Back to your regularly scheduled programme

[kortirion_among_the_trees]

Very interesting article with lots of food for thought: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich?
Too much food, actually, so I'll just remark on two things.  I'm struck by how influenced by Hollywood (rather than real instances of civilisational collapse, as during wars) all these people's doomsday scenarios and preparations are.  But much more striking is the level of egotistic irresponsibility and absence of self-awareness that such behavior entails.  The cause of the imminent social collapse you fear and the cause of your immense wealth are one and the same - put two and two together and use all your money and, therefore, potential power, to influence politics for the better, just as your other ('socially minded') brother billionaires are actively influencing it for the worse.  With power comes responsibility, noblesse oblige and all that, but these people have no concept of a social contract.  Looking out for number one is the most defeatist philosophy imaginable - when number one - in combination with other similar number ones - actually has enough money to genuinely influence the direction of the world.  But no, they prefer to contribute their bit to dismantling the edifice in the hope that when it finally comes crashing down they'll have a helicopter ready to whisk them away to New Zealand.

Comments

[colinbj.livejournal.com]

This is unfair.

Those billionaires are mostly philanthropists, mostly Democrat voters by instinct. (You must have read how unpopular Peter Thiel has become in Silicon Valley for aligning himself with Trump.) They're mostly spending huge sums of money in attempts to set the world to rights. Especially by trying to advance science, technology and medicine: Musk's electric cars and Gates's fight against malaria and other tropical diseases are just two examples.

Yes, many have a backup option prepared in case it all goes sour, just as a sensibly brave combat pilot wears a parachute.

[arda-unmarred.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but this is not at all the sense I got from the article.

a) The majority of people cited are clearly not philanthropists; furthermore, a good half of them are finance, not technology types (and the ones who are are mostly internet people, who contribute nothing positive to society with their work (unlike real scientists)).

b) Technological progress is all well and good, but precious little to do with helping the world out of the state it's in (even green technologies are useless without the political will to actually implement them on a large scale). Medicine is a different question, it is actually possible to achieve results on a private basis there, at least in the 'third world'.

c) But the bottom line is that philanthropy is not and has never been the way to fix the world - why the hell are they not putting politicians in power who will pass the right kind of laws, like the other tribe of billionaires (who stand behind all the bastards in power) have been doing with their money for so many decades? Why is it always finance and oil, etc. etc. who are shaping the power structures, who are actually actively ruining the lives of millions of people with the legislation their hirelings pass? Why is it the new tech money is never directed at anything that actually makes a damn bit of difference? (again, medicine excluded) Where the hell are their influential think tanks, lobby groups, revolving doors, MPs, Congressmen and Presidents if they're all such caring angels? The big tech companies are the richest in the world, they're sitting on trillions of cash, where's the benefit to society of any of that?

[arda-unmarred.livejournal.com]

why not start a political party, with all that money,that will fight for a better world?

possibly because the supporters of such a party would want some of their wealth?

unless accompanied by social and political change, technological progress is useless (arguably even dangerous), as the beneficiaries of the new technology would not be spread evenly across the society