5 ms·

Sam Bankman-Fried didn't want to buy a bunker in Nauru. He wanted to buy Nauru. > The ultimate strategy, according to the memo, was “to purchase the soverei

Sam Bankman-Fried didn't want to buy a bunker in Nauru. He wanted to *buy Nauru*. > The ultimate strategy, according to the memo, was “to purchase the sovereign nation of Nauru in order to construct a ‘bunker / shelter’ that would be used for some event where 50%-99.99% of people die [to] ensure that most EAs (effective altruists) survive.” The memo also mentioned to plans to develop “sensible regulation around human genetic enhancement, and build a lab there,” noting that perhaps “there are other things it’s useful to do with a sovereign country, too.” Seriously, this is some Lex Luthor shit.

anigbrowl 3y ago
I don't understand why the headline was changed from that on the article, which I submitted as written. I wouldn't have found the idea of buying a bunker remarkable, as many rich people get that idea. Buying a whole country is unusual.
- samwillis 3y ago
  You should be able to edit it for another 15 min.
- ASalazarMX 3y ago
  Original headline was "Sam Bankman-Fried wanted to buy a bunker in Nauru to wait out the world's end", in case anyone was wondering. Both headlines give different points of view on how Altman lost his head by becoming rich, illegally, to boot. By the state of things, I fear we have too many of those sociopaths in position of power, public and private.
woah 3y ago
Sounds very... altruistic
- shiitaco 3y ago
  [flagged]
jmkni 3y ago
It’s some Dr Strangelove shit lol
- quickthrowman 3y ago
  When they go down into the mine, everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! [involuntary Nazi salute with right arm while the left arm frantically pulls down the right arm]
georgeecollins 3y ago
Why do wealthy people get so interested in societal collapse? It almost seems like if you don't have a visceral need for anything you have to invent a problem to solve.
- api 3y ago
  The percentage is probably the same as average people who get sucked into 'doomerism'.
- krapp 3y ago
  There's no point in having wealth without an economy, or the power to control society without a society.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Why do wealthy people get so interested in societal collapse My theory is that they have opted-out of the social contract (or never believed in it), and they figure the rest of us have opted out too - or will do so in time, and we'll fall back to rugged individualism as civil order is undone.
  - Dracophoenix 3y ago
    There was never a social contract people signed into in the first place. Every individual is born free, and not as thrall to retroactive "obligations" one had no part in instituting or causing.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > Every individual is born free, and not as thrall to retroactive "obligations" Moving from the philosophical realm into the practical - do you suppose a world free from law enforcement, a justice system, Delaware courts and enforcement of property right is better than the one with those things? These rich tech / VC guys see themselves as natural leaders, but I doubt they have what it takes to be warlords in their fantasy dystopia.
api 3y ago
Scientology vibes. A lot of the EA and "rationalist" stuff gives me Hubbard vibes, especially around the wackier edges. Maybe a little hint of Lyndon LaRouche vibes too. I recall as far back as 2012-2015 just not vibing with this whole current of human thought. Something "off" about it, not to mention a lot of it feeling like castles in the sky that self-justify. It reminds me of the new age in one important respect: it's superficially very saccharine but has an ugly underbelly. I'm also very put off by intellectual edgelording, which is when people intentionally adopt "outlier" positions and try to justify them as articulately as possible to show off how smart and unique they are. That seems to be the standard "flex" in the rationalist scene. But yeah this is full-on Scientology "Sea Org." I wonder what other "useful things" you can do with a sovereign country?
stOneskull 3y ago
a lab for genetic enhancement.. what the hell
abeppu 3y ago
Ok, super basic question: What does it mean to "buy" a sovereign nation? - from whom do you buy it? If you write a big check to the government of Nauru, does that government even have the ability to "sell" the country? And if the government was trying to do things above board, who do the funds actually go to? - what do you get in exchange for your money? E.g. the government of Nauru doesn't own all the land in Nauru, does it? - what happens to the existing citizens of Nauru? Do they continue to be citizens of a country which is just "owned" by some guy? Or are they now somehow stateless trespassers? - what legal structure remain to recognize "ownership" of a country by a private party? Does "owning" a country mean that its prior legal system is no longer in place? If someone (e.g. a group of maybe-formerly citizens of Nauru) tried to sue over this "sale", in what court could that happen? Or does the defunct state just lock the government buildings, stop paying any judges, and SBF flies in a private security army? Also, I'd think when we're still in the crescendo of the climate disaster, a low-lying small island nation is maybe a bad place to bunker down? Just from the standpoint of vulnerability to rising seas and storm surges etc.
- bragr 3y ago
  >What does it mean to "buy" a sovereign nation? It basically means you are an absolute monarch, even if you don't use that title. The whole country and everything in it being the personal property of the sovereign sounds weird now, but that's basically how everything was until the invention of the modern concept of the state and constitutional monarchies. >from whom do you buy it? Presumably the current government and you'd sign basically like a treaty I'd assume? No idea who get's the money. The fair thing would be for all citizens to get a share, but the world isn't usually fair. As for the remaining questions, at that point you'd be the sovereign so they are all kind of irrelevant because the answers are whatever you say. Citizenship, property, rights, courts, government services these are all just concepts defined by the law, and you are the law at the point.
  - abeppu 3y ago
    > The whole country and everything in it being the personal property of the sovereign sounds weird now, but that's basically how everything was until the invention of the modern concept of the state and constitutional monarchies. I think a central tension here is that today we think of governments and legal systems as providing the framework in which the market and transactions can take place. You and I can sign a contract for some transaction, and we can understand the legal system which may be used if we have some kind of dispute. A transaction that seeks to effectively remove that legal framework entirely does seem like it pushes you back to maintaining power though the same means as absolute monarchs (by having a loyal army). > Presumably the current government and you'd sign basically like a treaty I'd assume? Even this concept seems broken to me; ordinarily a treaty is an agreement which binds its participants to its terms going forward, but here we're imaging that the government ceases to exist and therefore has no behavior which can comply or fail to comply with those terms? But fundamentally, it does sound like the government of Nauru would not be empowered to "sell" Nauru; it does not own "the whole country and everything in it" and cannot sell it.

Sam Bankman-Fried didn't want to buy a bunker in Nauru. He wanted to *buy Nauru*. > The ultimate strategy, according to the memo, was “to purchase the soverei

anigbrowl 3y ago

I don't understand why the headline was changed from that on the article, which I submitted as written. I wouldn't have found the idea of buying a bunker remarkable, as many rich people get that idea. Buying a whole country is unusual.

samwillis 3y ago
You should be able to edit it for another 15 min.
ASalazarMX 3y ago
Original headline was "Sam Bankman-Fried wanted to buy a bunker in Nauru to wait out the world's end", in case anyone was wondering. Both headlines give different points of view on how Altman lost his head by becoming rich, illegally, to boot. By the state of things, I fear we have too many of those sociopaths in position of power, public and private.

woah 3y ago

Sounds very... altruistic

shiitaco 3y ago
[flagged]

jmkni 3y ago

It’s some Dr Strangelove shit lol

quickthrowman 3y ago
When they go down into the mine, everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! [involuntary Nazi salute with right arm while the left arm frantically pulls down the right arm]

georgeecollins 3y ago

Why do wealthy people get so interested in societal collapse? It almost seems like if you don't have a visceral need for anything you have to invent a problem to solve.

api 3y ago
The percentage is probably the same as average people who get sucked into 'doomerism'.
krapp 3y ago
There's no point in having wealth without an economy, or the power to control society without a society.
sangnoir 3y ago
> Why do wealthy people get so interested in societal collapse My theory is that they have opted-out of the social contract (or never believed in it), and they figure the rest of us have opted out too - or will do so in time, and we'll fall back to rugged individualism as civil order is undone.
- Dracophoenix 3y ago
  There was never a social contract people signed into in the first place. Every individual is born free, and not as thrall to retroactive "obligations" one had no part in instituting or causing.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > Every individual is born free, and not as thrall to retroactive "obligations" Moving from the philosophical realm into the practical - do you suppose a world free from law enforcement, a justice system, Delaware courts and enforcement of property right is better than the one with those things? These rich tech / VC guys see themselves as natural leaders, but I doubt they have what it takes to be warlords in their fantasy dystopia.

api 3y ago

Scientology vibes. A lot of the EA and "rationalist" stuff gives me Hubbard vibes, especially around the wackier edges. Maybe a little hint of Lyndon LaRouche vibes too. I recall as far back as 2012-2015 just not vibing with this whole current of human thought. Something "off" about it, not to mention a lot of it feeling like castles in the sky that self-justify. It reminds me of the new age in one important respect: it's superficially very saccharine but has an ugly underbelly. I'm also very put off by intellectual edgelording, which is when people intentionally adopt "outlier" positions and try to justify them as articulately as possible to show off how smart and unique they are. That seems to be the standard "flex" in the rationalist scene. But yeah this is full-on Scientology "Sea Org." I wonder what other "useful things" you can do with a sovereign country?

stOneskull 3y ago

a lab for genetic enhancement.. what the hell

abeppu 3y ago

Ok, super basic question: What does it mean to "buy" a sovereign nation? - from whom do you buy it? If you write a big check to the government of Nauru, does that government even have the ability to "sell" the country? And if the government was trying to do things above board, who do the funds actually go to? - what do you get in exchange for your money? E.g. the government of Nauru doesn't own all the land in Nauru, does it? - what happens to the existing citizens of Nauru? Do they continue to be citizens of a country which is just "owned" by some guy? Or are they now somehow stateless trespassers? - what legal structure remain to recognize "ownership" of a country by a private party? Does "owning" a country mean that its prior legal system is no longer in place? If someone (e.g. a group of maybe-formerly citizens of Nauru) tried to sue over this "sale", in what court could that happen? Or does the defunct state just lock the government buildings, stop paying any judges, and SBF flies in a private security army? Also, I'd think when we're still in the crescendo of the climate disaster, a low-lying small island nation is maybe a bad place to bunker down? Just from the standpoint of vulnerability to rising seas and storm surges etc.

bragr 3y ago
>What does it mean to "buy" a sovereign nation? It basically means you are an absolute monarch, even if you don't use that title. The whole country and everything in it being the personal property of the sovereign sounds weird now, but that's basically how everything was until the invention of the modern concept of the state and constitutional monarchies. >from whom do you buy it? Presumably the current government and you'd sign basically like a treaty I'd assume? No idea who get's the money. The fair thing would be for all citizens to get a share, but the world isn't usually fair. As for the remaining questions, at that point you'd be the sovereign so they are all kind of irrelevant because the answers are whatever you say. Citizenship, property, rights, courts, government services these are all just concepts defined by the law, and you are the law at the point.
- abeppu 3y ago
  > The whole country and everything in it being the personal property of the sovereign sounds weird now, but that's basically how everything was until the invention of the modern concept of the state and constitutional monarchies. I think a central tension here is that today we think of governments and legal systems as providing the framework in which the market and transactions can take place. You and I can sign a contract for some transaction, and we can understand the legal system which may be used if we have some kind of dispute. A transaction that seeks to effectively remove that legal framework entirely does seem like it pushes you back to maintaining power though the same means as absolute monarchs (by having a loyal army). > Presumably the current government and you'd sign basically like a treaty I'd assume? Even this concept seems broken to me; ordinarily a treaty is an agreement which binds its participants to its terms going forward, but here we're imaging that the government ceases to exist and therefore has no behavior which can comply or fail to comply with those terms? But fundamentally, it does sound like the government of Nauru would not be empowered to "sell" Nauru; it does not own "the whole country and everything in it" and cannot sell it.