Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich?currentPage=all

by shawndumas • 9 years ago

136 117 9 years ago

goombastic• 9 years ago

The first big disruption of civilization will be fuelled on facebook. Look at what happened in the middle east and is happening else where. Starts out slow and happy and descends into violence and chaos which in large part will be started by police themselves.

jaypaulynice2• 9 years ago

I see it the other way around. I think Facebook and Twitter's goals are to disrupt that kind of chaos with their "trending" section. While these platforms can be used to mobilize, they can pinpoint exact location of unrest and try to prevent that kind of stuff from happening.

FLUX-YOU• 9 years ago

It must be great to be known as a doomsday escape haven like New Zealand. When the world actually goes tits up, you have a whole bunch of rich people bringing supplies and survival gear to your country for you to take.

runjake• 9 years ago

The smart looters would identify those spots in NZ now, and loot them when they're relatively unoccupied and not in alert state.

You see these OPSEC fails in the middle class, too, with the NRA/AR-15/"Molon Labe" bumper stickers on their cars. Thanks for letting me know you have cool firearms, ammunition, and god knows what else.

lawless123• 9 years ago

You have a point.

A modest clandestine bunker close to but not directly in a population centre might fare a lot better than these pinatas. Especially if everyone else has run off to raid the Theil compound.

I think if i was this rich i wouldn't just build a bunker in the middle of nowhere but invest in existing town, help them become more independent/self sufficient.

Same for wherever i lived, the more people protected from a disaster the quicker they can rebuild.

forgetsusername2• 9 years ago

Thanks for letting me know you have cool firearms, ammunition, and god knows what else.

I'm pretty sure many of those card carrying NRA members would love for you to show up on their doorstep to take possession of their firearms and survival stash...

xenihn• 9 years ago

The smart looters would identify those spots in NZ now, and loot them when they're relatively unoccupied and not in alert state.

The military (or whatever it turns into) would be the ones who gain control of fortified locations, and whatever resources they contain.

rb808• 9 years ago

From what I know of New Zealanders they still are very egalitarian and generally hate wealthy billionaires. I think if these rich people actually move there they'd regret it.

peatmoss• 9 years ago

I don't know why you're being downvoted. Having lived in NZ, kiwis are a fiercely egalitarian society. Looking at pretty landscapes in solitude doesn't strike me as a great living.

knz2• 9 years ago

I'm not sure "hate" is the correct word but "Tall Poppy syndrome" is real in NZ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

The egalitarian ideal is also declining rapidly in NZ.

Hydraulix989• 9 years ago

How do they view Kim Dotcom then who has a giant mansion there with Mercedes cars with license plates like GOD, HACKER, CRIMINAL?

knz2• 9 years ago

Kiwi here - no thanks. The last thing New Zealand needs is more politicized money flowing into the country.

C.f: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/323098/'exceptional-c... and http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/323107/nz-back-at-top-of... are both headlines on most major NZ news websites today.

It didn't work out too well for Kim Dotcom either (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradit...).

f-• 9 years ago

The last time this story made rounds on HN, quite a few readers were ripping into the people described in the article, and it sure feels good to do so, but... I don't know about you, but if I had more money than I conceivably ever needed, I sure would contemplate having a helicopter on standby and a luxury compound in some scenic part of the world. You know, just for fun, just in case.

In fact, I suspect that once you're in that particular wealth bracket, it's no longer about people who have contingency plans versus the ones who don't. I'm pretty sure that almost every Fortune 100 CEO has private security parked in front of their house and a plan to get out quickly something bad were to happen. There are many security consulting companies that cater exclusively to this segment - and they are doing very well. It's just that most of the CEOs won't talk about it to The New Yorker - partly because of opsec concerns, but partly because such revelations would make it even easier for us to vilify them.

And before we assume that their plans are lopsided and irrational, I think it's worth keeping in mind that the article is written to be entertaining. The author wants to tell us about the stuff that is out of ordinary and out of reach of mere mortals. That doesn't mean that the people featured in the article don't also have a fire extinguisher and some tarp and nails in their garage. Heck, perhaps 95% of their prepping goes toward more pedestrian risks? Perhaps they practice defensive driving and situational awareness? Perhaps they go camping or hiking every other week? Perhaps they take EMT courses and participate in community preparedness drills? Who knows... that stuff is boring. ICBM silos and helicopters are fun.

We should also remember that unlike many many of the stars of "Doomsday Preppers" who seemed inexplicably frightened by the prospect of social unrest in the US, the ultra-rich may actually have something to worry about. When angry masses take it to the streets, it's not the cookie-cutter, mixed income, urban sprawl neighborhoods that are going to be set ablaze. We had quite a few big revolutions, and it's usually the heads of the variously defined aristocracy that roll. It's not ancient history, too.

Lastly... one viewpoint presented in the article is that it's somehow immoral for the CEOs to worry about self-preservation instead of trying to give back to the community. I think that's a non-sequitur - is it also immoral for them to buy a fire extinguisher or install sprinklers before making the world a better place? - but more importantly, the two goals are not mutually exclusive.

PS. Disclaimer - I'm the author of http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/, so I might be not entirely impartial.

mac01021• 9 years ago

the two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Every dollar you spend on your bunker is a dollar you don't spend helping the world keep out of the sort of trouble that would make your bunker necessary.

I'm not saying you aren't entitled to spend your time and money however you like, but there is a mathematical sense in which the goals do conflict, even if only via opportunity cost.

arouqa3• 9 years ago

But how much money would you need to spend to keep the world out of trouble?

Especially if you don't have any political clout or an army to back it up.

Would donating $5 million really help in some catastrophic event? Especially when compared to the multi-billions that nations spend each year?

djrogers• 9 years ago

Every dollar you spend on your bunker is a dollar you don't spend helping the world keep out of the sort of trouble that would make your bunker necessary.

But it's also a dollar that's been spent - paying for school supplies for the daughter of the welder employed by the manufacturer, the medicine the truck driver's mom needs, and a few drinks at the bar for the retired vet who ran the backhoe for the bunker.

The economy isn't a closed system, so anything that gets the super rich to spend their money rather than stockpile it will benefit the economy as a whole.

pjc50• 9 years ago

ultra-rich may actually have something to worry about

True, especially in less-developed or stable countries where kidnap gangs are a real problem.

it's not the cookie-cutter, mixed income, urban sprawl neighborhoods that are going to be set ablaze

It tends to be the dense, liminal, downtown areas that are set ablaze. Being well off certainly does help you get away from the fires.

But I think a lot of people dislike preppers because of the implication that this effort is a substitute for being involved in preventing the disaster in the first place - or, on the nuttier fringe, seemingly trying to accelerate it. Especially political involvement.

Remember, for many people having insecure accomodation, food supply, and access to medical care is everyday life.

(your advice page seems to be from the sensible wing of "preparedness", assigning sensible probabilities to risks)

woofyman3• 9 years ago

It tends to be the dense, liminal, downtown areas that are set ablaze. Being well off certainly does help you get away from the fires.

That's only at first. Once all the food is gone, they'll go after the rich in their compounds.

zeveb• 9 years ago

But I think a lot of people dislike preppers because of the implication that this effort is a substitute for being involved in preventing the disaster in the first place

I had literally never heard of this criticism until I read this article and the ensuing discussion.

It seems a little odd, too, like saying, 'why hedge the risk of an unfriendly regime when you can vote?' Even Bill Gates or Carlos Slim can't ensure that a disaster won't happen to him or his family; while I'm sure that they take steps to prevent them, I'm equally sure that they also have plans in place for how to respond to unprevented disasters.

gutnor• 9 years ago

Lastly... one viewpoint presented in the article is that it's somehow immoral for the CEOs to worry about self-preservation instead of trying to give back to the community.

The thing that I don't like with this reasoning is that it implies there is a limit of wealth and that above that line, the benefit of regular economy stop applying and the rich person, on a voluntary basis should just have the decency to invest back directly into the community instead of through the regular means.

I somewhat agree with that on principle, but if people really share that thinking then it should really become a law: punitive tax level, maximum salary, don't know of any practical mechanism, but that's not the point, it is not even discussed by any party.

Otherwise there is no reason you can criticise the rich for buying the stuff he wants than the poor (relatively) for doing exactly the same.

scissortest• 9 years ago

The last time this story made rounds on HN, quite a few readers were ripping into the people described in the article, and it sure feels good to do so, but... I don't know about you, but if I had more money than I conceivably ever needed, I sure would contemplate having a helicopter on standby and a luxury compound in some scenic part of the world. You know, just for fun, just in case.

Yes, but then I'd do what I already do, spend most of my energy and passion on thinking about and working on fixing problems I didn't cause and that hardly affect me. Which I'm sure plenty of wealthy -- the best of them -- already do. I agree it's not mutually exclusive, for what it's worth. That is completely true, and there are empathic, responsible super rich people just like sociopathic, reckless poor people exist. But let's not use people we can imagine to exist to excuse the detached clowns we see with our own eyes and who make sure we get to hear about their every brain fart, too.

We should also remember that unlike many many of the stars of "Doomsday Preppers" who seemed inexplicably frightened by the prospect of social unrest in the US, the ultra-rich may actually have something to worry about.

I know what you mean, but really, think about you just wrote. For every person, for every living being, their life is an ocean in which you, your wealth and all your ancestors and offspring are not even a tiny speck, and when they die, "their whole universe" dies with them. So, does having a lot of material, or things to worry about, really increase the intensity of that attachment? Is that not also at the very least orthogonal? When it comes to intensity of live, of being at ease with who one is, of not being on the run from oneself, then little kids and dogs and a million "types" of people come to mind before the super rich do. But of course, that's all very subjective. I just know who makes me think "good for them" and who makes me feel sad for them.

When angry masses take it to the streets, it's not the cookie-cutter, mixed income, urban sprawl neighborhoods that are going to be set ablaze.

Whenever catastrophy strikes, or war or other things are done by people, it's the elderly, the children, the poor, the sick and so on who suffer first, last, and the hardest throughout, make no mistake. Besides, so far various elites have been doing great at polarizing angry masses and having them at each other's throats. They might also be the ones who have the drones and whatnot, so angry crowds taking to the streets would be the perfect excuse to fast track totalitarianism even harder, but I'm sure there will be ways to goad them into it anyway. To me, that's the greasy old man showing his junk in front of the curtain, I can't even imagine what is behind it.

semi-extrinsic3• 9 years ago

Read your prep article. While interesting and pretty exhaustive, I have some pointers for improvement:

* needs shortening (it's too long-winded)

* a note that it mainly applies to the US when it comes to economy/lack of social safety net; e.g. you mention that governments won't help you in case of a financial crisis and big increase in unemployment, but you also point out this happened recently in Greece and Spain - obviously all those people weren't preppers, yet they are still surviving

* for several of the natural disasters you mention (e.g. Katrina and the European heat wave), most fatalities were old and sick people, which you can't really prep against (being old)

* the Fukushima mention is weird - at least 100x, maybe 1000x more people died from the earthquake and tsunami than from the nuclear accident, even when you take into account future cancer deaths

* needs more discussion of how to prepare for/handle situations when no water, toilets and toilet paper are available - how to build a latrine outdoors, how to conserve limited toilet paper supply, the hygienic setup and use of slop buckets indoors, and how to manage without toilet paper, water and soap

* no mention of learning how to conserve food and keeping jars and salt/sugar/vinegar/etc around for this purpose

* no mention of stockpiling diaper rash cream (can be vital when you can't shower for weeks), Vaseline, and blister bandages as well as womens' stocking socks (for avoiding blisters on long hikes)

* no mention of getting a high-durability water filtration system (like the Sawyer water bottle, 3.7 million liters durability of cleaning bacteria and parasites from river water)

* AM/FM radio should be crank powered

dsl• 9 years ago

Does anyone have a point of contact for joining this group? My email is in my profile.

ifdefdebug• 9 years ago

Show me your money and I'll sign you up.

jonathankoren• 9 years ago

If you have to ask you're not invited. You're going to the high density cannibal feed lot with rest of us.

throwaway2016a2• 9 years ago

This is a duplicate.

The previous discussion is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865

aub3bhat• 9 years ago

I think a lot of rich people underestimate the importance of law and order which allows them to benfit-from/wield their wealth. A bunch of guns, food packets or gold bars are unlikely to be of any use in case of a true catastrophe. The sense of power that wealth brings evaporates quickly, a quick litmus test is how few wealthy like Maddoff can escape law enforcement, even when having complete knowledge of their own certain doom in near future.

debt• 9 years ago

The wealthy in this scenario assume they'd be the first to know of the fall of civilization. If they were further down on the chain, still would require a ton of infrastructure(planes, roads, etc.) to move people to these locations.

arouqa3• 9 years ago

In the past, they would have founded their own nation with a personal army by now.

arethuza2• 9 years ago

Maintaining the loyalty of those you invite to protect you can be a bit tricky - according to one source that's how the Anglo Saxons were invited to what became England to help protect a post Roman society of Britons from attacks from what is now Scotland (Picts and Dalriadic Scots):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Brit...

I'd expect the loyalty to a rich employer would last right up to the point where money becomes worthless - after that exactly what bargaining power would a rich person have? Up to a certain point in history you achieved and maintained royal status largely by being a stupendous bad-ass...

true_religion• 9 years ago

Doomsday isn't going to happen tommorrow, but if you think its a possibility then it makes sense to sink money into a minature fortress now, then later as things worsen, grow outwards and invest in lesser protected zones for people who are aligned with you to join.

scandox• 9 years ago

Sadly this is very true. I think that ego plays a big part. It's hard for some people to accept that their achievements rest on a wider platform - especially if someone is used to operating in a relatively autocratic domain (i.e. in their own business).

unabridged• 9 years ago

I love how half of these plans all depend on workers transporting them. Yeah some guy in an armored SUV is going to pick you up and save you while leaving his family & friends to die.

Florin_Andrei3• 9 years ago

The true litmus test is to look at history, during times when social order completely broke down. How did the elites fare then?

Would the French revolution be a good example? Or is that event already biased against the elites? Or would a hypothetical future collapse of society be also biased against the elites?

Apocryphon4• 9 years ago

The concept of privilege is often bandied around by social progressives, but if you strip away the ideological elements, it really just comes down to self-awareness. What are you reliant on? What does your success depend on? Count your blessings, and reciprocate.

The libertarian inclination to portray human beings prospering on their own as Randian ubermensch is one of the worst ideas to have infected tech culture.

jbyers2• 9 years ago

Discussed two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865

throwaway2016a2• 9 years ago

I'll probably get down voted for asking but why post this yourself rather than up-vote me when I posted the exact same link 40 minutes earlier?

jbyers2• 9 years ago

Sorry, I scanned the thread but missed your link.

philippnagel• 9 years ago

I bet this will be in Silicon Valley (the TV show).

FabHK2• 9 years ago

Oh, that'll be fun, can't wait :-)

UweSchmidt2• 9 years ago

Realistically, society can make a comeback from pretty much any conceivable catastrophy. Similarly to the situation in communist countries, where important things were scarce and money was worthless, surviving would depend on cooperation and mutual trust, not on defending your bunker and playing out a Mad Max movie.

While self-defense has its place I wonder which attitude would prevail.

robertk• 9 years ago

Not AI.

gallerdude• 9 years ago

I mean, with AI we end up with utopia for everyone forever OR a mass extinction event. Seeing I'm going to die anyways, I'll take those odds.

forgetsusername2• 9 years ago

society can make a comeback from pretty much any conceivable catastrophy

I agree. Where disaster preparation matters is in that period between "catastrophe" and "recovery". How long before things are normal again? Is that period a week? A month? A year? How bad will it get in between? That's what you need to survive.

UweSchmidt2• 9 years ago

"Things get normal again" only if people come out of their bunkers and put away the gun and pick up a shovel and a hammer instead. Build huts, clear the debris and plant seeds, not take the remaining fuel for the helicopter.

If this concept is not clear anymore after too many seasons of Walking Dead then I don't know.

analogmemory3• 9 years ago

I find it curious that people prepare for a "Doomsday" scenario. I can fathom a localized catastrophe like an earthquake, or extreme weather, or even a horrible bomb attack. But the extreme examples seem more related to our entertainment consumption than based on a real reality.

I feel like we're more likely to die from old age than anything from space or zombies. Maybe I just can't do the level of paranoia that some people take on. It seems an unnecessary waste of your brain space to always be on alert.

or maybe i'll just be the first to die. shrug

jseliger• 9 years ago

But the extreme examples seem more related to our entertainment consumption than based on a real reality.

It would be interesting to have the same perspective in, say, 1913. In that period virtually no one expected the catastrophe that would become World War I, which led into the catastrophe of WWII. Really, really bad things can happen; because they haven't since 1945 doesn't mean they won't again. The 1913 mindset is part of what I channeled when I wrote this: https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-nucle...

analogmemory3• 9 years ago

Right but it was still contained to a country or region. People in Mexico we not affected by World War I/II that required a bunker and ammunition.

semi-extrinsic3• 9 years ago

On the flip side, my relatively poor grandparents spent good money in the 1950's on hoarding stuff (clothes, shoes, radios, misc. equipment) in basement/attic spaces, in preparation for the next world war that never came. That stuff was never used, and mostly thrown away after they died, as it wasn't in good condition anymore. That money could have been much better spent; this was pretty common in the generation who grew up during WW2.

aaron-lebo2• 9 years ago

I like your use of historical examples in your post, but I think World War I (or 1913) is an iffy example.

World leaders had known conflict was possible for a long time and had been preparing for it - the build up of alliances both was an example of this and the ultimate cause of war. Conflicts in the Balkans preceded WWI by several years. If you think Trump is crazy try Wilhelm who was widely known as an egomaniac.

The shopkeepers may not have known what was coming but the world leaders certainly did. We don't have anything that could jump start a world war in the same way. In fact, it's more likely that we'd have seen conflict with Russia via Clinton than we would with Trump, and that would be our main threat of nuclear war today. As far as conventional war goes, there's nothing like pre-WWI in place with America being the clear global hegemon. Neither China nor Russia have the military to engage in anything but localized conflicts.

awfgylbcxhrey• 9 years ago

I don't know why you've been downvoted, since IMO you raise a valid point.

I've known a few prepper types. They had plans for escape rooms, a significant cache of weapons, some ammo, and a few MREs in the closet.

Nobody had more than maybe a few liters of water per person in the home, and when I asked about an escape plan (e.g. there's a fire, get out and meet at John's house on the next street over) they looked at me like I was insane. Oh, and of course they're all in fairly bad shape.

In my opinion, most of the "prepper" stuff is about fantasy role playing. I see it as related to the "middle aged man porn" we see lately in the form of the Taken franchise of movies. It perhaps it gives a feeling of smug satisfaction in a chaotic life. You're angry that you were cut off in traffic on your way to a job that might have layoffs tomorrow, but at least you can tell yourself that when the apocalypse comes, you'll succeed while that jerk will be fodder. Sort of a tough guy variant of the classic "ass pennies" comedy sketch.

antisthenes2• 9 years ago

I agree. The best investment for a doomsday scenario is to invest in yourself and your own skills first: get in shape, learn basic farming, wood/metalworking to make and repair tools, animal husbandry, basic first aid skills, learn geography and where clean water sources are, etc.

The 2nd best investment is to invest in your community and friends, because survival as a group is much easier than being a loner.

Stockpiling supplies I don't think is very relevant until signs of the collapse are obvious. A lot of medicines and some fuel don't last very long either, afaik.

woofyman3• 9 years ago

The loss of the electric grid would throw us back to the 19th century but without 19th century technology. There would be mass starvation and disease.

analogmemory3• 9 years ago

I don't follow, are suggesting that the grid would vanish? Or that all power sources would suddenly be unavailable?

semi-extrinsic3• 9 years ago

How exactly would we lose the electric grid? Nice thing about a distributed infrastructure is that it's, well, distributed.

Also, (nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines|jet aircraft engines) can be (very|relatively) quickly brought into duty producing electricity locally in every city, way before any pandemics and mass starvation.

Longer term, converting from the refrigerated fresh food system of today, to a system based on pickling/curing/canning/iceboxes/etc. is hardly black magic.

mikestew• 9 years ago

I feel like we're more likely to die from old age than anything from space or zombies. Maybe I just can't do the level of paranoia that some people take on.

Or maybe you just settled on different hobbies. I'm not being facetious, we all spend our time and money on different things, and from my POV many put together a narrative that "requires" them to buy fun gadgets. For you, perhaps home automation. For others, prepping for an end-of-world scenario that they themselves know is unlikely to happen.

Or maybe they are all a little nutty, I dunno.

Diederich• 9 years ago

I think there's a small but non-trivial chance that, in the next 3 or 4 decades, global weather will become so erratic and severe that we'll lose a good 90% of our ability to grow food, world wide.

That would end our civilization.

It would, obviously, be a long, slow, agonizing, random and exceedingly chaotic process.

Hopefully that's not what will happen.

dynofuz• 9 years ago

it seems that living in an apartment would be safer than a stand alone house. at least in the apartment even if you dont know your neighbors there may be some sense of community -- if we protect the apartment then we all have some safety. also surface area wise, an apartment has many more people to defend than a standalone house. personally if i were going to route of the people in the article, id get a boat and live on the coast.

gnarbarian• 9 years ago

Smaller towns often have a far more fierce sense of community. Most of the time people are drawn to them out of shared values and beliefs.

Here in Alaska the small towns fall into a few categories: native villages, churchy types, and fishing towns. The native villages and churchy communities are extremely close knit and wary of outsiders. Nearly everyone is armed to the teeth up here too.

While the logistics of defending a single large apartment building might seem beneficial over a few houses in the middle of nowhere, the big difference is the apartment building is in the middle of the city where all the unprepared people are. In a huge crisis it would be difficult to justify the expense of gas to reach the remote village for a raid. (especially those off the road system).

Also, if you live in the woods you have easier access to wild game with less competition.

bas• 9 years ago

It is my opinion that one's time is better spent preventing the collapse of civilization than preparing for it.

zeamaize• 9 years ago

That ship seems to have already sailed.

zyxzkz• 9 years ago

Yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4

m3rc• 9 years ago

If you're seriously convinced structure has already passed the point of no-return what are you doing commenting here on some internet site?

jessriedel3• 9 years ago

That's certainly the altruistic choice. But it would be foolishly arrogant for anyone, even Bill Gates, to think they had more controllable influence on the fate of the world than they do on their own safety.

erikpukinskis5• 9 years ago

The probability of you having significant controlled influence on the fate of the world is much higher than the probability of total meltdown of society necessitating a stockpile of guns and bunkers and your preparations having a significant controlled influence on your experience of it.

So no, focusing on the actual problems is actually less foolish than "doomsday prepping".

aaron-lebo2• 9 years ago

Everyone dies.

It's slightly foolishly arrogant to prepare for a doomsday scenario that fucks everyone else over when it's far more likely that you'll get killed by something you never saw coming - like that car coming down the street.

michaelsbradley3• 9 years ago

Uninformed by sound teleology, and unguided by divine revelation regarding The Last Things, it would seem many women and men feel driven to construct their own eschatology ~ largely shaped by fear and other basic instincts ~ which is then coupled to rational actions based on that foreseen/considered-probable ending.

MaxfordAndSons2• 9 years ago

Just to clarify, you're implying that the teleologically sound course of action is to simply await the sounding of the trumpets and then get on your knees, clasp your hands and close your eyes, right?

michaelsbradley3• 9 years ago

I'm suggesting that having–constructing a vision of "the end of all things" (or "practically the end..."), and then living–preparing according to that vision, seems to be something human persons are wont to do, whether they are religious or areligious.

In the Christian vision, the important thing is to prepare by living a life in correspondence with the double-precept of charity, "love God, love your neighbor" ~ cf. Matthew 22:35-40, Matthew 25:31-46 and the preceding text, to the beginning of chapter 24; also Romans 2:1-11. Jesus describes "the end" in a manner that is quite frightening (earthquakes, wars, famines, lots of suffering), but it's clear that those who are well-prepared will be able to rejoice when all is said and done.

lngnmn• 9 years ago

Stopped reading after "stocking bitcoin and cryptocurrencies". For the love of god, who will maintain the internet access and enough peers for a transaction to be made? Golden coins sounds better, but a hundred thousand liters of good old diesel and high octane petrol is even better.)

imglorp• 9 years ago

Fuel is great to trade. So is ammo and horses. The latter are especially versatile because they can often feed themselves, make more horses, provide truly all terrain transport after the fuel turns to varnish, and you can even eat them if needed.

Florin_Andrei3• 9 years ago

Yeah, it depends on how far down the collapse goes.

Diesel is good if collapse doesn't go all the way down. If it does, plain old horses are better.

mccoyspace• 9 years ago

It's informative to look at actual examples of SHTF scenarios, war zones for example. In Afghanistan, Chechnya, Syria and so on, groups band together for survival. As far as I can tell it isn't particularly about the fortified redoubt. And armed militias seem to be the form that the groups take. I don't think it is the wealthy business executives that rise to head those militias. So maybe these rich peppers will just provide targets to more ruthless and bigger bands of raiders.

dragonwriter• 9 years ago

I don't think it is the wealthy business executives that rise to head those militias.

Wealthy capitalists and other top elites most usually use their resources to protect themselves and relocate before, during, or shortly after the collapse, rather than hanging around to lead militia groups for any extended period after the collapse.

But that still takes resources of the right kind at the ready.

(Though it's often the wealthier of those remaining behind -- usually middle to upper-middle class -- that end up leading groups.)

jaypaulynice2• 9 years ago

Sorry, but if we are to learn from history, there is no hiding place in the world. Barricading yourself in a bunker would be like building your own prison. How long could anyone really survive before emerging back? And if the super rich did survive, how long before they destroy themselves again? You would have an accelerated log(N) kind of self-destruction. First year of survival = 1%, 2nd time = 1% of 1% and so on...

tomc1985• 9 years ago

Rich old men hugging their toys. It's a shame they're given any press time at all.

tcfunk• 9 years ago

Off-Topic: Is that photo real? It looks computer-generated to me.

lampzzy• 9 years ago

“A group of centi-millionaires and a couple of billionaires were working through end-of-America scenarios and talking about what they’d do. Most said they’ll fire up their planes and take their families to Western ranches or homes in other countries.” One of the guests was skeptical, Dugger said. “He leaned forward and asked, ‘Are you taking your pilot’s family, too? And what about the maintenance guys? If revolutionaries are kicking in doors, how many of the people in your life will you have to take with you?’ The questioning continued. In the end, most agreed they couldn’t run.”

This is a great point and I think we can even add more to it: Will your pilot even wait for you? I guess he/she will just put his/her family on your plane and take off without you!

0xfeba2• 9 years ago

Well, it's lower hanging fruit but, if that anecdote is true, it sure sounds like most of those bourgeoisie don't really have a clue what "end-of-America" would really entail. That is, the infrastructure of people that normally do what you pay them to are all going to have different motives.

The people in this story are still counting on quite a bit of society to exist to ferry them to their fancy secure locations.

Which, to be sure, isn't unrealistic. Just interesting.

stupidcar• 9 years ago

Would society really collapse overnight though? Other than a few scenarios, such as a sudden, all-out nuclear war, it seems like you'd have some build-up in advance. There'd be a period when things were getting progressively worse, but there was enough social inertia to keep things going.

You don't have to look far in history to see examples of this. 3rd Reich Germany kept functioning well past the point where it should seemingly have collapsed. Even as the Red Army were shelling Berlin, there were low-level people continuing their work when the sensible thing to do would surely have been to get their family and flee.

More recently, the Greek financial crisis put a major strain on institutions that were weak to begin with, but there was no rioting or major breakdown of order.

I think modern, Western societies are surprisingly resistant to a breakdown in order, simply because most people have never experienced anything other than order. As a result, acting in an anarchic, non-system way simply isn't something that would occur to them. Even in the face of an existential crisis, they would "keep calm and carry on", because they can't imagine doing anything else.

antisthenes2• 9 years ago

The people in this story are still counting on quite a bit of society to exist to ferry them to their fancy secure locations.

I think if there's going to be any place that a bit of society is left existing after apocalypse will be somewhere in the US, perhaps much closer to where those billionaires reside than they think (so there's no need to run to New Zealand).

I think the better investment would be to literally convert some of your 'paper' wealth to physical means of production of basic goods.

kilroy123• 9 years ago

I too have always thought about this. If I was a billionaire, I would also have a secret home setup, and I _would_ take the pilot and his family with me. I would also have a maintenance person and his family there.

I would become his apprentice and have him teach me everything he know. What else would you have to do while you're in hiding?

Someone1234• 9 years ago

So you're taking twenty or more people with you? Requiring a larger aircraft which requires more staff which results in more people. Rinse repeat.

Plus the risk of leaks resulting in additional people or those wishing to take your plane.

When you arrive who is feeding, housing, and this large number of people?

ianferrel• 9 years ago

What makes you think that your mechanic and pilot would teach you anything, or even keep you around in that scenario? What do you have to offer that furthers their survival more than your share of the supplies you're not going to be eating?

If you really want this to work, you better learn to be a pilot and a mechanic now, or preferably have close family members that you like who have those skills.

Florin_Andrei3• 9 years ago

A group of centi-millionaires

centi- means 1/100. So those are people whose net work is about 10k.

The author probably meant hecto-millionaires. Or deci-billionaires.

splintercell• 9 years ago

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centimillionaire

DanBC• 9 years ago

One of my favourite Youtube channels at the moment is a guy who opens, and attempts to eat, very old ration packs. And he recently did a review of a new range of long shelf life camping meals.

I didn't really know who the target audience for those meals was, but this article explains it nicely.

I guess there's a market for exclusive, private, lessons about repair and maintenance of generators and air filters and etc.

Steve1989 MRE Info: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2I6Et1JkidnnbWgJFiMeHA

The review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZjCiEjZaw0

rboyd• 9 years ago

Ha! Laugh at fools.

Take stock. Pizza box and half a bottle of ketchup in the fridge.

Close tab.

Trust that Silicon Valley will come together and science its way out of disaster scenario.

grondilu• 9 years ago

I'm a bit surprised not to find any occurrence of "SpaceX", "mars" or "Musk" in this discussion page.

Elon Musk stated many times that he wants to colonize mars in order to prevent a collapse of human civilization. I've always found this idea ludicrous as in my opinion for this purpose it makes much more sense to prepare for the meltdown on Earth, and as far as I understand that's precisely what survivalists do, even if their motives are probably much more selfish than Musk's.

Frondo• 9 years ago

You know what I wonder?

Who wants to keep on living, in a sheltered compound, for any length of time, if the world around them has collapsed?

Especially if your lifestyle up to then consisted of jet-setting to different locales, eating all kindsa fancy food, listening to DJ sets or seeing Broadway shows.

So you've got your gilded, gunned-all-to-heck compound, but there's no Internet, no culture being produced for you to consume or take part in, nothing left of the day-to-day human experience. Your life is now canned food and worrying about the zombie hordes knocking on your door.

What, at the end of the day, is the point of living?

anabis• 9 years ago

keep a set of bags packed for themselves and their four-year-old daughter

I thought this was common sense. You need to survive a maximum of 3 days by yourself after a disaster.

Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich

Related Stories