3 ms·

Is it actually so unlikely considering the sheer number of ways it could happen? We live in a society where it's obvious that one event, one invention, and one

by lsiq 7y ago

Is it actually so unlikely considering the sheer number of ways it could happen? We live in a society where it's obvious that one event, one invention, and one person can have an outsize effect on all the rest. Thankfully, these end up usually being positive changes, but not always. If you asked folks in 1920 how likely it would be that in less than 20 years there would be another awful World War and millions of civilians would be systematically slaughtered and turned into ashes, they probably would have said that is "very unlikely" too. These people are educated, understand tail risks and have the means to try and hedge them. They are not insane, not even close.

1996 7y ago
I'm not saying that's insane - just that the probability multiplied by the consequences means they're misguided in being afraid of a global collapse instead of being afraid of their death that is GUARANTEED given our limited technology.
- MagnumOpus 7y ago
  > they're misguided in being afraid They might be spending 0.1% of their wealth (which they could never spend in 10 lifetimes anyway) on protection from an event (war on US soil or loss of their US assets) that has 0.5-5% chance of happening during their lifetimes. Put it like that, it is quite rational. While even their entire wealth won't make them life forever. 100 billion is a drop in bucket for senescence research, especially if it has to yield results within 20-30 years.
  - 1996 7y ago
    Do you invest 0.1% of your wealth in things you considered to have 0.5-5% chance of happening? I don't. And I have a rather clear example in mind, something I do consider at a 5% risk and yet refuse to bother about. I don't, because it's not just the amount of wealth, but the consequences, and the complexities it creates by snowball effect. I don't want to talk about my stuff, but let's talk about their escape plans, as I can easily imagine how it would require some similar planning. These properties in NZ will require upkeep. It will keep their mind thinking about that too. It will also cause other slight increases in costs (the example of getting into a plane: add the costs of a 24/7 on-call flight team + a spare plane in case the first one has some unexpected failure) Even if they have someone whose job 24/7 is to take care of that, they may want to visit the NZ properties time to time, to make sure things are proceeding according to plan. Because you can't trust people for something as important as that. And their mind will incorporate these limits into whatever other calculations. For example, a juicy business deal in Europe? A concert or a conference where they can physically meet with some key person? Sorry but they shouldn't go to that conference as it may be too far from NZ in a catastrophic scenario, with the airspace closed, if they don't have another plane+team in Europe too. What's another 0.1%? Sure, add this plane and team in Europe. Then you need a manager, a company, etc. Then you want to have that on every continent. Then you think, what if disaster strikes in APAC? Might as well get started buying other properties in Chile! I guess it may be fun for preppers, but when you reevaluate the practical consequences, you come to the conclusion some things are better left undone, to have razor sharp focus on the things you want done. Simplicy has many virtues, especially in planning. Burning some ships is not just an exercise in removing concentration - it also increases focus.
    - ajross 7y ago
      > Do you invest 0.1% of your wealth in things you considered to have 0.5-5% chance of happening? I don't. Powerball and Mega Millions seem like an existence proof to the contrary. I'm won't argue the upthread point that such an investment is logical, but it's not senseless either. "Prepper enclaves as scratch tickets for billionaires" sounds about right to me.

by lsiq 7y ago

1996 7y ago

I'm not saying that's insane - just that the probability multiplied by the consequences means they're misguided in being afraid of a global collapse instead of being afraid of their death that is GUARANTEED given our limited technology.

MagnumOpus 7y ago
> they're misguided in being afraid They might be spending 0.1% of their wealth (which they could never spend in 10 lifetimes anyway) on protection from an event (war on US soil or loss of their US assets) that has 0.5-5% chance of happening during their lifetimes. Put it like that, it is quite rational. While even their entire wealth won't make them life forever. 100 billion is a drop in bucket for senescence research, especially if it has to yield results within 20-30 years.
- 1996 7y ago
  Do you invest 0.1% of your wealth in things you considered to have 0.5-5% chance of happening? I don't. And I have a rather clear example in mind, something I do consider at a 5% risk and yet refuse to bother about. I don't, because it's not just the amount of wealth, but the consequences, and the complexities it creates by snowball effect. I don't want to talk about my stuff, but let's talk about their escape plans, as I can easily imagine how it would require some similar planning. These properties in NZ will require upkeep. It will keep their mind thinking about that too. It will also cause other slight increases in costs (the example of getting into a plane: add the costs of a 24/7 on-call flight team + a spare plane in case the first one has some unexpected failure) Even if they have someone whose job 24/7 is to take care of that, they may want to visit the NZ properties time to time, to make sure things are proceeding according to plan. Because you can't trust people for something as important as that. And their mind will incorporate these limits into whatever other calculations. For example, a juicy business deal in Europe? A concert or a conference where they can physically meet with some key person? Sorry but they shouldn't go to that conference as it may be too far from NZ in a catastrophic scenario, with the airspace closed, if they don't have another plane+team in Europe too. What's another 0.1%? Sure, add this plane and team in Europe. Then you need a manager, a company, etc. Then you want to have that on every continent. Then you think, what if disaster strikes in APAC? Might as well get started buying other properties in Chile! I guess it may be fun for preppers, but when you reevaluate the practical consequences, you come to the conclusion some things are better left undone, to have razor sharp focus on the things you want done. Simplicy has many virtues, especially in planning. Burning some ships is not just an exercise in removing concentration - it also increases focus.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > Do you invest 0.1% of your wealth in things you considered to have 0.5-5% chance of happening? I don't. Powerball and Mega Millions seem like an existence proof to the contrary. I'm won't argue the upthread point that such an investment is logical, but it's not senseless either. "Prepper enclaves as scratch tickets for billionaires" sounds about right to me.