6 ms·

Zuckerberg hunkers down in Hawaii to wait out apocalypse

38 points by mikece 3y ago

erellsworth 3y ago
Hawaii seems like a poor choice of places to try to escape the ravages of climate change.
- dsabanin 3y ago
  Climate change may not be what he is worried about.
  - squidbeak 3y ago
    What is he worried about? Civil war?
    - dsabanin 3y ago
      It's just a guess, but if there's one thing super rich people have been scared of throughout history, it's an uprising.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        Yep. Super rich people have a strong tendency to abuse everyone else (often without even realizing that what they do is abusive), and if you abuse people enough then sooner or later they're going to try to kill you, because there isn't any other way to make the abuse stop.
  - jay_kyburz 3y ago
    Also seems like a bad place to hide in a war with China :)
drKarl 3y ago
May he be planning to escape the riots of most of the population who lost their job to AI agents and robots (in the following 5 to 10 years)?
thebradbain 3y ago
This is touched on in the article, but I never understood why billionaires think that they’ll be able to ride this out. They’ll likely be the number one targets of armed mobs or other looters (or even sovereign nations armed with nuclear weapons themselves), since it’s no secret where most of these well-stocked self-sustaining bases are (since they won’t stop talking about how they _have_ them). But more importantly: why would their hired security forces, farmhands, maids, etc serve them when their money and status is worthless? Unless the Thiels, Zuckerbergs, etc. have something else of tangible value, the rest of the compound is going to define their own hierarchy real quickly, and it likely won’t end up with the billionaire sleeping in the master bedroom.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  That's the model that worked for kingdoms, dukedoms and fiefdoms for ages, I don't know why you think it wouldn't work now. The hierarchy establishes itself under a figure they feel will protect them and keep them safe. It's a personality cult. They work. Don't ask me why, but they do.
  - bamboozled 3y ago
    It was as totally different scenario ? The fiefdoms weren’t living through the apocalypse and had something to offer? Zuck will have nothing to offer when the money is worthless.
    - pizzafeelsright 3y ago
      Food, shelter, fear, and 'hope' can retain a lot of servants. The life outside the compound may be less attractive than pulling weeds on the inside.
      - genocidicbunny 3y ago
        Until someone with a weapon realizes they can probably still have all those things without the rich asshole and his family to feed and take care of.
frognumber 3y ago
This is rational. The odds of disaster are >10%, if history is any indicator. We had two world wars in the last century, for example. Events happen. Past doesn't predict future, but there are dozens things which can go wrong. If I had $100B, it would make sense, from purely an expected value perspective, to invest up to perhaps $10B preparing. An expected value perspective isn't the right way of looking at this, but it's hard to argue that a <$1B investment doesn't make sense. That's 1% of an ultrawealthy person's wealth, and almost not noticeable to lifestyle. The ultra-prepper lifestyle is irrational, but it's the rich person version of having a stock of non-perishable emergency food and medicine in the basement. If I had $100B, and didn't care about other people, I'd do the same. Footnote: spending $1B on prepping is enough to change the lives of a million of the very poor. That's 3 years income for people making $3/day times a million people.
- lebean 3y ago
  Spending $3 isn't the same as taking $3 worth of meals from someone's mouth. This is true whether it's done ten or a billion times.
  - frognumber 3y ago
    It depends on your moral philosophy. To give an extreme, hedonistic utilitarianism says it is. I'm not that extreme, but there are limits to what I'll spend money on, in light of the opportunity cost of helping others. Sending my kid to college for the equivalent of providing full cost-of-living to a thousand people for 200 days? Gladly. Buy a car for the same amount? No matter my income, I wouldn't do it. It's a frivolous expense in comparison. I'm not trying to push my philosophy on anyone, but at some point, almost everyone will agree that e.g. spending a billion dollars on a party, while your home is surrounded by starving people, without thinking to help them would be crass and immoral.
    - 11101010001100 3y ago
      I don't see how picking a philosophy then claiming the outcome is rational, while picking a different philosophy will lead to a claim that the outcome is irrational is anything more than just quibbling over inconsistent semantics.
bandyaboot 3y ago
[flagged]
- jondwillis 3y ago
  as a treat
- Arrath 3y ago
  I'd rather find the air intake for his survival bunker and build a communal outhouse on it.
pipeline_peak 3y ago
And the local people will be tricked into doing basic yardwork in order to live in a shielded zuck bunker. The yardwork giving us purpose. We will all watch Netflix together and eat black bean hamburgers. Anyone who speaks out is banished. They will be zapped to death by an automaton for obstructing it’s path on its daily floor buffering routine
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Lots of discussion last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38644596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38644596

38 points by mikece 3y ago

erellsworth 3y ago

Hawaii seems like a poor choice of places to try to escape the ravages of climate change.

dsabanin 3y ago
Climate change may not be what he is worried about.
- squidbeak 3y ago
  What is he worried about? Civil war?
  - dsabanin 3y ago
    It's just a guess, but if there's one thing super rich people have been scared of throughout history, it's an uprising.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Yep. Super rich people have a strong tendency to abuse everyone else (often without even realizing that what they do is abusive), and if you abuse people enough then sooner or later they're going to try to kill you, because there isn't any other way to make the abuse stop.
- jay_kyburz 3y ago
  Also seems like a bad place to hide in a war with China :)

drKarl 3y ago

May he be planning to escape the riots of most of the population who lost their job to AI agents and robots (in the following 5 to 10 years)?

thebradbain 3y ago

This is touched on in the article, but I never understood why billionaires think that they’ll be able to ride this out. They’ll likely be the number one targets of armed mobs or other looters (or even sovereign nations armed with nuclear weapons themselves), since it’s no secret where most of these well-stocked self-sustaining bases are (since they won’t stop talking about how they _have_ them). But more importantly: why would their hired security forces, farmhands, maids, etc serve them when their money and status is worthless? Unless the Thiels, Zuckerbergs, etc. have something else of tangible value, the rest of the compound is going to define their own hierarchy real quickly, and it likely won’t end up with the billionaire sleeping in the master bedroom.

15457345234 3y ago
That's the model that worked for kingdoms, dukedoms and fiefdoms for ages, I don't know why you think it wouldn't work now. The hierarchy establishes itself under a figure they feel will protect them and keep them safe. It's a personality cult. They work. Don't ask me why, but they do.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  It was as totally different scenario ? The fiefdoms weren’t living through the apocalypse and had something to offer? Zuck will have nothing to offer when the money is worthless.
  - pizzafeelsright 3y ago
    Food, shelter, fear, and 'hope' can retain a lot of servants. The life outside the compound may be less attractive than pulling weeds on the inside.
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      Until someone with a weapon realizes they can probably still have all those things without the rich asshole and his family to feed and take care of.

frognumber 3y ago

This is rational. The odds of disaster are >10%, if history is any indicator. We had two world wars in the last century, for example. Events happen. Past doesn't predict future, but there are dozens things which can go wrong. If I had $100B, it would make sense, from purely an expected value perspective, to invest up to perhaps $10B preparing. An expected value perspective isn't the right way of looking at this, but it's hard to argue that a <$1B investment doesn't make sense. That's 1% of an ultrawealthy person's wealth, and almost not noticeable to lifestyle. The ultra-prepper lifestyle is irrational, but it's the rich person version of having a stock of non-perishable emergency food and medicine in the basement. If I had $100B, and didn't care about other people, I'd do the same. Footnote: spending $1B on prepping is enough to change the lives of a million of the very poor. That's 3 years income for people making $3/day times a million people.

lebean 3y ago
Spending $3 isn't the same as taking $3 worth of meals from someone's mouth. This is true whether it's done ten or a billion times.
- frognumber 3y ago
  It depends on your moral philosophy. To give an extreme, hedonistic utilitarianism says it is. I'm not that extreme, but there are limits to what I'll spend money on, in light of the opportunity cost of helping others. Sending my kid to college for the equivalent of providing full cost-of-living to a thousand people for 200 days? Gladly. Buy a car for the same amount? No matter my income, I wouldn't do it. It's a frivolous expense in comparison. I'm not trying to push my philosophy on anyone, but at some point, almost everyone will agree that e.g. spending a billion dollars on a party, while your home is surrounded by starving people, without thinking to help them would be crass and immoral.
  - 11101010001100 3y ago
    I don't see how picking a philosophy then claiming the outcome is rational, while picking a different philosophy will lead to a claim that the outcome is irrational is anything more than just quibbling over inconsistent semantics.

bandyaboot 3y ago

[flagged]

jondwillis 3y ago
as a treat
Arrath 3y ago
I'd rather find the air intake for his survival bunker and build a communal outhouse on it.

pipeline_peak 3y ago

And the local people will be tricked into doing basic yardwork in order to live in a shielded zuck bunker. The yardwork giving us purpose. We will all watch Netflix together and eat black bean hamburgers. Anyone who speaks out is banished. They will be zapped to death by an automaton for obstructing it’s path on its daily floor buffering routine

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Lots of discussion last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38644596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38644596