Something I worry about: I imagine rich people who mostly wouldn't concern themselves with long-term outcomes of environmental destruction or global catastrophe may still feel a bit of a pause going full force into risky plans for the future if their personal fortresses would require human labor for upkeep. They may feel a bit of a reluctance to pursue policies fearless of shit hitting the fan due to the chance that in a post-law world, nothing would stop their army of servants from killing them without remorse. That reluctance won't exist once humanoid robots are a sufficient replacement for human labor.
The notion that rich people aren’t concerned with long term outcomes seems like one of those things that isn’t true. In fact the reverse is often said the poor have, “nothing to lose”. Many wealthy people have gotten where they are by focusing on the longer term. The promise of your comment just doesn’t seem true.
I largely agree with you, but there's a kernel of truth in the OP's comment. Many of the very rich got to be very rich because they are very good at optimizing for money. They understand economics, business, and the financial system extremely well. And that's a weakness in a post-collapse world because it is very likely that money will be worthless and we won't have much of a financial system to speak of. They probably also pissed a lot of people off on the way up, or simply by virtue of being filthy stinking rich. And that sort of wealth is hard to hide, painting a target on them for millions of people.
The folks who will do the best in a collapse scenario are likely the next social class down; the folks who perhaps sold a company for 8-figures (but not billions), or are in reasonably high-level managerial positions for 7-figure annual salaries. This class is pretty heavily networked and also knows how to work together. It's held together by social bonds of trust, geographic proximity, and mutual interest as much as by money. So when money goes away, those bonds remain, and you have a class of people who are long-term oriented, highly-skilled, but also communicate and cooperate with others. They are also relatively invisible (could you name a bunch of directors at major corporations, or solopreneurs with successful bootstrapped businesses?), so they can blend in and avoid becoming a target until defense systems can be established.
After WW2 in Germany, society had a total collapse. At one point, the occupying Allies decided to "zero out" the existing Mark (German dollar) and replace it with a new Mark. To bootstrap the economy, everyone was issued 50 Marks.
Within two weeks, the folks who had had money before the war had money again, and the people who had no money before the war had no money again.
Unsurprisingly, the people who knew how to make money made money, and those that didn't, didn't.
It's really sad that the American public school system does not teach how to make money.
In 1948 the accounts in Reichsmark, Rentenmark and Besatzungsmark were converted into Deutsche Mark accounts, although in different proportions. Cash was 100 RM to 6,50 DM, stocks in 1:1, other stuff in 10:1.
The core of your urban legend is the Kopfgeld, a cash starter kit like the Euro 50 years later. It consisted of 40 DM in cash and later an additional 20 DM. Those 60 DM were not free but calculated into the converted accounts.
What did happen was that shopkeepers were hoarding goods, especially luxury goods, and only suddenly started selling them after the Währungsreform.
That is simply not true. The same families that were wealthy before the Nazi time (say Quandt, Flick, Krupp, ...) made a killing during the Nazi time and retained and expanded their fortune after Nazi Germany was no more.
It is absolutely not the case that everyone started with 50 Marks and quickly the people who are good with money came back to the top. The same people simply stayed on top throughout.
I've heard this before, and I don't know your background so for sure will not judge. But I think it is best to consider this story that you have been told as propaganda.
I was told this by Germans who lived through the war and the aftermath. I didn't have reason to believe it was propaganda.
A year ago I met a local Afghanistan refugee, and we got to talking. He was a wealthy businessman in Afghanistan, and escaped with nothing but his skin during the American pullout. He immediately went into business again in the US and was thriving.
Making money is a skill that can be learned. One is not doomed to circumstance.
My argument is based on the revealed internal memos from Exxon regarding their awareness of CO2 and its effect on climate change, the number of world leaders who have been revealed to have aggressively pursued strike-first policies for nuclear war, anyone involved in environmental degradation, pollution, dumping chemicals into water supply, etc. All horrible long-term and even short term policies for the masses but provide short term profit to a class insulated from the worst effects. Of course it's not all rich people but there are enough of them with disproportionate influence that their influence is a sizable negative factor on overall human welfare.
On the topic, stupid people in the military are a much greater threat. Groupthink in a strategic command force for example, or any similar mob psychology, could be catastrophic.
Neither party has provided empirical data, so it’s hard to say if I should agree with parent comment or grand-parent comment.
I think it’s likely that a third variable like stress level, political affiliation, or time spent outside more greatly correlates with long term environmental concern. Both of your pure-theory discussions don’t feel convincing.
Thinking that anyone with significantly more money than you are alien beings with evil tendencies is an unhealthy belief. It's both wrong and self limiting.
If I had a couple of multiples of what I had, I'd build a bunker, but I'd still much rather live on a planet where I can go outside, play golf, visit national parks, do woodworking in the yard etc.
The bunker is a backup to protect against outcomes you can't control, not the plan A to intentionally destroy the world.
It's not about them opting to aggressively pursue world-destroying policies, it's that, if some decision they make carries a long-tailed world-destroying risk, the weight of it in their mind is lower if a scot-free outcome still exists for them in the event that that happens. This is a psychological influence that would exist just as often in the poorest as it does the richest, it's just that the richest have the means to avoid the negative outcomes of their lack of more cautious foresight.
The whole economy is like that. Most people derive most of their societal power and relevance from labor. Structural decreases in demand for that labor are, by default, extremely bad.
I think this knowledge is at the base of their identity. That's why they push the narrative that their success is driven by personal merit. Having spent weekends with some of the rich, they are pretty aware of what is happening in a way that the rest / the poor are not.
Maybe the first generation wealthy, like William Gates Jr, but it looks like the inheritors of amazing wealth don't know that. They appear to think they just deserve it, based on some magical criteria.
None. Just to state the obvious. If you are in for the fight, you do know the rules, so you know that there is no divine authority coming for your support.
Douglas Rushkoff talked about how the bunker billionaires specifically asked about hot to maintain compliance by their “security forces” and asked him about how to withhold food rations. Putting aside the fact that there are always lackeys looking to show sempai how much the love him. The most effective way to not get killed an eaten for sport, is simply maintaining a community and stop trying to horde everything. But then again, I wouldn’t expect dragons to understand that.
