Hacker News
points by andriy_koval 3 days ago | 0 comments
> Because if they're needed, they're not sustainable

You can pack enough to survive for decades in that bunker, and then see how world will look like. If you are superrich, it is dumb to not take this chance.

> Maybe these sociopaths should try to save the world rather than making fantasy hedges against its collapse (while actively making things worse).

Its very loaded topic. There are other competing sociopaths, and also 8B of population who don't care about saving world much. But both goals(bunker and saving the world) could be tried simultaniously.

[–] overfeed 3 days ago
> You can pack enough to survive for decades in that bunker, and then see how world will look like.

These billionaire nerds got lucky, but now think themselves as natural-born leaders — as evidenced by their wealth, but they wouldn't survive the post apocalypse.

If society collapses, and you were an elite ex-special forces armed detail on a billionaire's security team, would you continue to accept their now-worthless dollars, or would you or just take a fully-stocked bunker for you and yours?

Remember there are effectively no cops or courts in this world that would stand in the way of the (former) billionaires from being demoted to farm-hand by those with the guns.

[–] syrrim 3 days ago
Why don't the cops and soldiers in our world do the same? Who's going to stop them?
[–] gspr 3 days ago
Because our current society isn't a survival game where we fight over insufficient food. Mostly. Society ensures that most people don't have to choose between behaving nicely towards their fellow humans and feeding their family.

It seems a lot of the bunkerbros don't realize this value of society. They don't need society any more, they think.

[–] overfeed 3 days ago
> Why don't the cops and soldiers in our world do the same?

Consequences from the aforementioned functioning society that would have collapsed in the billionaire's dystopian survival fantasy.

Also, soldiers running amok in rhe absence of a strong government happens in our world - ask any civilian who's been caught up in an insurgency, or look at places like the Democratic Republic of Congo where armed militias run fiefs, and you have to pay tribute to operate a cobalt or lithium mine "their" area.

[–] andriy_koval 3 days ago
imagination of my inner villain says sec team would have collar activated before entering inner bunker, with little explosive which would activate by AI or zuck if even little attempt of aggression happens.
[–] overfeed 3 days ago
Unless the surveillance is total and the technology flawless and unbreakable, this scheme is a bet against human ingenuity, and can be neutralized given enough time, creativity or unforeseen loopholes. Off the top of my head, a conspiracy among the help to act as a mutual dead man's switch will stale-mate explosive collars: if one conspirator is killed, junior will get dispatched by an unnamed co-conspirator.
[–] andriy_koval 3 days ago
there is no absolute system. Even in today's world military and cops can turn against government any moment as other commenter said. In some cases system converges to stable state, in some not (endless coups and civil wars). The goal is to have more stable state, with security team to have enough incentives to not challenge leader and enjoy what they have.
[–] overfeed 2 days ago
> The goal is to have more stable state[...]

The post-apocalyptic stable-state doesn't require a billionaire at the top; without the threat of state violence, I posit that the most stable configuration is the people who control the guns calling the shots. Things will get feudal fast medieval-era food tasters included; explosive collars do nothing against the chef intentionally lacing food with botulism neurotoxins from canned food.

> [...] with security team to have enough incentives to not challenge leader and enjoy what they have.

This is what we have with the current system, underpinned by the "rule of law" - which has seen better days tbh. These billionaires have been cynically chipping away at its foundations without realizing if society falls, they fall with it. In the dystopian fantasy, the nerds in charge have to pacify all their employees all the time, an ambitious or dissatisfied lackey only needs to get lucky once.

[–] andriy_koval 2 days ago
Sure, he won't be billionaire anymore, but just one of racers to become warlord. He will have significant advantage: being in bunker, controlling small or large army of drones, and be able to pre-select team base on loyalty. I don't see why he shouldn't prepare and try this scenario.
[–] overfeed 2 days ago
> I don't see why he shouldn't prepare and try this scenario.

I suppose the bunkers are just go-bags for the ultra-rich bastards, except I don't delude myself into thinking I can hang onto my go bag against a handful of people who desperately want it, after civilization collapses. The other difference is I don't think my neighbors will go feral on me and fight me for my supplies, but the billionaire have no faith in humanity - I suppose they deduce that everyone will act as they would act.

[–] gspr 3 days ago
> You can pack enough to survive for decades in that bunker,

Emphasis being survive. Maybe. These morons seem to think this will be a continuation of their current lives. That somehow people will continue to serve them if society has collapsed. They're delusional.

> There are other competing sociopaths, and also 8B of population who don't care about saving world much.

Oh please! The billionaires think that they're so special, they owe their fortune to their inherent genius. But when it comes to helping the world it's apparently "but but the other 8B aren't doing it, I'm just a regular guy who can't accomplish anything!"

Losers.