4 ms·

The “worst” of that set includes names like Zuckerberg, Thiel and even Sam Altman, among many others.[0] I’d be willing to bet that a pretty significant percen

The “worst” of that set includes names like Zuckerberg, Thiel and even Sam Altman, among many others.[0] I’d be willing to bet that a pretty significant percentage of the tech elite have taken serious steps like this, this clearly isn’t a small set of obscure players. 0: https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building-bunkers-in-new-zealand-prepping-for-the-apocalypse/ https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building-...

nickff 6y ago
I don't understand why hedging against long-tail events is 'bad'. They bought large quantities of supplies, and hired a bunch of people to build them facilities which could be of benefit in the event of a catastrophe. The tradesmen doing the building were probably happy to do the work, and I am sure the supplies provided a number of manufacturing and administrative jobs. I don't see a problem; unless you think this pandemic was caused by bunker construction. Is buying a lot of insurance also evil?
- Retric 6y ago
  Traveling to those bunkers could spread the virus. Just stay home is a completely viable option. Some basic risk analysis shows the trip increases risks and is therefore a dumb move even if the idea of a bunker could be useful in other situations.
  - jeromegv 6y ago
    Did any of them actually travelled to their bunker? Or are you blaming them for something that didn't happen?
    - techsupporter 6y ago
      According to published reports, yes: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to-go-e2-80-99-rich-americans-activate-pandemic-escape-plans/ar-BB12V3En https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to-go...
  - bdamm 6y ago
    This is a form of critical thinking error. "They" wanted to build a safe destination in case of a multitude of possible conditions come to occur. You are looking with a historical lens on what has happened and then labeling them "dumb" based on the knowledge we have now. If you look at it that way, almost any disaster planning is "dumb".
    - Retric 6y ago
      No, you misunderstand. I am saying owning a bunker may be a valuable thing in some emergency’s. However, just because this is an emergency does not mean going to a bunker now is a good idea.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  There’s something incredibly disingenuous about creating companies around the idea of “making the world a better place” and beading oneself as a world visionary while simultaneously taking extreme measures assuming the worst is about to happen. If the collective sentiment around the ruling class was that the world is becoming a better, safer place, why build the shelter? > Is buying a lot of insurance also evil? Generally, I don’t think so. Insurance exists to protect one’s finances, and it’s one of the oldest financial instruments out there. But you can’t eat an insurance policy, it can’t sustain life.
- xenophon 6y ago
  The issue here is moral hazard. Yes, buying insurance is bad if it disincentivizes you to work your hardest to prevent the outcome that you're insured against. Not saying that everyone with a bunker falls into this category. But it's certainly true that when the best resourced and connected among us have the means to withdraw comfortably, their aggregate effort to remedy whatever is causing the disruption will diminish.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "Yes, buying insurance is bad if it disincentivizes you to work your hardest to prevent the outcome that you're insured against." Most people here have home fire insurance coverage but don't have extinguishers (or haven't checked them in years), sprinklers, or a fire safe. So is fire insurance coverage bad?
    - ben_w 6y ago
      ”if” Fire risks the loss of things that insurance cannot replace, such as your face, dog, or offspring.
      - ericd 6y ago
        So does social unrest in the country you grew up in and have lived your entire life. This whole thread is bizarre.
        ben_w 6y ago
        Good point. I think the fear is of billionaires using money to save the bits they want by running away rather than the bits you want by fixing the society.
- jb775 6y ago
  Because they want to reap the benefits of a large society to enrich themselves, then cut and run once society faces hard times. Once this is all over, they'll want to stroll back in like nothing happened. Ideally, we won't let them back in.
- GoodJokes 6y ago
  Because they are using money gained by the exploitation of the masses. That is why its bad. It is a misuse of resources and unfair.
wahern 6y ago
You mean the Zuckerberg who funded the program that will now provide free COVID-19 testing to all California counties? https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/04/417191/ucsf-offer-free-covid-19-test-analysis-results-public-health-departments-all-58 https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/04/417191/ucsf-offer-free-cov...
- save_ferris 6y ago
  To be clear, I’m not accusing Zuckerberg or anyone else of avoiding philanthropy altogether. No doubt Zuckerberg has donated a lot of money to charity. He has a major foundation whose stated goal is to improve wellbeing around the world and a massive social media company that constantly markets itself as making the world a better place. If his foundation and company are truly fulfilling their missions, why is he buying up land in Hawaii and elsewhere to go hide out if everything goes bust? Whether we like it not, people like Zuckerberg are some of the biggest leaders on the planet. We worship the kind of money and power people like him have. To see people like that so unsure of the world in which they have an immense amount of influence over deeply undercuts their image of being these brilliant and visionary leaders.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ericd 6y ago
    Because people sometimes buy insurance for things even when they think they’re not likely to happen, and even as they’re working to try to make them not happen?
  - craftinator 6y ago
    > To see people like that so unsure of the world in which they have an immense amount of influence over deeply undercuts their image of being these brilliant and visionary leaders. This is a beautiful sentence. It is often touted, "If you don't like the culture you live in, change it". The response of most people is that they don't have the influence to change it, and it's better to just bare it until they can move on. The examples of Zuck, Thiel, and others who do have this influence, but choose to invest in fallback plans rather than throwing everything into making the needed changes says a lot about the mentality that breeds success in the US.

nickff 6y ago

I don't understand why hedging against long-tail events is 'bad'. They bought large quantities of supplies, and hired a bunch of people to build them facilities which could be of benefit in the event of a catastrophe. The tradesmen doing the building were probably happy to do the work, and I am sure the supplies provided a number of manufacturing and administrative jobs. I don't see a problem; unless you think this pandemic was caused by bunker construction. Is buying a lot of insurance also evil?

Retric 6y ago
Traveling to those bunkers could spread the virus. Just stay home is a completely viable option. Some basic risk analysis shows the trip increases risks and is therefore a dumb move even if the idea of a bunker could be useful in other situations.
- jeromegv 6y ago
  Did any of them actually travelled to their bunker? Or are you blaming them for something that didn't happen?
  - techsupporter 6y ago
    According to published reports, yes: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to-go-e2-80-99-rich-americans-activate-pandemic-escape-plans/ar-BB12V3En https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to-go...
- bdamm 6y ago
  This is a form of critical thinking error. "They" wanted to build a safe destination in case of a multitude of possible conditions come to occur. You are looking with a historical lens on what has happened and then labeling them "dumb" based on the knowledge we have now. If you look at it that way, almost any disaster planning is "dumb".
  - Retric 6y ago
    No, you misunderstand. I am saying owning a bunker may be a valuable thing in some emergency’s. However, just because this is an emergency does not mean going to a bunker now is a good idea.
save_ferris 6y ago
There’s something incredibly disingenuous about creating companies around the idea of “making the world a better place” and beading oneself as a world visionary while simultaneously taking extreme measures assuming the worst is about to happen. If the collective sentiment around the ruling class was that the world is becoming a better, safer place, why build the shelter? > Is buying a lot of insurance also evil? Generally, I don’t think so. Insurance exists to protect one’s finances, and it’s one of the oldest financial instruments out there. But you can’t eat an insurance policy, it can’t sustain life.
xenophon 6y ago
The issue here is moral hazard. Yes, buying insurance is bad if it disincentivizes you to work your hardest to prevent the outcome that you're insured against. Not saying that everyone with a bunker falls into this category. But it's certainly true that when the best resourced and connected among us have the means to withdraw comfortably, their aggregate effort to remedy whatever is causing the disruption will diminish.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "Yes, buying insurance is bad if it disincentivizes you to work your hardest to prevent the outcome that you're insured against." Most people here have home fire insurance coverage but don't have extinguishers (or haven't checked them in years), sprinklers, or a fire safe. So is fire insurance coverage bad?
  - ben_w 6y ago
    ”if” Fire risks the loss of things that insurance cannot replace, such as your face, dog, or offspring.
    - ericd 6y ago
      So does social unrest in the country you grew up in and have lived your entire life. This whole thread is bizarre.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        Good point. I think the fear is of billionaires using money to save the bits they want by running away rather than the bits you want by fixing the society.
jb775 6y ago
Because they want to reap the benefits of a large society to enrich themselves, then cut and run once society faces hard times. Once this is all over, they'll want to stroll back in like nothing happened. Ideally, we won't let them back in.
GoodJokes 6y ago
Because they are using money gained by the exploitation of the masses. That is why its bad. It is a misuse of resources and unfair.

wahern 6y ago

You mean the Zuckerberg who funded the program that will now provide free COVID-19 testing to all California counties? https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/04/417191/ucsf-offer-free-covid-19-test-analysis-results-public-health-departments-all-58 https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/04/417191/ucsf-offer-free-cov...

save_ferris 6y ago
To be clear, I’m not accusing Zuckerberg or anyone else of avoiding philanthropy altogether. No doubt Zuckerberg has donated a lot of money to charity. He has a major foundation whose stated goal is to improve wellbeing around the world and a massive social media company that constantly markets itself as making the world a better place. If his foundation and company are truly fulfilling their missions, why is he buying up land in Hawaii and elsewhere to go hide out if everything goes bust? Whether we like it not, people like Zuckerberg are some of the biggest leaders on the planet. We worship the kind of money and power people like him have. To see people like that so unsure of the world in which they have an immense amount of influence over deeply undercuts their image of being these brilliant and visionary leaders.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ericd 6y ago
  Because people sometimes buy insurance for things even when they think they’re not likely to happen, and even as they’re working to try to make them not happen?
- craftinator 6y ago
  > To see people like that so unsure of the world in which they have an immense amount of influence over deeply undercuts their image of being these brilliant and visionary leaders. This is a beautiful sentence. It is often touted, "If you don't like the culture you live in, change it". The response of most people is that they don't have the influence to change it, and it's better to just bare it until they can move on. The examples of Zuck, Thiel, and others who do have this influence, but choose to invest in fallback plans rather than throwing everything into making the needed changes says a lot about the mentality that breeds success in the US.