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.

[colinbj.livejournal.com]

Many of them are in favour of 'universal basic income' - have you been following the wildfire spread of this idea, which goes back to 1795, but is suddenly beginning to be taken seriously.

But you can only have a universal basic income in a prosperous society. Automation helps, but energy getting ever cheaper has been fundamental to the growth of prosperity of the last 300 years or so. Hence the interest of many billionaires in progressing fusion. But it's not the only option, solar power is at last getting cheaper at an impressive rate.

What we will never have is a return to a world based on mass labour. There is no longer any need for it. Transport will be fully automated within a few years. So will the building industry. Factories have been switching to automation for decades, but soon most kinds of factory will no longer be needed.

You really can't go back - even if it were desirable. But the most far-sighted of the billionaires you despise realise that wealth is useless if society breaks down. They're trying to plan to prevent that happen. Even if it means working with Trump. None of them want their backup plans to be needed, any more than an airman wants to use his parachute.

[colinbj.livejournal.com]

Philanthropy doesn't count? On the scale Bill Gates and others are doing it? That's harsh, they are at least trying!

Of course not _all_ the 'internet billionaires' are angels. But what _do_ you do with wealth on that scale?

I don't mean they're advancing science in person. But they're a lot harder to bullshit than politicians, and have greater freedom of choice, when choosing what research and development to fund. They're now doing this on such a scale that they collectively have real power to determine the future direction of the human race.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-like-not-billionaires-shaping-direction-discovery/

Their true intentions will become clearer pretty soon....

[colinbj.livejournal.com]

They're doing lots of medical stuff, not just 'life extension' although that grabs the journalists' interest. And stuff to do with cleaner cheaper energy. Again, although fusion grabs the headlines there's lots of more mundane stuff they're doing too. I just tried to share a facebook post about this NYT story:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/business/energy-environment/battery-storage-tesla-california.html

Energy storage is the Achilles Heel of renewable power, needed but unglamorous, if solar and wind are really to replace coal-burning. Elon Musk has invested huge amounts of his own money via several of his companies to develop it.

[colinbj.livejournal.com]

Er, who do you think I am trying to defend?

I defend the techie billionaires-turned-philanthropists as one of the few potential forces for good on this weary planet. For example Silicon Valley ones who are at heart Democrats and Trump-despisers even if they think they're libertarians.

Not the politicians, and certainly not all the rich people! You could describe me as a socialist utopian who has lost his faith and can no longer believe.

Technology is not sufficient to make everybody happy, but it is necessary. In an age of sufficient superabundance fights over sharing out the pot should get less important.

I've seen enough to become completely disenchanted with official 'research and development' projects, and institutions, and almost all academics. That leaves the billionaires as my only hope.