SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the create-the-world-you-would-want-to-survive-in dept.
Douglas Rushkoff has a thought-provoking article on Medium, Survival of the Richest -- The wealthy are plotting to leave us behind; here are some excerpts:
Last year, I got invited to a super-deluxe private resort to deliver a keynote speech to what I assumed would be a hundred or so investment bankers. It was by far the largest fee I had ever been offered for a talk — about half my annual professor’s salary — all to deliver some insight on the subject of “the future of technology.”
[...] I just sat there at a plain round table as my audience was brought to me: five super-wealthy guys — yes, all men — from the upper echelon of the hedge fund world. After a bit of small talk, I realized they had no interest in the information I had prepared about the future of technology. They had come with questions of their own.
They started out innocuously enough. Ethereum or bitcoin? Is quantum computing a real thing? Slowly but surely, however, they edged into their real topics of concern.
Which region will be less impacted by the coming climate crisis: New Zealand or Alaska? Is Google really building Ray Kurzweil a home for his brain, and will his consciousness live through the transition, or will it die and be reborn as a whole new one? Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked, “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”
[...] The Event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr Robot hack that takes everything down.
This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.
[...] The future became less a thing we create through our present-day choices or hopes for humankind than a predestined scenario we bet on with our venture capital but arrive at passively.
[...] When the hedge funders asked me the best way to maintain authority over their security forces after “the event,” I suggested that their best bet would be to treat those people really well, right now. They should be engaging with their security staffs as if they were members of their own family. And the more they can expand this ethos of inclusivity to the rest of their business practices, supply chain management, sustainability efforts, and wealth distribution, the less chance there will be of an “event” in the first place. All this technological wizardry could be applied toward less romantic but entirely more collective interests right now.
They were amused by my optimism, but they didn’t really buy it. They were not interested in how to avoid a calamity; they’re convinced we are too far gone. For all their wealth and power, they don’t believe they can affect the future. They are simply accepting the darkest of all scenarios and then bringing whatever money and technology they can employ to insulate themselves — especially if they can’t get a seat on the rocket to Mars.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:42PM (26 children)
That was well said, though the preachy ending that followed it might have been too much for the audience. You bet your butt the guards will depose these guys once their fiat money doesn't spend anywhere. If there's a way to avoid it it's the way real-life leaders have done this through history - by cultivating loyalty. Noblesse oblige, marry your daughters to your best men and all that.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:47PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:47AM (2 children)
If these rich folks looked to the Cartels, Mafia, etc. they might find that they are on the right track with a loyalty/fear model that works today, and they may also be better prepared for "the event" as well.
Maybe look at other businessmen criminals that don't have their hands so dirty, but have longtime loyal servants and associates. If they bought into the same doomsday mentality, they could build forts, bunkers, stock up on solar panels and equipment, buy up some farms, etc.
I don't really see any of "environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr Robot hack" as being an imminent threat. The rich may have years or decades to set up their little feudal states.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Thursday July 26 2018, @08:41AM
I was going to suggest looking to warzones. Similar scenarios where anarchy is present and money may not be useful in the moment to "The Event". Warlords, cartels, mobs thrive in those environments. You could argue these types of social structures are basic governments. The mob may require protection money not to burn down your house, but it also has your well being in the mob's best interests.
I was a bit disappointed with the article: it did not discuss the conversation with the hedge fund managers enough. I want to know more specifics to their plans!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @08:49AM
That's a large part of their destructive potential. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory [wikipedia.org] While I think some of Taleb's examples mentioned in the article are poor ("rise of the Internet, the personal computer") the concept certainly makes a lot of sense. Perhaps my opinion is but the retrospective predictability he speaks of.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:04AM (20 children)
I'll just quote a bit of George R R Martin here:
These rich folks want to pretend that their fates aren't tied to everyone else's. Well, I call BS on that. Their power resides solely in their wealth, and if money doesn't count (as it often doesn't in a real crisis) they have nothing. And if they try to flee, they'll find that their money won't get them very far: A helicopter goes nowhere without a pilot, a yacht goes nowhere without a captain, and none of their fancy toys work without fuel and the supply lines to get that fuel to those fancy toys.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:18AM (18 children)
There are two right answers that come to mind.
The first one is your "sellsword" is the only one that lives. He obeys all orders simultaneously, and loots all three corpses. His lucky day.
The other one is he and the King lives. After all, the King is the most likely of the three to have men sworn to avenge his death.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:29AM (17 children)
I see a non-inducted and I quote, "Power resides where men believe it resides."
On a personal level I wonder why it was necessary for them to mention that they were all men - they obviously also have a family, and they most probably think about safety of their daughter over son, etc. but I digress.
I am more worried about the fact that seemingly high-energy, intelligent people are preparing for doom, there is constant chatter that AI singularity is going to hit soon and there is constant propaganda that we are "overpopulated" which is basically an euphemism for poor-are-doomed-to-die-en-masse. Not sure what to make of it, will the poor really rise and destroy? Which ties back to the riddle - when was it that we saw a rich holy king? Muhammad?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:13AM (10 children)
I'm really not sure how to read this. Are you referring to the story I was referring to, or to TFA?
"they obviously also have a family, and they most probably think about safety of their daughter over son, etc. but I digress."
Yes indeed. Well you digressed so I will a little as well, as it seems you might at least understand this; when (for example) the Taliban imposed the law in Afghanistan than women were not allowed to leave the home (without an escort.) The standard 'progressive' analysis sees this as part of 'the oppression of all women by all men.' But that analysis is dead wrong!
Now going around outside in Afghanistan was (and still is) dangerous. Yet it's a necessity. In every household, someone, if not several someones, must exit the home daily, go out in that dangerous world, and come back home with the halal bacon. When the Taliban prohibited women from leaving, the other side of the coin is that it mandated that the males must take on that risk themselves, not share it with the females!
The clear intent of the rule was actually to pro-female. It was to actually to privilege females, to mandate their protection, to lift a dangerous weight from them. That's the subjective intent. Objectively of course this is still oppressive. But it's EVEN MORE oppressive to the males, because the dangerous weight it lifted from the shoulders of the women of Afghanistan for their own good, whether they liked it or not, was similarly placed squarely on the shoulders of their male relatives and family members, who got no more say about it than the women.
Any analyst that looks at that and sees 'all men oppressing all women' is a tool.
"Not sure what to make of it, will the poor really rise and destroy? "
The poor rarely rise and destroy, without being pawns of one or another faction among the rich.
"when was it that we saw a rich holy king? Muhammad?"
Mansa Musa was later, Haile Selassie might have been the last.
You could almost make the case for putting the Dalai Lama in that category, though I'm afraid it might insult him.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:37AM (5 children)
Rarely, but not never. In a world after "The Event", the poor won't be that poor, relatively speaking. All they need is a messiah.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday July 25 2018, @06:11AM (4 children)
Example?
"In a world after "The Event", the poor won't be that poor, relatively speaking."
See, that's a tricky thing to evaluate beforehand. How much of the wealth survives?
The fiat money may not be worth anything anymore, but the things that it bought are.
A wealthy person who saw this coming and spent their money wisely could buy things that would still be useful, even more useful, than before. But of course that depends on the details of an uncertain scenario to some degree as well.
Still, a hideout far from population centers, stocked with supplies *and books*, and some way to get there in a hurry, could do wonders for your chances of survival. Where it seems like it would get tricky would be what these guys are imagining - not a hideout where you and yours can lay low, but a private army that will make you a king after. Setting your sights so high could lay the seeds of your destruction, as we've been discussing - now you have to worry about your army - you have to feed them, house them, keep them happy. That's going to take a lot more money and it might well make you less safe, especially if you fail to take care of them well.
"All they need is a messiah."
And I'm sure there will be many of them recruiting, as there was before.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:26PM (2 children)
With the breakdown of law and order that comes with a serious crisis, who owns those things according to current law and custom is completely meaningless. Those things might exist, but that doesn't mean you're the one that gets to use them. If you have a loyal force of people with guns, you might be able to hang onto some of it, but then again you're going to be heavily outnumbered by a desperate mob.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:00PM
Perhaps not one, but many, small hideouts. Each stocked with carefully chosen supplies, each locked and equipped with booby traps.
Now, your ownership of those items is less shaky. You know where they are - and no one else does. You know how to access them safely - and no one else does. Your ownership is now based on your own knowledge and preparation, rather than just legal title.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:27AM
Unless you kill the mob first. Then you won't be heavily outnumbered. Technology provides major force multipliers. For example, a few machine gun nests in a choke point with good terrain advantages and nearly unlimited ammunition will hold off a mob no matter how big. Remember even now, there's vastly more bullets in the world than there are people. That situation won't change in favor of people in a post-apocalyptic world.
The real challenge will come when the mobs are replaced by paramilitary forces that have some experience at cracking such strongholds.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:57PM
You misunderstood. Who does the sellsword follow when in a room with 1 great man - a rich holy king?
The "Event" we will face, the idea that we can plan to safeguard is ludicrously hilarious. There will at least 1 rich "asshole" who will turn out to be holy and be hailed as a king. That is what all these "assholes" and us all should plan for. The last rich holy king was hailed as a messiah and people are still killing and getting killed over him thousands of years later.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:57PM (3 children)
Infantilizing is not "privileging," and it can be (and often is) coupled with oppression.
I'd suggest you go back and read what Southern slave-owners in the U.S. said to the Abolitionists around the time of the Civil War. Or, really your rhetoric sounds more like the "kindly" rhetoric of the Northern Democrat apologists. They didn't necessarily acknowledge all the bad treatment of slaves, but when faced with the prospect of Abolition, they talked about how the slaves needed "protection" and guidance from their owners, and they were incapable of living outside the plantations without their owners to manage them.
The traditional societies that oppress women often adopt very similar rhetoric. Tyrants too very often talk about how their subjects are to unable to handle freedom without "protection." It's a linguistic turn that's rather Orwellian.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @07:18PM (1 child)
What you're not getting, is that what they were saying was true, at least in part. In Afghanistan, or many places just a few generations past, it is unsafe for a woman to be out alone. Those who lived their whole lives as slaves and knew nothing else did struggle. The reasons are real, that is why they work, even though the intent of the reasoner may be suspect.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:02PM
Oh, I perfectly understand all of that. It's just based on fallacious circular reasoning: women will be raped if they're left out alone therefore we must "protect" them by effectively imprisoning them (or forcing them to wear clothes that are "tempting" or whatever). But who is letting them be raped in the first place??
The reasoning only works if you accept the premises of the society, which is founded on not respecting women as full/equal human beings or whatever.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:50PM
The problem with your analysis is that, and it is constantly found and I blame it on feminist propaganda, is confusing the women with minorities. Slaves had no power and no money, women have always had power and money. In traditional societies husbands hand-over their pay to wives. Muslims queens have crucially counseled the kings - something that's well documented. And on an average women do prefer to let men do manly things and have them spend it on women. I have seen studious little girls lose all interest once they reach teen - it is many times more difficult to inspire them to take books and not make-up than boys.
Unfortunately, what I am saying is well documented and the feminist response has been to simply ignore it and blame it all on "patriarchy" and social upbringing - both of which have no scientific basis. I personally don't get into debates with the religious because I consider it a waste of my time more than anything else. But the questions need to be asked for the inquisitive types...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:32PM (5 children)
If you do it right, population control can substitute for massive die-off. That does require, however, not only implementing population control (and strong reasons to comply) but conservation of resources. Neither of which we have a history of doing. China might be the strongest surviving nation afterwards. Russia will dissolve into feudal anarchy because it's held together by fear. The US will collapse because it's not conserving resources. India is strongly overpopulated already. Japan has too limited a supply of resources. Australia has shown intent to NOT conserve. New Zealand is too small. The Middle East is full of groups that hate each other. I don't understand Africa at all, but I don't see any contenders for "strongest nation" that that don't depend on outside support. And Europe seems too dependent on technology dependent on external resources.
That said, *MY* guess on the singularity remains a bit after 2030. Sometimes closer, sometimes further. But don't expect to predict ahead of time the form it will take. Just consider https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/07/tau-uses-ai-and-blockchain-so-a-stadium-of-people-can-understand-each-and-reach-enlightened-decisions.html [nextbigfuture.com] as a possible unexpected path to the singularity. (Well, it is one of the forms that Vernor Vinge considered in his original article, but most people have ignored it.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:03PM (4 children)
Really depends on the definition of overpopulation. India was the first country to implement birth control all over the world, but it didn't coerce anyone (except for a period of 2-3 years in 80s). India also has the world's most fertile soil. One could argue that a charismatic manager can turn it around fast, so the problem is not the population but the lack of such manager or the lack of a way to find that manager.
Still, I don't think AI is going to be a problem for either China or India as long as the decision to go to war/drop nuclear bombs are kept under human control. If singularity hits and AI gets its hand on it - I don't think any amount of planning is going to help.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:20PM (3 children)
The singularity has already started. Sorry if you didn't notice. And when the time comes AI will have no trouble getting it's "hands" on nuclear weapons. If we're lucky it may use that control to veto human decision makers. If, for some unexpected reason, AI is delayed, I doubt we'll survive the century. Our human leaders are, almost none of them, models of rationality. (And I'm not sure is the almost in that prior sentence can be justified, but I felt like being cautious.)
By my reckoning the singularity started some time around 1960, but the start point is arbitrary, that's just the most recent time that I've noticed the trend change to a faster rate of change. But when you say "the singularity" you've got to understand that you're talking about the one in the future that you will experience. There are many different forms it could take, and it's got chaotic sensitive dependence on initial conditions at choice points all along the path. All you can really be certain of is that it won't match any particular prediction very closely.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 27 2018, @06:32AM (2 children)
Yes, but they are limited by their bodies, which AI won't have.
To me singularity is not yet hit, because to me singularity is when AI learns sustainability. As long we are holding all the power over... power supply, we are just dealing with machines.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday July 27 2018, @05:15PM (1 child)
There are *many* forms of the Technological Singularity, of varying degrees of desirability. Most of the obvious ones require AI to work out, but hardly all of them. And a major nuclear war is not the least probable undesirable Technological Singularity.
Human governance AND survival seems incompatible, in the medium long term, with weapons of the power we possessed half a century ago. And by medium long term, I'm thinking about a century or two.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Saturday July 28 2018, @04:21PM
I see what you mean. Keeping aside the technological singularity, I still think there is a lot of scope of humanity to fuck up before arriving at a solution. But I have always been a lot more optimistic about humanity :)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:59AM
Fuck the priest. Marry the king. Kill the rich.
Wait, what was the question again?
(Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Wednesday July 25 2018, @07:04AM
The main thing to keep in mind for after the event [youtube.com] is to remain indoors at all times.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:43PM (55 children)
Just maybe, if they are so afraid of "The event", they should take some action to prevent it, like, being less greedy assholes?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:51PM (44 children)
... whom they can't even afford to feed, clothe, bathe, or education.
So, who are the actual greedy, self-absorbed assholes here?
(Score: 5, Funny) by mhajicek on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:32PM (1 child)
I'm glad I can afford to education my kids.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:28PM
George W Bush said it best July 1, 2006 in a speech on education: "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?"
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:38AM (37 children)
Aren't you avoiding the matter of the reasons they can't afford these things?
Why should I take for granted "this is how the world needs to be" and blanked blame them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:05AM (36 children)
The fact of the of the matter is that they are living beyond their means, regardless of the reasons.
They cannot afford to create a new human being, and yet they do so, mainly as as a result of fulfilling their base animal lust.
Why do you people feel such an affinity for the self afflicted?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:12AM (35 children)
How about this: I'll take everything you have and lock it up into a cave**. Then, by your measure, you'll be useless for this world because you'll be living beyond your means.
** Yes, that's the equivalent of taking most of the results of your (and heaps of others) work and depositing them as dollars in fiscal paradises.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:20AM (34 children)
The fabulously wealthy got their riches in 2 possible ways (some from one, some from the other, some from both):
Interacting with other people voluntarily; providing a service for which they got paid according to agreements in advance.
Using the government's men-with-guns to steal resources from people against their will.
Well, quit voting for an ever larger government.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:37AM (14 children)
Oh, so how the wealthy got their riches matter but how the poor got there doesn't?
Can you demonstrate that the poor got poor because of the government and not because of the richy rich?
Because otherwise your advice is a wild goose chase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:04AM (13 children)
You either get rich by creating wealth, or you get rich by taking wealth.
When a large number of people band together to organize the taking of wealth, we call that organization "government"; a good government promises to use that stolen booty to create more wealth, usually for the benefit of a special-interest group such as poor voters.
So, a rich person either created his wealth, or he took someone else's wealth; if he took someone's wealth, then either he constitutes a government (e.g., that rich person is a warlord), or he outsourced the plundering to some well-established, industrial-scale, long-lived violently imposed monopoly.
You can't steal under capitalism (if you do steal, you aren't practicing capitalism); you have to create wealth. If there's been a transfer of wealth on a societal scale, it's necessarily the fault of a government.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:40AM (1 child)
You on one side and the rest of the world on the other have different meaning for the word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:12AM
Otherwise, the definitions are the same.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:13AM (1 child)
FTFY to make it fit the real world.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:33AM
What I do have to do is pay for Walmart employees' food stamps (or be stuffed into a cage for refusing).
As always, the problem is a government program, because a government program is predicated on theft.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:50PM (6 children)
No True Scotsman. You can't achieve perfect Capitalism in practice any more than you can achieve perfect Socialism. Under a flawed implementation of Capitalism, people are conned out of their wealth in dishonest ways very frequently.
If a transaction isn't a fair trade of value then it is unfair by definition and in a sense it is a theft of value.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:01PM (5 children)
No one knows what is "fair", mainly because the future (e.g., supply chains, disasters, etc.) is uncertain.
The whole point of a market place is to find what is fair; that which is fair is that which emerges from a multitude of daily interactions, and this implies that a free society searching for fairness must accept "caveat emptor" as a fundamental principle.
That is the major failure of communist/socialist thinking—that there is some kind of fair, absolute, calculable value. There's not.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:32PM (4 children)
This "free" society you describe sounds like an idealized version of Capitalism where fairness improves over time and anyone, with the help of trickle down, has the opportunity to compete with the big guy so no monopolies last for long.
Not one single calculable value, no; I agree. But I'm sure you'd accept that any given product will have a realistic range of prices that a given market will tolerate at a given time. Once you accept that, you should also accept that occasionally there will be outliers -- scams where a small number of people are conned into paying sums of money vastly outside such a range, often due to misrepresentation of facts about the product. These outliers can go to extremes where you have some people awarding themselves bonuses of tens of millions whilst offering little to no new value to their customers in return.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:28PM (3 children)
There's no solution to that other than intrusive command-and-control by Angels.
And, as men are not Angles, such command-and-control inevitably transforms into Tyranny.
You can't save a person from his own stupidity.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:50PM (2 children)
The solution, although it's only a sticking plaster for a flawed system, is a safety net of social benefits.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:59PM (1 child)
You have to crawl back to the ladder and start climbing again.
The reason your "safety net" doesn't is that it's a government program rather than a "private" charity; because it is a government program, it is based on theft, and will therefore end up destroying wealth rather than maintaining or creating wealth.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday July 25 2018, @06:01PM
Let's assume for a moment that what you say were correct. Who gives a shit about what effect a small safety net has on the total wealth* when it's saving people from suffering and dying?
*Let me give you a clue. If done properly, it's a very small effect.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:46PM (1 child)
Please: "You can't steal under capitalism" is clearly false. That your modifier "f you do steal, you aren't practicing capitalism" is true doesn't change that. There are many in capitalist systems that steal by one means or another. (Fraud is the most legally protected, but hardly the only way.) Some are successful, some aren't. Many camouflage what they're doing as something other than theft.
Secondly, wealth is not a thing. You're thinking about it incorrectly. Wealth is contextual. Wealth is access to things that are useful, helpful, or at least pleasurable. Gold is not wealth in-and-of-itself, but only in the context where you can trade it for something useful, helpful, or pleasurable. That is commonly occurs should not obscure the difference. In times of famine, food is wealth much more than gold. In times of danger, military competence is wealth (well, depending on the nature of the danger). Etc.
If you want guaranteed wealth, become a skilled doctor, who is also skilled in bush medicine. (Not first aid...that's just to tide you over until you can get medical help.) But be aware that doctors often suffer when the powerful demand to be cured of something incurable with the given resources.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:58PM
Capitalism is the philosophy that, ideally, every resource should have a well-defined owner; a resource with a well-defined owner becomes "capital". Theft is appropriation of a resource in contravention of well established ownership. Obviously, there can be disputes over ownership, and thus Capitalism necessarily entails an iterative process of dispute resolution, contract negotiation, and enforcement (the latter of which is voluntary by definition, as the means of enforcement is necessarily specified in each contract).
I'm not thinking about wealth incorrectly; indeed, you and I pretty much agree.
I don't agree that being a skill doctor guarantees wealth; after all, it would be stupid if everyone in a community were just a skilled doctor.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:36AM (16 children)
You left out swindle, con and flat out steal, the most common ways to get rich.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:16AM (11 children)
Firstly, you cannot maintain fabulous wealth in that way unless you tap into organized crime, which on a societal scale implies government (even the mafia has to operate through the local governments).
Secondly, are you suggesting that all of the fabulously wealthy are swindlers, con men, and thieves (which are multiple ways of saying the same thing)? If so, you're merely betraying your irrational, dogmatic, self-loathing, envious hatred for the well-to-do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:20AM (1 child)
Only because typically the government interferes.
Only in the sense that a sufficient powerful organization automatically is sort of a government, just by being powerful.
No. The core business of the Mafia works without government influence, however the Mafia has to infiltrate the government to make sure the government does not interfere with their core business. Of course, having infiltrated the government, it makes sense that they also use it to further increase their own power.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:33AM
In other words, operate through the local government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:48AM (8 children)
No matter how you put it, Economics 101 is that you get profit only by getting more than the worth of something in an exchange. Translated to kindergarten speak, you can only get ahead by being unfair. Translated to elementary school speak, "Tom Sawyer" - read it.
Why the other side accepts bad deal? None in their right mind wouldn't, and the rich are different from the rest of us in that they NEVER EVER do accept not only bad deals, but also no fair deals, except when they need to show off, signalize their wealth by buying overpriced exclusive goods.
Normal human beings chose to offer and accept deals they deem fair, among themselves.
People accept bad deals mostly because they are conned (not aware of real costs), or blackmailed (in an submissive position), or because they are conditioned to accept them as fact of life (aka they are not brought up with mindset of the rich).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:41AM (4 children)
Apple computer thinks your dollars are worth more than its iPad.
You think Apple's iPad is worth more than your dollars.
So, you both "swindle" each other: You both profit by making the exchange; you therefore make the exchange voluntarily.
In contrast, I don't think it's profitable to me to throw people in cages for smoking marijuana, but the government forces me to pay for that bullshit anyway; that's NOT voluntary exchange. In contrast, I don't have to shop at Walmart; the only thing I have to do is pay for Walmart employees' food stamps, which (wait for it) is a government program that forces me to pay for it.
The problem is involuntary interaction, and government is founded explicitly on involuntary interaction.
Get it yet?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:02PM (3 children)
Bad example. People who buy iPads are generally spending disposable income (unless they got into debt to pay for it). Let's suppose it were a cheaper brand of tablet. In that case it's worth more dollars to the buyer than to the manufacturer because it's much harder for the buyer to make their own tablet due to the manufacturer's economies of scale. In the case of the Crapple tablet, I'd say part of the value the buyer places on it is due to religious indoctrination which is a strange idea of voluntary behavior.
A better example might be a pauper that has foraged for all the food they can find, eaten it, but is still starving. They head to the grocery store and the cheapest food there, they feel is overpriced, but they still hand over their dollars because that's preferable to starving to death. Yes, in that moment, the food is worth more to them than a large number of dollars, but it's hardly a voluntary exchange. If they can't walk to a cheaper grocery store, it's an example of a captive market.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:32PM (2 children)
Your pauper can't believe that the food is overpriced, because otherwise he wouldn't have given up his dollars. Clearly, not starving is worth more to him than those dollars.
Your anger is misdirected.
Chastise the Universe for what it is, or admonish your parents for having conjured you into this world of scarce resources. Don't be angry at the grocer, without whom there wouldn't even be an "overpriced" item to fill your belly.
(Score: 3, Touché) by acid andy on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:35PM (1 child)
Who said I was angry?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:05PM
What a waste of a website this is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:44AM (2 children)
It's sad when people reduce trade to mutual swindling while ignoring the mutual gain. The obvious rebuttal to your bit of silliness is that worth is relative. To someone who makes thousands or millions of bottles of orange juice, the value of the juice is low relative to the price they sell it at, hence, profit. However, to the person who is thirsty for that bit of sweet fluid, the worth of the juice can be well above its price.
Because it's not a bad deal. I wonder why that concept is so hard to grasp.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:28AM (1 child)
Except when it is. They might realize that later, when it's too late. Most people are shitty at due diligence. The emptors don't caveat.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:33AM
Then they probably won't do it again - trade is rarely a one-time thing. And if they don't "realize" that later, then it probably wasn't a bad deal in the first place, contrary to assertion.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:32PM (3 children)
Also left out inherit as a way of getting wealth.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:50PM (2 children)
What could your point possibly be?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:39PM (1 child)
Oh, maybe that as a result of never having worked:
* some people don't understand having to work, be tired, scrape by
* think that they are better than other people (it's "breeding" not "environment")
* they have not actually created anything of any kind of value to society, they are effectively leeches draining a disproportionate share of the planet's resources for themselves
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:07PM
You're the one who sounds like a whiny, entitled bitch.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:12AM (1 child)
Things you don't want to do, but have to do to survive are not done voluntarily. It's a nice trick: Create an environment where the only way for people to survive is to play by your rules, and then observe that people “voluntarily” follow those rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:44AM
... or yell at your parents for having birthed you into a world of scarce resources.
To me, you sound like an entitled prick.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @07:27PM (3 children)
> So, who are the actual greedy, self-absorbed assholes here?
Um, everyone? Or, every man?
They're putting on a show called The Rich Consult Dr. Strangelove. There are a whole lot of levels of stupid, delusional insanity to it, much like in the movie. The idea that an "Event" could wipe out almost but not quite everyone strikes me as highly improbable. They are therefore wasting their time and resources preparing for the wrong problem. More likely is everyone goes. Wars have killed upwards of 25% of the population of a nation, diseases such as the Black Death have killed off a bit more than half the population, but that's the most. Have to look to geologic history for worse. There are five gigantic extinction events we know about, and the worst one, the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago, causing about 70% of all land species and 96% of all ocean species to go extinct, bringing an end to an age. Such a severe extinction event is extremely rare. If it did occur, they'd likely die with everyone else, discovering that all their preparation was laughably inadequate. Even if they survived the initial shock, could they survive centuries of darkness, crop failures, violent aftershocks, poisoned and thinned air, caustic and toxic liquids and gases, and the lack of who knows what else we need from the environment and don't yet know we need it?
Air is a huge problem. If Earth's air became unbreathable, that'd kill almost all of us within minutes, leaving alive only those who happened to be scuba diving or in submarines. Then what would the handful of survivors do? Could they set up means to get more air before what they have runs out? It's just not reasonable to stockpile beforehand enough air tanks to hold a century's worth of air for a family.
And lack of air is only one way to kill almost everyone fast. What about an Event that heats the whole surface of the planet to the boiling point of water or higher? Or the opposite, freezing the world? Unlikely, but if a giant planet sized Oumuamua came swinging through just wrong, that could eject Earth from the solar system. We wouldn't die in a matter of minutes, but dying in a matter of days or weeks is hardly better.
So, the Events these rich fools are evidently most confident of surviving are self-inflicted ones. They're not working to prevent these disasters, instead they seem bent on raking in the profits that it brings them to make things worse! Profits that they seem unable to grasp will be worthless, if civilization collapses. As for building bunkers, that's about the equivalent of stowing away a rowboat on a ship that is sailing directly into a massive hurricane that will sink it, and thinking you can escape and ride out the storm in that rowboat.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:49AM (2 children)
Because? Humans are vastly smarter than anything kicking around before humans. Even if the atmosphere becomes toxic, one can always filter it both for humans and crops that humans would rely on.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:42PM (1 child)
Could air be filtered, generated, and recycled for a long, long time? Maybe, but I doubt we're able to do it, yet. Remember Biosphere 2? It had a lot of problems that developed over a relatively short time, just a few years, and a big one was maintaining the atmosphere.
If we're so smart, we should accept the no-brainer that is right in front of our noses. That is, the Earth has maintained a healthy biosphere for billions of years, and there is no reason why it shouldn't continue to do so for many more millennia, except for us. All we have to do is not screw it up. Sadly, it's possible we're smart enough to gain the power to really screw it up, yet too stupid not to use that power so, not play chicken with the world, not delude ourselves with nonsense and propaganda. To embark on a quest that is implicitly giving up on humanity, standing by and letting the idiots trash the world because your energies are devoted to building a sanctuary that no one knows can be made sustainable, is nuts.
Western society is highly individualistic, and it colors our thinking. It's characteristically individualistic to think in terms of total independence from the biosphere. To use a car analogy, it's like thinking of each animal as a car, when a better analogy might be the whole world as one big car, and we are all parts of it. And we're busy seeing what we can throw out and still have a usable car. Throw out the seats, seat belts, and who really needs the hood, or doors? Or a windshield? As for the trunk lid, why not saw off the whole damn trunk, lid and all? Although, the trunk could be useful for carrying extra gas. Spare tire? Gone of course. The instrument panel is also unnecessary, don't really need to know exactly how fast we're going or how much gas is in the tank. And systems such as power steering and A/C? Toss them too. Air filter? Can live without that for a while, if the air is relatively clean. And really, you could manage without brakes, you really could. Shut the engine off when you want to stop. Just need a bit more room to stop, that's all. Indicator lights, turn signals and the like could all go, no need for them if you're the only car on the road. You will have of course already thrown the brake lights out when you threw out the brakes. Headlights are another item that could go, but then it'd be best to restrict your driving to daylight hours only, although it is of course still possible to drive around by moonlight, or one could invest in night vision goggles. Goggles of any sort could be awfully handy to compensate for the lack of a windshield. Obviously you'd throw away the muffler and tailpipe, and exhaust manifold too, run with open headers, because it's just noise. Might want to use ear plugs, though.
Such a thoroughly gutted, unsafe, reduced capability. short life span, and zero comfort vehicle is just the sort of thing these rich idiots are proposing to use as a personal lifeline if humanity should cause the mother car to develop serious problems. One big flaw with the analogy is that we know everything that goes into a car, while we most certainly don't know all the parts of a biosphere. Seems very likely we'd leave out all kinds of critical things without realizing they were critical.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:51PM
Except that we were speaking of an extinction event 250 million years ago. Earth hasn't maintained a healthy biosphere for billions of years. It might not even had a healthy biosphere until some point in the last half a billion years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:53PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:57PM (1 child)
Yes, but those aren't the ones they're preparing for. Sure an asteroid could more or less doom us all, but the more likely problems are all avoidable consequences of what those assholes did to make their money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:07PM
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:58AM
Asteroids and supervolcanic eruptions [soylentnews.org] could be preventable. In fact, the technology needed to prepare for both opens up possible revenue sources (asteroid mining and volcanic geothermal). Social unrest may be harder to deal with than an asteroid (and no object has a high Torino scale [wikipedia.org] score right now anyway).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:00PM (1 child)
I'm pretty sure that was the point the author was making at the end:
I would imagine the 5 hedge fund traders were all of the inherited wealth class, and have never in their lives felt the need to treat anyone well, unless that person was of use to them right now.
The other bit that caught my eye is:
I can tell you which of those regions would refuse to tug the forelock in the event of "the event".
Here's a tip for any more American billionaires thinking of using New Zealand as their bolthole in the event of some sort of collapse.
You will be of absolutely no use to us if your money has no value. Don't expect any help, or even civility from us. We know what you are and we don't make very good servants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:34AM
Really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMas0tWc0sg [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:12PM
Guys, Bernie can still win. Match me!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:21PM
Prevent it?, the odds are that it'll be a group like them¹ who are the one's who'll precipitate it.
I'm of the opinion that 'The event' will be the 'unstoppable virus', they'll have the cure, but the herd?, the herd will be thinned out (80-95% mortality rate, maybe higher in certain continents).
Then, to borrow a phrase, magnus ab integro sæculorum nascitur ordo..
¹ But not this lot at the resort, if they're asking the sort of questions reported then it's painfully obvious that they're also part of the herd but they don't quite know it yet (but considering that they are asking the questions, I think there's a dawning realisation...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:52AM (1 child)
Conservatives: Do not take my portion of the pie a larger proportion of the total. Liberals: give us the pie.
Fixed that for ya.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:40AM
Conservatives: “My Preciouss!”
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jelizondo on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:58PM (14 children)
If you assume that civilization crashes, then your options are few and perhaps death is not so bad. We would be in the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid, every effort meant only for survival.
Say one stores lots and lots of food, well it will go bad in a few months or years. What’s the use? You’ll be left without food in little time, even if it would last your personal life, what becomes of your children?
You need to learn to raise food, either plants or animals, but other people might take them so you need protection and thus taxes appear again, you’ll have to share your food with those that protect you from others. Or you can take the opposite tack and become a protector of food raisers in exchange for food.
But you see, there is no middle man here. No use for brokers, bankers, investors or anyone who can’t grow food or battle others. You need to earn your keep, with your hands and perhaps risking your life. Frankly I don’t see this fancy guys lasting long “after the event.”
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:09PM (9 children)
Remember, you don't have to run faster than the bear. You need only to run faster than the guy next to you.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:15PM (1 child)
Replace the bear with an angry mob of billions of bears.
Still need to remember that saying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by suburbanitemediocrity on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:17AM
Yes. I was responding to the
part
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:15PM
If you have somewhere to run
(Score: 4, Touché) by legont on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:16PM
Only when there are way more guys than bears. The real lessons of crashes teach otherwise.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:26AM (4 children)
So if I ran out of food all I need is find a bear and run from it? :-)
With your logic, death should be your primary option.
(Score: 3, Informative) by suburbanitemediocrity on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:48AM (3 children)
You can easilystore enough food to last 5-10 years which is enough time for the masses to starve to death.
I was researching desalination techniques and came across Branson's island. It's self contained and you can grow supplemental food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STCqSXCbbcw [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jelizondo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:24AM (2 children)
Oh God! As I said death might not be so bad. So after ten years, what? The masses starved to death. Fine. What has that bought me?
After ten years things get much, much worse. Any technology you might had is probably gone or failing, a bad crop is enough to kill you, any sickness is serious and death is an insect bite away. Fuck even drinking water could kill you.
On an island you say? Well, after a while everyone is inbred and living on the Stone Age or worse. Anyone leaving the island (if possible *) would have to deal with some though bastards upon arriving anywhere where people are still alive, because anyone who survived is going to fire first and ask questions later.
Really think about it. No fertilizers, no insecticides, no vaccines, no medicine, none of the things that make life easy, entertaining and fulfilling are available (other than sex with your relatives, that is), so again, death might not be so bad.
It’s not a Hollywood movie, it is a civilization crash. It might take thousands of years to recover. Surviving ten years ain’t gonna cut it pal.
* Richy Rich is moving to New Zeland. Getting from there to Sidney (Australia) is about 1,200 miles (2000 km) so it is unlikely that a floating log will serve and it is about the shortest distance to any major landmass. Of course, landmasses are closer from Branson's Island [wikipedia.org] but then again it is only 30 ha (74 acres) of mostly unproductive soil. [fao.org]
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:10AM (1 child)
*Sydney
And some people kayak between Australia & NZ [theguardian.com]. Doable with less tech too, just look at Thor Heyerdahl's "Kontiki" journey.
Real risk is loss of "old" knowledge; that's what's really going to kill you in the longer run in an end-of-civilisation scenario.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 25 2018, @06:01PM
Every modern trip like that I've heard of has had "rescue options" available electronically. They might not be needed, and they might not have worked, but they were there, and significantly reduced the danger. This doesn't mean what you're proposing is impossible, just a lot less likely to succeed than you are hypothesizing. They also had all sorts of advance planning, and carefully chosen modern equipment. Thor Heyerdahl didn't advertise his radio, but it was there.
Additionally, you need to develop the skills *before* you set out if you want to have a reasonable chance of surviving. And you don't take an invading army that way without generations of developed skill...which is likely to tell you that what you're proposing is too dangerous for a major investment even with developed skill.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:25AM (3 children)
One merely needs to look at history to see a lot of options. We've been there before.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jelizondo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:27AM (2 children)
Nope. We haven't. You don't give an example of previous civilization collapse so I'll give you two: the Mayan and the Roman.
The Mayan never attained anywhere close to their previous splendor, their cities abandoned by around 900 A.D. By the time the Spaniards arrived starting in 1511, no great Mayan city was inhabited. After that, well, the shit hit the fan and they never raised again.
After the fall of Rome, we had the great Dark Ages. Of course, Western Civilization arose from the ashes of Rome and here we are.
But think about it. We have mined most of the easily obtained mineral resources. Most of coal and oil are gone. Yes, there is still coal in Wyoming and Montana, but the ratios are about 3:1, that is you have to crush 3 tons of rock to get one ton of coal. And pray tell me, how are you going to crush 3 tons of rock? By hand? There is no electricity, no engines, no oil. Yes, there is a lot of copper and steel to be had by ripping it out of existing buildings, but it is all done by hand. And you have to melt it (good luck with structural steel) with bellows-blown fires, there are no electric-arc furnaces working. (And good luck finding enough timber to power a big fire.) Yes, there is still oil in the ground in Texas, but you're in New York, how the hell are going to get it there?
What is the death rate at this “event”? If most people are gone, who is going to be the workforce you will command? And how are going to command it? You are as bad as the fancy rich guys of TFA, no conception at all of what is being wrought. Anything you want done, you’ll have to do yourself, with your own little hands.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:31AM
Sun will continue to shine for at least half a billion years and we have huge trash heaps to mine. We're not hurting on that end.
Unless, of course, there is. End of civilization doesn't mean end of engines or electricity. The laws of physics didn't change.
So it sucks. Development of societies is "uneven" [soylentnews.org], remember? If we all give up when things get difficult then who will make the next civilization and help them avoid the mistakes of the last civilization?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @06:25AM
With (assumedly) many fewer people, raw and even heavily processed material will be laying on on the surface. Need some copper? No need to mine, strip that vacant housing development.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:00PM (11 children)
Breaking: not all preppers are middle class or lower. In other news, the sun is still up there in the daytime even if it's cloudy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:08AM (10 children)
The part of TFA I like is "Being human is not about individual survival or escape. It’s a team sport. Whatever future humans have, it will be together."
We live together or die apart.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:19AM (5 children)
True enough on a species level but not remotely on an individual level. There are plenty of people who not only don't need others to survive but would actually enjoy the solitude. I am not one of them, mind you. I enjoy arguing too much.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:14PM
We won't need that "skill" after the apocalypse.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 25 2018, @06:11PM (3 children)
Sorry, but the examples of "people who not only don't need others to survive" is full of frauds. I'm sure that some exist, but they wouldn't advertise themselves, and there aren't many. Now if you'd said "people who not only don't need others to survive for a couple of months", or even "a couple of years" I'd be more likely to agree with you. But do remember that even the the 1800's the "mountain men" depended on civilization to supply, and replace, their weaponry. I'm not sure how well those that "went native" did, but some of the AmerInds considered that a young man being sent out to fend for himself during the season of plenty (6 months starting sometime in spring) to be a great travail, and a profound initiation. So even if you grow up in a "stone age" community learning how to live off the land, having to do so by yourself is not a trivial exercise. And that was before the land had been as hunted and fished out as it currently is.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:19AM (2 children)
You should go fishing before you opine on the state of our fishing holes. Mind you, it will take you a decade or more to be able to reliably fill your belly more often than not with a rod and reel. At least four before the old farts consider you worth listening to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:11PM (1 child)
Your comparison time line is too short. And you haven't needed to reliably feed yourself, where not catching means you don't eat that day.
The current fishing is managed by the government to maintain an "good supply" (varies in interpretation) of fish. That's what fishing licenses pay for. It isn't expected to be a main source of protein. (Things like American Indians on reservation at salmon runs are exceptions.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 26 2018, @07:04PM
I haven't needed to, no. That doesn't mean I haven't done a large enough study to be fairly certain that I could though. You don't really need scientific motivation to make yourself go fishing most every day.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:53AM (3 children)
Except, of course, when that isn't true. Feelgood won't always feel good when you start to realize others don't have to play on your team.
(Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Thursday July 26 2018, @04:31AM (2 children)
Well, I guess it's time for you to look to joining the winning team.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:37AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 28 2018, @01:32AM