That’s your solution? I suggest you do another twenty years thinking.
2 Likes
I HAVE a solution.
Also there is no single solution. Diversity and decentralization are the way forward for life to survive - this is a fundamental tenant of biology. The cult ignores this tenant and tries to centralize and control everything with identical ways and rules … that’s why it’s doomed to fail (and is now failing).
edit: I did have other plans … but they fell through, and then my plan b fell through … I’m now on plan c. So yeah, my plan is my plan, your plan is your plan. No matter how many years you think you may have to implement your plans, they may still fall through - plan for that too if you can.
2 Likes
My point is that there’s no solution, certainly not one that has a reasonable chance for an individual to survive collapse, which is the premise of super rich prepping- which is the context here.
I have little doubt life, including some random humans will survive the next collapse, which will IME be a series of events, gradual over decades rather than a single short period.
What I doubt is that any individual has much chance of meaningful survival (cf The Road), or survival at all based on prepping. The only sensible answer would be communal, and the more (or larger) that is, the better, but humans don’t do sensible at scale, which brings me back to the comments I made on the article.
I doubt this will affect me before my time is up but it still features strongly because I care, and because I have children, although unless they have children, again it may not affect them that much. I hope humans will surprise me, but not optimistic about that because while there are many who get this, the power lies with those who profitted by creating the problem, and whose answer to it is predominantly to exit and leave the rest of humanity to die.
That looks to me like what wealthy prepping, colonising Mars and longtermism have in common, and it’s interesting that the very wealthy live in those bubbles which seem like hell to me, yet many outside appear to worship them and aspire to join them.
I’ve grown veg, I’ve looked at self sustaining agro community and I can see it is both an extremely hard life and a very long shot so not something I decided to try. There are solutions, but they aren’t accessible to many, and those with the resources to make them widely accessible and even avoid the need just aren’t interested.
3 Likes
To wax philosophical, the “problem of induction” informs that there is no way for “us” to calculate what a reasonable chance is. Individually, we can pragmatically guess at it (and we do), so the best and only way forward is to stumble about in the dark of the universe.
Additionally, and it’s an old trope, – “even if you do not choose (a solution), you still have made a choice.”
So, what the world looks like post-reset is anyone’s guess. I suppose for me, I will struggle to hang-on as long as I can. I still have plan-D !! 
… and many more plans to conjure after that, if certain gambles play out in my favor.
2 Likes
I don’t know about the prepping part, but colonizing Mars, to me, is about more than longtermism or providing an escape hatch in case of Earth’s destruction. It is the inevitable extension of man’s wandering nature, a continuation of his destiny. It is no more surprising or questionable than the human migration from Africa or the American settlers’ inexorable movement from east to west.
3 Likes
Nonsense . .
1 Like
Exactly. For those behind colonizing Mars are not solely focused on the future but are heavily involved in the present trying to improve life here (at least one is). Mars isn’t about longtermism but human nature to explore, to expand into new territories (many times wrongly invading). Yes the argument of earth maybe being destroyed is a valid point and needs to be considered.
3 Likes
For those interested in the mindsets of the wealthy and their motives, read the article preferably before commenting or you’re just repeating what you’ve already said on this issue. Even if you disagree with me there are interesting insights and perspectives which I think are not obvious and can contribute to the debate and your understanding of why I take the views that I do.
1 Like
Do all those folks have like mindsets and motives, or just some general traits that might tend to be exaggerated? Aren’t we in danger of pigeon-holing a group of people here? I mean, it isn’t like they all belong to the same party or cult with a hidden constitution and all is it?
2 Likes
You should have a look at the WEF and the Bilderberg meetings.
1 Like
Apologies for being a nuisance here but if it was me I’d prefer to be informed - a tenant is someone who has procured themselves some land or space by entering into some kind of contractual agreement with a landlord 
tenet is the word you’re looking for
5 Likes
So if we are to treat all the wealthy as having a set mindset then what about engineers and their mindset.
David is an engineer and I am too, so is my mindset the same as David’s? What about Elon’s mindset? Is it the same as David’s? Elon is an engineer after all.
We can fall into the trap of being too lazy and just lump them together.
In my opinion there is a world of difference between the mindset of Elon and Bezos. They are two of the most wealthy, so how can we characterise them as the same with one mindset? Also they are at odds with many of the old school wealthy, I’d rather judge them based on their actions.
5 Likes
Forget Musk and Bezos, though their use of their immense wealth is in some respects remarkably similar, they are not the topic of the article.
As I keep suggesting, please read and comment on the article.
Of course not everyone fits into a given category perfectly, but people using that to suggest there is no value in categories are I think being argumentative and not making a useful point as far as I can see.
Human knowledge uses categories almost everywhere, and particularly in trying to understand human motivation and behaviour. How else can we try to do that? Are you all suggesting that all of that is invalid because catagories are not perfect?
Categories have limitations as does every tool, and they are still a useful tool for understanding. Saying they have limitations doesn’t address the points being made in the article or make constructive use of the insights one can draw from it.
3 Likes
Applying categories to humans is usually pointless, misleading, dangerous and a waste of one’s time.
1 Like
I believe there is a subtle, yet important, distinction between applying categories in the study of human behavior and applying categories to actual, individual, human beings.
That’s a simplistic statement IMO. If you think there’s an error in the article and its approach, please point it out and explain why. Just saying categories aren’t useful is of little value because it gives me no insight into what underlies your statement or what you believe is a useful way to examine human behaviour, or your beliefs about psychology etc.
2 Likes
My only point is: When you start applying categories to actual people and name those people then it becomes an exercise in futility and a disservice to the named individuals and your reading audience.
I don’t accept this, unless you are suggesting that categorising an individual implies you know everything about them - to which I say that isn’t what I’m doing, and I agree doesn’t make sense.
Regardless, the article - which is the point of this discussion - is not applying categories at all, let alone to human beings. It suggests there is a mindset among super wealthy individuals who are exhibiting similar behaviours and who have repeatedly looked to the author for help and feedback on their actions.
Feel free to comment on the content of the article rather than talking about the merits of categories.
The lengths you very consistently go to at practically all available opportunities to reject anything that resembles criticism of the super wealthy (particularly Musk, etc) is both remarkable and suspicious to me.
Here you are derailing an interesting post (by employing a junior freshman sociology argument) while refusing to respond to the actual post, even in fact just ignoring repeated requests to respond to the actual points raised.
I wonder if when people imply that sociological groups might be useful in thinking about individuals from the poor or the middle classes, you jump in with the same fervour to argue for the right of those lower class individuals not to be pigeon-holed? If you’ve done it on here, I certainly didn’t spot it.
(You also seem to have a tendency to respond with short, sarcastic and/or cryptic answers, implying your arguments rather than stating them. Would be thrilled to be proven wrong and see a full, honest argument from you this time though?)
1 Like
Gee, Jay. Didn’t mean to strike any nerves. But to respond to your criticism: I don’t reject constructive criticism of Musk or anyone else, I just think it should be fair. So here is MY criticism of Musk.
-
He dabbles in too many inconsequential pursuits which distracts attention away from his important ventures, not just important to him but important to the human race, as I see it.
-
He makes attempts at humor too often which usually go awry because the medium he normally uses (Twitter) is not conducive to conveying humor effectively.
-
I can’t understand his fixation with population decline (he says it is more of a crisis than climate change).
-
He reveals details of his personal life too often publicly. I think that detracts from his overall positive impact on the world.
-
He needs to take better care of his health. I’m truly concerned that we might be deprived of his engineering and business genius (yep, that’s what I think) by his inattention to this discipline.
-
In general, he just talks too much.
-
I don’t agree with most of his stated politics. I’m glad he doesn’t qualify as a candidate for President.
-
Bragging about giving up most of his possessions is kind of disingenuous since he can do most anything he wants most any time of day.
-
He tries to give credit to his underlings at SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink and Boring Company at times but I think he should try harder.
I could probably think of more but I think that is enough to qualify as a full, honest statement. Oh, by the way, I don’t think I have the power to derail any post on this forum. And, since you mentioned it, I don’t think a person should give into the temptation of pigeon-holing any individual, regardless of their economic status. Doing that is very convenient but not useful.
There, I’ve done it, I’ve ruined my image as a short, sarcastic, cryptic responder. I must get back in the groove.
1 Like