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: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:36AM (16 children)

    by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @03:36AM (#712151)

    You left out swindle, con and flat out steal, the most common ways to get rich.

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:16AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:16AM (#712173)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:20AM (#712234)

      Firstly, you cannot maintain fabulous wealth in that way unless you tap into organized crime,

      Only because typically the government interferes.

      which on a societal scale implies government

      Only in the sense that a sufficient powerful organization automatically is sort of a government, just by being powerful.

      (even the mafia has to operate through the local governments).

      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

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:33AM (#712899) Journal

        however the Mafia has to infiltrate the government to make sure

        In other words, operate through the local government.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:48AM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:48AM (#712249)

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:41AM (#712270)

        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)

          by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:02PM (#712337) Homepage Journal

          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.

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:32PM (#712361)

            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)

              by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:35PM (#712364) Homepage Journal

              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

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:05PM (#712485)

                What a waste of a website this is.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:44AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:44AM (#712904) Journal

        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.

        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.

        Why the other side accepts bad deal?

        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)

          by acid andy (1683) on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:28AM (#713016) Homepage Journal

          Why the other side accepts bad deal?

          Because it's not a bad deal. I wonder why that concept is so hard to grasp.

          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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:33AM (#713018) Journal

            They might realize that later, when it's too late.

            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)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 25 2018, @01:32PM (#712319) Journal

    Also left out inherit as a way of getting wealth.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:50PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:50PM (#712469)

      What could your point possibly be?

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:39PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:39PM (#713078) Journal

        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

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:07PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:07PM (#713092)

          You're the one who sounds like a whiny, entitled bitch.