4 ms·

Something I worry about: I imagine rich people who mostly wouldn't concern themselves with long-term outcomes of environmental destruction or global catastrophe

Something I worry about: I imagine rich people who mostly wouldn't concern themselves with long-term outcomes of environmental destruction or global catastrophe may still feel a bit of a pause going full force into risky plans for the future if their personal fortresses would require human labor for upkeep. They may feel a bit of a reluctance to pursue policies fearless of shit hitting the fan due to the chance that in a post-law world, nothing would stop their army of servants from killing them without remorse. That reluctance won't exist once humanoid robots are a sufficient replacement for human labor.

schmidtleonard 2y ago
The whole economy is like that. Most people derive most of their societal power and relevance from labor. Structural decreases in demand for that labor are, by default, extremely bad.
HPsquared 2y ago
I think most rich people know, deep down, that their riches are purely a social phenomenon.
- bediger4000 2y ago
  Maybe the first generation wealthy, like William Gates Jr, but it looks like the inheritors of amazing wealth don't know that. They appear to think they just deserve it, based on some magical criteria.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    They know that any usage of their money and assets requires a counterparty.
  - bitmasher9 2y ago
    How many monarchs fully believed in the Divine Right of Kings, that their rule comes from divine authority.
    - chomskyole 2y ago
      None. Just to state the obvious. If you are in for the fight, you do know the rules, so you know that there is no divine authority coming for your support.
  - candiddevmike 2y ago
    I wonder if that is due to how they were raised. Maybe that's how their minds cope with that situation.
  - chomskyole 2y ago
    Magical criteria and private schools. That's where this thinking is honed....
- chomskyole 2y ago
  I think this knowledge is at the base of their identity. That's why they push the narrative that their success is driven by personal merit. Having spent weekends with some of the rich, they are pretty aware of what is happening in a way that the rest / the poor are not.
pmorici 2y ago
The notion that rich people aren’t concerned with long term outcomes seems like one of those things that isn’t true. In fact the reverse is often said the poor have, “nothing to lose”. Many wealthy people have gotten where they are by focusing on the longer term. The promise of your comment just doesn’t seem true.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bitmasher9 2y ago
  Neither party has provided empirical data, so it’s hard to say if I should agree with parent comment or grand-parent comment. I think it’s likely that a third variable like stress level, political affiliation, or time spent outside more greatly correlates with long term environmental concern. Both of your pure-theory discussions don’t feel convincing.
- atleastoptimal 2y ago
  My argument is based on the revealed internal memos from Exxon regarding their awareness of CO2 and its effect on climate change, the number of world leaders who have been revealed to have aggressively pursued strike-first policies for nuclear war, anyone involved in environmental degradation, pollution, dumping chemicals into water supply, etc. All horrible long-term and even short term policies for the masses but provide short term profit to a class insulated from the worst effects. Of course it's not all rich people but there are enough of them with disproportionate influence that their influence is a sizable negative factor on overall human welfare.
- roenxi 2y ago
  On the topic, stupid people in the military are a much greater threat. Groupthink in a strategic command force for example, or any similar mob psychology, could be catastrophic.
- nostrademons 2y ago
  I largely agree with you, but there's a kernel of truth in the OP's comment. Many of the very rich got to be very rich because they are very good at optimizing for money. They understand economics, business, and the financial system extremely well. And that's a weakness in a post-collapse world because it is very likely that money will be worthless and we won't have much of a financial system to speak of. They probably also pissed a lot of people off on the way up, or simply by virtue of being filthy stinking rich. And that sort of wealth is hard to hide, painting a target on them for millions of people. The folks who will do the best in a collapse scenario are likely the next social class down; the folks who perhaps sold a company for 8-figures (but not billions), or are in reasonably high-level managerial positions for 7-figure annual salaries. This class is pretty heavily networked and also knows how to work together. It's held together by social bonds of trust, geographic proximity, and mutual interest as much as by money. So when money goes away, those bonds remain, and you have a class of people who are long-term oriented, highly-skilled, but also communicate and cooperate with others. They are also relatively invisible (could you name a bunch of directors at major corporations, or solopreneurs with successful bootstrapped businesses?), so they can blend in and avoid becoming a target until defense systems can be established.
throwaway22032 2y ago
Thinking that anyone with significantly more money than you are alien beings with evil tendencies is an unhealthy belief. It's both wrong and self limiting. If I had a couple of multiples of what I had, I'd build a bunker, but I'd still much rather live on a planet where I can go outside, play golf, visit national parks, do woodworking in the yard etc. The bunker is a backup to protect against outcomes you can't control, not the plan A to intentionally destroy the world.
- atleastoptimal 2y ago
  It's not about them opting to aggressively pursue world-destroying policies, it's that, if some decision they make carries a long-tailed world-destroying risk, the weight of it in their mind is lower if a scot-free outcome still exists for them in the event that that happens. This is a psychological influence that would exist just as often in the poorest as it does the richest, it's just that the richest have the means to avoid the negative outcomes of their lack of more cautious foresight.
jonathankoren 2y ago
Douglas Rushkoff talked about how the bunker billionaires specifically asked about hot to maintain compliance by their “security forces” and asked him about how to withhold food rations. Putting aside the fact that there are always lackeys looking to show sempai how much the love him. The most effective way to not get killed an eaten for sport, is simply maintaining a community and stop trying to horde everything. But then again, I wouldn’t expect dragons to understand that.
- ThinkingGuy 2y ago
  Rushkoff’s TED talk on this tpoic: https://www.ted.com/talks/douglas_rushkoff_how_to_be_team_human_in_the_digital_future https://www.ted.com/talks/douglas_rushkoff_how_to_be_team_hu...
dyauspitr 2y ago
I mean if you’re going to have an apocalypse bunker it will most definitely come with kill collars for the staff.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  Eh, you gotta sleep and eat sometime.
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    Proximity kill when you’re asleep.
WalterBright 2y ago
Rich people have the same concerns as anybody else.

schmidtleonard 2y ago

The whole economy is like that. Most people derive most of their societal power and relevance from labor. Structural decreases in demand for that labor are, by default, extremely bad.

HPsquared 2y ago

I think most rich people know, deep down, that their riches are purely a social phenomenon.

bediger4000 2y ago
Maybe the first generation wealthy, like William Gates Jr, but it looks like the inheritors of amazing wealth don't know that. They appear to think they just deserve it, based on some magical criteria.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  They know that any usage of their money and assets requires a counterparty.
- bitmasher9 2y ago
  How many monarchs fully believed in the Divine Right of Kings, that their rule comes from divine authority.
  - chomskyole 2y ago
    None. Just to state the obvious. If you are in for the fight, you do know the rules, so you know that there is no divine authority coming for your support.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  I wonder if that is due to how they were raised. Maybe that's how their minds cope with that situation.
- chomskyole 2y ago
  Magical criteria and private schools. That's where this thinking is honed....
chomskyole 2y ago
I think this knowledge is at the base of their identity. That's why they push the narrative that their success is driven by personal merit. Having spent weekends with some of the rich, they are pretty aware of what is happening in a way that the rest / the poor are not.

pmorici 2y ago

The notion that rich people aren’t concerned with long term outcomes seems like one of those things that isn’t true. In fact the reverse is often said the poor have, “nothing to lose”. Many wealthy people have gotten where they are by focusing on the longer term. The promise of your comment just doesn’t seem true.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bitmasher9 2y ago
Neither party has provided empirical data, so it’s hard to say if I should agree with parent comment or grand-parent comment. I think it’s likely that a third variable like stress level, political affiliation, or time spent outside more greatly correlates with long term environmental concern. Both of your pure-theory discussions don’t feel convincing.
atleastoptimal 2y ago
My argument is based on the revealed internal memos from Exxon regarding their awareness of CO2 and its effect on climate change, the number of world leaders who have been revealed to have aggressively pursued strike-first policies for nuclear war, anyone involved in environmental degradation, pollution, dumping chemicals into water supply, etc. All horrible long-term and even short term policies for the masses but provide short term profit to a class insulated from the worst effects. Of course it's not all rich people but there are enough of them with disproportionate influence that their influence is a sizable negative factor on overall human welfare.
roenxi 2y ago
On the topic, stupid people in the military are a much greater threat. Groupthink in a strategic command force for example, or any similar mob psychology, could be catastrophic.
nostrademons 2y ago
I largely agree with you, but there's a kernel of truth in the OP's comment. Many of the very rich got to be very rich because they are very good at optimizing for money. They understand economics, business, and the financial system extremely well. And that's a weakness in a post-collapse world because it is very likely that money will be worthless and we won't have much of a financial system to speak of. They probably also pissed a lot of people off on the way up, or simply by virtue of being filthy stinking rich. And that sort of wealth is hard to hide, painting a target on them for millions of people. The folks who will do the best in a collapse scenario are likely the next social class down; the folks who perhaps sold a company for 8-figures (but not billions), or are in reasonably high-level managerial positions for 7-figure annual salaries. This class is pretty heavily networked and also knows how to work together. It's held together by social bonds of trust, geographic proximity, and mutual interest as much as by money. So when money goes away, those bonds remain, and you have a class of people who are long-term oriented, highly-skilled, but also communicate and cooperate with others. They are also relatively invisible (could you name a bunch of directors at major corporations, or solopreneurs with successful bootstrapped businesses?), so they can blend in and avoid becoming a target until defense systems can be established.

throwaway22032 2y ago

Thinking that anyone with significantly more money than you are alien beings with evil tendencies is an unhealthy belief. It's both wrong and self limiting. If I had a couple of multiples of what I had, I'd build a bunker, but I'd still much rather live on a planet where I can go outside, play golf, visit national parks, do woodworking in the yard etc. The bunker is a backup to protect against outcomes you can't control, not the plan A to intentionally destroy the world.

atleastoptimal 2y ago
It's not about them opting to aggressively pursue world-destroying policies, it's that, if some decision they make carries a long-tailed world-destroying risk, the weight of it in their mind is lower if a scot-free outcome still exists for them in the event that that happens. This is a psychological influence that would exist just as often in the poorest as it does the richest, it's just that the richest have the means to avoid the negative outcomes of their lack of more cautious foresight.

jonathankoren 2y ago

Douglas Rushkoff talked about how the bunker billionaires specifically asked about hot to maintain compliance by their “security forces” and asked him about how to withhold food rations. Putting aside the fact that there are always lackeys looking to show sempai how much the love him. The most effective way to not get killed an eaten for sport, is simply maintaining a community and stop trying to horde everything. But then again, I wouldn’t expect dragons to understand that.

ThinkingGuy 2y ago
Rushkoff’s TED talk on this tpoic: https://www.ted.com/talks/douglas_rushkoff_how_to_be_team_human_in_the_digital_future https://www.ted.com/talks/douglas_rushkoff_how_to_be_team_hu...

dyauspitr 2y ago

I mean if you’re going to have an apocalypse bunker it will most definitely come with kill collars for the staff.

candiddevmike 2y ago
Eh, you gotta sleep and eat sometime.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  Proximity kill when you’re asleep.

WalterBright 2y ago

Rich people have the same concerns as anybody else.