Back to your regularly scheduled programme
Feb. 4th, 2017 10:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2017-02-05 11:07 pm (UTC)But I'm not talking about funding research and development or science. The link you give just underlines my point - these people have the wrong priorities. They invest a billion into space or life extension (ego projects both - but then the Silicon Valley ethic is well known to be individualist to the core), which might, as the article says, have spillover effects in, say, medical research or whatnot. All well and good, but while they're doing that, the Koch brothers are investing a billion (metaphorically speaking) into funding the Tea Party, climate change denial, shaping US government legislation, etc. That's what you do with wealth on that scale, and that has real and immediate effects in the real world and in the real lives of millions of people. And that's where all, I repeat myself, the finance and oil (and so on) money has been going, not stupid space projects that have close to zero impact on actual human society, even when all the potential beneficial spill-over effects are factored in.
I know perfectly well that technological change is probably the most important factor in the development of human society, and the economics of today are as they are almost entirely because of the technological base, but technological change cannot be directed or planned for (beyond a certain point). All the economic disruption caused by the communications revolution was hardly predicted by the people back in whatever decade it was laying the foundations of the world-wide web. So you can take a billion and invest it in science research, and it might be wasted or it might yield something that down the line will influence society hugely, no one knows how. Or you can take that billion and change society right now, for the better or for the worse. For the better if you're Gates with your medical philanthropy; for the worse if you're like most of the rest of them, from Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil (that's just shorthand, of course).
I cannot view the people listed in your article as anything other than overgrown boys playing at Star Trek with their money, while the adults are busy getting on with screwing the world and laughing all the way to the bank. If they truly cared about science, for instance, they would launch a counter-offensive to all the billions behind climate science-denial, and would bankroll legislation protecting the environment. But no, it seems the other guys have the field all to themselves. Indeed, why spend your time challenging, e.g. big oil, when you can indulge in vanity projects that'll emblazon your name on the moon or, better yet, chase after the elixir vitae? When I read about the latter, I have no words left. To what extent must the money have gone to their heads for them to think that searching for immortality is a good use of it ('I'm too special to die!'), when gee, I don't know, antibiotic resistance, presents a slightly more pressing concern. Not to mention lack of access to basic medical care and medicines for most of the planet's population, and I include much of the first world in that. If you have billions, there's so much you could really do for the benefit of society, a volume wouldn't be enough to list it - and what they're actually doing doesn't deserve a footnote in that volume.