - that is, part of the enemy. They aren't joining with you to fight against the people richer than you. They're intending to fight against you. (At least, I believe that's chasd00's point.)
pluma 7y ago
Billionaires aren't the enemy. That's far too simplistic. But the difference between the billionaires and the "unwashed masses" is that the latter hold far less power. Even if you don't have any influence to begin with, if you have enough money you can buy influence and thus power -- if you have enough money, you don't even need to spend it to exert influence as the mere threat of using that money (or simply moving it elsewhere) can be enough. The wealthy do however routinely use the poor as scapegoats to distract the ire of the not-quite-as-poor. Especially when it comes to immigration, social welfare and other social issues. The rich are not a marginalised and victimised minority. They're the very opposite of marginalised. Because they control the economy, they can influence politics directly whereas the poor have to trust the promise that their individual voice might sway politics one way or another as long as enough of them share their personal opinions. EDIT: Point is, unlike what Ayn Rand would have you believe, billionaires are no different from those less fortunate and "their" wealth is not their just reward but the direct result of extracting value from society, leaving everyone else less poor. Jeff Bezos isn't an evil mastermind, he's just a selfish man who through a mix of luck and ruthlessness managed to get away with amassing a fortune out of mostly other people's efforts.

paganel 7y ago

Iain Duncan Smith, former Tory secretary for Work and Pensions in the UK, has just suggested that the retirement age should be increased to 75. Problem is that in places like Glasgow men have a life expectancy of 73, so the majority of them are expected to work till they die. If this isn't class warfare and "survival of the richest" I don't what else is.

UI_at_80x24 7y ago
I assure you, that is by design. What most amazes me is how blatant this is. Late-Stage Capitalism in it's death throes? The last time there was a multi-country, "common-goal of the general people" popular movement like we are experiencing was prior to World War 1 and the movement away from Monarchy to "Constitutional Monarch" on one end of the spectrum and Communism on the other. The overwhelming opinion of: "We don't have to live like this." has a very strong force of momentum to it.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  But the problem here isn't capitalism. Politicians certainly want to set low retirement ages and high pensions, but they have to deal with the reality that the government simply cannot afford it. If you over promise then that's going to eventually blow up in your face. Every economic system would have this problem.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    "Cannot afford" is usually a moral decision not an economic one. Nobody managed to stop the Iraq war by saying we "couldn't afford it". Besides, pensioners aren't even in the same category as unemployed people who you can attempt to shame or starve back into the workforce. Setting pension levels is effectively setting a standard of living for pensioners. What are they supposed to do if it's cut below acceptable levels?
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      >"Cannot afford" is usually a moral decision not an economic one. Nobody managed to stop the Iraq war by saying we "couldn't afford it". It is very much an economic one. It simply comes down to stuff. If you have 50 million people in your country then you need 50 million people's worth of food and other goods. If 20 million of them are retired or children then the other 30 million has to produce enough to cover themselves and the 20 million. If the balance gets worse with 30 million not working and 20 million working then you're already in a situation, where society can't really continue down that path. And this balance is getting worse in the developed world. The only way to afford this is by reducing people's quality of life by simply having less stuff for people. This means less healthcare, worse (less) food, less safe equipment, worse entertainment etc. If you don't have enough stuff, then you don't have enough stud. No moral decision is going to change this. >What are they supposed to do if it's cut below acceptable levels? Then it's below acceptable levels. Welfare programs aren't old things. They haven't been around forever. In fact, many would even argue that the way we could afford many welfare programs until now is by borrowing from future generations. Eventually that's going to catch up to us. Some generation is going to be screwed by this.

kalado 7y ago

I guess it's nice to know that these super rich guys think about exactly the same stuff as I do when I'm taking a stroll.

teekert 7y ago

If you even think thoughts like "... making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival" you are unworthy of your wealth in my eyes. Apparently they are also unworthy in their own eyes, I mean they have very little faith in their ability to reason with people and get a fair (micro) economy going based on fair capitalistic principles without any coercion of free minds. These are not people you want around when rebuilding society and not people that have an intrinsic feeling for the "golden rule". I have the feeling the author met a particular small group of rich sociopaths. I wouldn't want to insult any social rich people by grouping them with this kind actually. In any case, someone will kill you while you are putting that collar on someone else.

michaelt 7y ago
I'm not sure it's that they're "unworthy in their own eyes" as much as a belief (a) their current worth depends on property rights existing; and (b) that their other skills, while they may be vital to a developed economy, aren't that valuable in one based on subsistence agriculture. Everyone knows in zombie movies every band of survivors is riven with conflict and factions who end up fighting, after all!
GVIrish 7y ago
I think it's because for the most rapacious capitalists, the human experience is solely governed by 'might makes right'. For them, the only reason people cooperate or do something kind, is either for some reward or to avoid punishment. These are the people that got to the top by being ruthless and/or immoral, so their world view is built on naked self-interest. Without governments to enforce the law or money to keep people in line, they believe that things will immediately revert to the law of the jungle.
- spoovy 7y ago
  "Without governments to enforce the law or money to keep people in line, they believe that things will immediately revert to the law of the jungle." If they think that they would be right. States collapse relatively regularly and broadly the same thing happens every time -- gangs, tribal affiliations etc replace the previous rule of law, and protection racketeering becomes the norm. If you think it would be any different wherever you live you're kidding yourself.

Kecelij 7y ago

Tell me, how does one get 85k claps on medium?

spoovy 7y ago
* Rich people are selfish (unlike everyone else, apparently) and are therefore bad; * Everything rich people do (even spending their fortunes on space exploration) is bad; * Jobs done by rich people are exploitative and therefore bad; * Jobs done by poor people are the result of exploitation and are therefore bad; * Capitalism does not make everyone rich, and is therefore bad (despite the fact that being rich is undesirable for some reason). * .. etc

pojzon 7y ago

This is a really good article. I fail to understand why it does not create huge discussion forum on HN where people seem to actively promote climate change discussions. Because its an old article ?

apo 7y ago
Maybe because: > You've completed your member preview for this month, but when you sign up for a free Medium account, you get one more story. Not gonna happen.
- nosianu 7y ago
  Anonymous mode? Alternatively, this URL has the exact same text: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-wealthy-are-plotting-to-leave-us-behind.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/survival-of-the-richest-the-...

hyperpallium 7y ago

I think this is fiction. We have lived in a creator-based morality ever since behavioural modernity (50-70,000 years ago). Teaching, trading, inventing, etc - because two heads (perspectives) are better than one. Small, isolated societies stagnate. Over time, "societies" have grown larger, more open, more inclusive. Over time, the larger open society beats the small closed one. (even if that larger group isn't recognized as a "society", it need only communicate, share ideas and build on them). So we needn't fear a tiny billionaire society, even with a head start (at least, not in the long term...). > What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? Historically, this is a hard problem (et tu, Brutus?). It's easy to keep the masses in check; just create a "nobility" who also benefit from subjugation, all the way down. Resource them, health, education, training, armoury. Propaganda that they are better (fairy tales, clothes, etc). But hard to be safe in that inner circle... Power is a problem. > if they can’t get a seat on the rocket to Mars. After the worst possible imaginable apocalypse, Earth will still be far more habitable than Mars.

mistermann 7y ago
> Over time, the larger open society beats the small closed one. So we needn't fear a tiny billionaire society, even with a head start (at least, not in the long term...). What happens when all societies have been essentially merged into one, largely run in a coordinated manner by sociopaths and useful idiots who control what facts the bread and circus obsessed citizens are allowed to consume? This is one of my largest concerns with globalization - integration and optimization indeed increase efficiency and material wealth, but in doing so reduces redundancy and diversity. Evaluating these risks and making a calculated decision to proceed is one thing, completely ignoring it is something else entirely.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  The source of wealth is creativity, which requires diversity (not optimization). Present globalization does not prevent competition between different parts, with competing levels of homogenity. For example, China has had spectacular long-term growth but now that it has caught up, it must instead create, which is a different game, requiring different approaches and institutions. I think China will either open further (which it's been doing) or stagnate. For a dsytopian total globalization that controls everything (like The Matrix)... I think it's literally impossible long term, because (1) people are smart (including every one of the masses); and (2) reality is open and infinitely complex and textured. While specific facts about a society can be hidden, misrepresented, drowned out, not all facts about reality can be. This is perhaps a slim hope in the short term (and has been in totalitarian states throughout human history), but will win out eventually - because reality and intelligence cannot be controlled totally, and they inevitably cause change. The more perfectly optimised the State is for one situation, the less adaptable it is to another.

motohagiography 7y ago

Not sure what are they so worried about. Las Vegas exists in an environment totally dependent on the outside. Paying guards is trivial when you pay them out of providing another service. If they were actually in a bunker because of nuclear fallout, just be the guy with the promises a few can believe in, and use them to keep the others in line. It's not a few guards with guns that keep prisoners the world over from revolting, it's hope.

specialist 7y ago
Recap: Hedge fund managers asked Rushkoff for thoughts on how to "hire" loyal people during the doomsday. His answer was something like "treat them and their families nicely". I thought the answer was obvious: Start a prepper cult. Or buy your way into the upper tiers of an existing cult. Quakers are a reasonable bet. Mormons are the best available bet. Plus you get your own planet to rule.

yellowstuff 7y ago

I can't defend billionaires proposing having their employees wear shock collars, but I still think the article is unfair in 2 important ways. 1) The capitalism he decries is making the poorest people in the world much, much better off. Here's life expectancy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-globally-since-1770 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-globally-..., but if that doesn't appeal to you there are lots of other L-shaped charts showing good things happening in poor places in the last 50 years. There's an argument that middle class people in wealthy places are worse off today over the last 50 years, but there is not a credible argument that poor people are. 2) I completely understand the discomfort of being around billionaires speculating about how to save themselves when everything goes to hell, but it doesn't mean they want or expect things to go to hell. Investors are trained to think about the effects of plausible worst case scenarios, separately from considering probabilities. If you have a billion dollars it may be worth spending a million dollars preparing for societal collapse, even if that's a very unlikely outcome. The sad fact is that societal collapse is normal in human history- most currency that's ever existed has become worthless, most governments that have formed no longer exist. Rich countries since 1950 are an exception to this rule, but accepting that it's possible they will collapse doesn't mean it's any more likely now than it was 50 years ago. I think a billionaire spending some time thinking about how he would handle societal collapse is reasonable, even though focusing only on their individual survival rather than how they could help society is not especially admirable.

stewofkc 7y ago

It's unfortunate that the wealthiest people are also the ones with the best access to financially literate people and resources. That's one reason why the cycle is going to continue forever...the rich have the most ways to stay rich.

PorterDuff 7y ago

My guess is that the article is fiction, or a highly modified version of the truth to make some point. It is interesting to think about societies that can handle strong shock. Looking back, my guess is that the modern West doesn't have that capability built in. A proven model is one of a very strong hierarchy (monarchy perhaps) with strong social glue. That isn't to say that you shouldn't go on extended vacation at your estate in Spain when a slave rebellion starts up near your place in Capua.

BrendanD 7y ago

eat the rich

ciconia 7y ago

I think the article hits the nail on the head. The problem with climate change and the threat to humankind is not about technology, nor politics. It's about values. It's about consciousness. It's about understanding that we humans are still a part of nature, not apart from nature.

ijiiijji1 7y ago

What do you do when vulture-cannibal capitalists don't give AFF about anyone or anything else, and are plotting to save themselves and no one else? We must strike first, because these elites are preventing action on the climate emergency, killing us.