6 ms·

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

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.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      Rational just means that the logic is sound and valid. If each philosophy's axioms change, both can be rational, logically speaking, but be incompatible.
    - frognumber 3y ago
      Values don't come from logic. My values can be: - The greatest good for the greatest number, where good is defined by happiness ... by self-growth ... by adherence to a code of behavior - Loyalty to family and country - Improve humanity by euthanizing inferior individuals - Save the environment from humanity - Subjugate the environment for humanity ... and so on. Those have no logic behind them. They're just values. They're arbitrary. Logic comes in after that, in what you do from there.
spaceman_2020 3y ago
My perspective on this changed after I had a daughter. I used to think, “we have to look out for everyone”. But now, my mindspace is occupied with my kid’s safety and wellbeing. Sure, we should look out for everyone, but my kid comes way ahead. If I had $100 and I had to spent $1 to increase her safety profile, I’ll happily do it.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  That very mindset is what will put your children in the most danger. You do not live in a vacuum.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    That's what I tell everyone who advocates for defunding food stamps. The bread we throw to the poor is the only thing that keeps their knives away from your throat. Americans think gun ownership is some sort of compensating factor...as though sieges in America have ever ended well for the defending team.
    - aydyn 3y ago
      The problem with food stamps is program abuse: about 25% is spent on junk food. And then there's outright fraud, which as a percentage is small but still a lot of money. Who knows how much is spent on uber eats/doordash. I'm fine with tax spending to feed the poor, but I don't agree with spending on luxury foods and luxury food services that I wouldn't even spend on myself.
      - rockemsockem 3y ago
        That thinking is the problem. Every government program will see fraud and I don't even see how junk food is a real problem? The point is calories. Sure, healthier food would be better, but there are other efforts to get people of all income brackets to eat healthier. The government should not limit what people are permitted to eat just because they're poor enough to qualify.

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.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Rational just means that the logic is sound and valid. If each philosophy's axioms change, both can be rational, logically speaking, but be incompatible.
  - frognumber 3y ago
    Values don't come from logic. My values can be: - The greatest good for the greatest number, where good is defined by happiness ... by self-growth ... by adherence to a code of behavior - Loyalty to family and country - Improve humanity by euthanizing inferior individuals - Save the environment from humanity - Subjugate the environment for humanity ... and so on. Those have no logic behind them. They're just values. They're arbitrary. Logic comes in after that, in what you do from there.

spaceman_2020 3y ago

My perspective on this changed after I had a daughter. I used to think, “we have to look out for everyone”. But now, my mindspace is occupied with my kid’s safety and wellbeing. Sure, we should look out for everyone, but my kid comes way ahead. If I had $100 and I had to spent $1 to increase her safety profile, I’ll happily do it.

bamboozled 3y ago
That very mindset is what will put your children in the most danger. You do not live in a vacuum.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  That's what I tell everyone who advocates for defunding food stamps. The bread we throw to the poor is the only thing that keeps their knives away from your throat. Americans think gun ownership is some sort of compensating factor...as though sieges in America have ever ended well for the defending team.
  - aydyn 3y ago
    The problem with food stamps is program abuse: about 25% is spent on junk food. And then there's outright fraud, which as a percentage is small but still a lot of money. Who knows how much is spent on uber eats/doordash. I'm fine with tax spending to feed the poor, but I don't agree with spending on luxury foods and luxury food services that I wouldn't even spend on myself.
    - rockemsockem 3y ago
      That thinking is the problem. Every government program will see fraud and I don't even see how junk food is a real problem? The point is calories. Sure, healthier food would be better, but there are other efforts to get people of all income brackets to eat healthier. The government should not limit what people are permitted to eat just because they're poor enough to qualify.