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: 3, Insightful) by tfried on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:17AM (3 children)
I think you are right in pointing out that it's wrong to blame the super-wealthy for everything. But looking at the world's problems one at a time:
Now, those answering "yes" to b) will typically argue that allowing the accumulation of super-wealth actually has benefits for society as a whole, either because of "trickle down", or because some of it will be available for focused charitable causes.
Observations such as the one from TFA cast doubt on the merits of this line of argument. And so it would appear that putting some limits on the accumulation of wealth may in fact help to solve some problems.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:06AM (2 children)
There's a third effect. It increases the diversity of those who have these resources. Note that a common theme in this discussion is the absurdity of demanding that a highly distrusted group, the super-wealthy fix the problems that more powerful entities, governments can't be bothered to do.
We've already figured out an approach that works for any country - the entire developed world and a number of rising countries like China have implemented a number of variations on the theme of modernization which generally involves a variety of infrastructural and cultural changes over generations such as a modern legal system, democratic, low-corruption governments, capitalist infrastructure for managing property, and economically rewarding those who are ambitious.
How so? Should the super-wealthy ignore the possibility of civilization collapse nor make preparations that could ease the burden of post-collapse life?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tfried on Wednesday July 25 2018, @02:51PM (1 child)
So in addition to those who seek the power to control resources for a community, we now also have those who seek the power to control resources for their private spending. Hooray for that diversity! (BTW, the boundaries between both types have always been blurry, but at least we have a word for those using community resources for their private pleasure.)
I don't. I'm saying they are very, very, very unlikely to use "their" resources for that. More unlikely than governments, in fact (assuming non-failed-state levels of corruption). Which is why I advocate shifting resources away from them. And actually we have long since figured out a very effective approach to that end that is still compatible with market economy: progressive taxes (esp. on assets). Unfortunately, we have been gradually shifting away from that.
If I was among the super-wealthy, achieving my personal immortality (or whatever comes closest) would be among my top priorities. I strongly believe that from a society point of view, any dollar spend on underground bunkers and personal armies would be much better invested in preventing civilization collapse in the first place. But even a single super-wealthy individual can only do so much to prevent problems at a large scale, while they can reasonably expect to mediate their personal post-desaster consequences quite effectively.
So no, I do not blame any super-wealthy individual for acting selfishly. I expect them to.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:08AM
In other words, division of power, a very common thing in democratic societies.