Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:09PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:42PM (26 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:42PM (#711996) Journal
    "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."

    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?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:47PM (3 children)

    by tftp (806) on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:47PM (#711998) Homepage
    I do not think the modern [upper] society can convert into the middle ages mode of ethic fast enough. Most important here is the soldiers who are spoiled by cynicism of our days. They will have no loyalty. There we born into a free world, they won't bow to anyone. And why to bow if they have weapons?
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:47AM (2 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:47AM (#712064) Journal

      I do not think the modern [upper] society can convert into the middle ages mode of ethic fast enough.

      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

        by richtopia (3160) on Thursday July 26 2018, @08:41AM (#712973) Homepage Journal

        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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @08:49AM (#717458)

        I don't really see any of "environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr Robot hack" as being an imminent threat.

        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)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:04AM (#712074)

    I'll just quote a bit of George R R Martin here:

    In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. "Do it," says the king, "for I am your lawful ruler." "Do it," says the priest, "for I command you in the name of the gods." "Do it," says the rich man, "and all this gold shall be yours." So tell me – who lives and who dies?

    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)

      by Arik (4543) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:18AM (#712109) Journal
      "So tell me – who lives and who dies?"

      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)

        by cubancigar11 (330) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:29AM (#712145) Homepage Journal

        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)

          by Arik (4543) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:13AM (#712171) Journal
          "On a personal level I wonder why it was necessary for them to mention that they were all men"

          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)

            by cubancigar11 (330) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:37AM (#712192) Homepage Journal

            The poor rarely rise and destroy, without being pawns of one or another faction among the rich.

            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)

              by Arik (4543) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @06:11AM (#712200) Journal
              "Rarely, but not never."

              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)

                by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:26PM (#712356)

                The fiat money may not be worth anything anymore, but the things that it bought are.

                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

                  by Arik (4543) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:00PM (#712396) Journal
                  Which is why I would try to avoid that reliance on humans and go smaller.

                  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

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:27AM (#712896) Journal

                  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.

                  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

                by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:57PM (#713135) Homepage Journal

                "All they need is a messiah."

                And I'm sure there will be many of them recruiting, as there was before.

                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)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:57PM (#712296) Journal

            Any analyst that looks at that and sees 'all men oppressing all women' is a tool.

            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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @07:18PM (#712587)

              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

                by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:02PM (#712624) Journal

                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

              by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:50PM (#713128) Homepage Journal

              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)

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:32PM (#712499) Journal

          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)

            by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:03PM (#713142) Homepage Journal

            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)

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:20PM (#713281) Journal

              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)

                by cubancigar11 (330) on Friday July 27 2018, @06:32AM (#713579) Homepage Journal

                Our human leaders are, almost none of them, models of rationality.

                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)

                  by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 27 2018, @05:15PM (#713757) Journal

                  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

                    by cubancigar11 (330) on Saturday July 28 2018, @04:21PM (#714023) Homepage Journal

                    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:59AM (#712276)

      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

    by driverless (4770) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @07:04AM (#712207)

    When the hedge funders asked me the best way to maintain authority over their security forces after “the event,”

    The main thing to keep in mind for after the event [youtube.com] is to remain indoors at all times.