Many (including me) fear that civilization may soon collapse (not right now, but not too distant), due to the devastating effects of climate change. In such a scenario, the fate of the super-rich will not matter much, as everyone will face the same threats of chaos, violence, and resource scarcity. Climate change could also trigger other global catastrophes, such as nuclear war, which has so far been avoided since World War II by the balance of power and deterrence (second strike capability).
To prevent this bleak future, humans must act urgently and radically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve biodiversity. IOW, we need to throw a hail Mary, one that will not be popular, and will itself cause chaos. Otherwise, we risk causing a mass extinction of life on Earth, including ourselves. This is the Holocene extinction (the sixth extinction in Earth’s history), it’s happening right now, and it’s our fault.
I suppose it depends on the length and nature of the collapse, where the bunker is located, the nature of the bunker and other factors. For example, a big vault in the side of a mountain is fine for a relatively short term bunkering regardless of how comfortable or well stocked it is. A remote, largely self contained island colony is better, but may be subject to environmental stuff.
Nothing really. Presuming society collapses and the only thing of value are the resources contained in the bunker complex, there is really nothing preventing the occupants of the bunker from deciding the current leadership structure doesn’t work for them.
Depends. A typical security guard doesn’t make all that much. I would imagine a highly trained ex-Navy SEAL corporate Private Military Contractor can probably make six figures. Chump change compared to a billionaire, but still pretty good money.
I think they are probably thinking that guarding some rich idiots bunker for some disaster that will likely never happen is a pretty sweet gig. Certainly a heck of a lot better than getting shot at somewhere in the Middle East or Ukraine.
Nothing really. Given a total collapse of civilization, I would imagine that former military, police, security forces and other well-armed individuals with military or tactical training would form groups to maintain control over various regions or align themselves with those who they feel like supporting.
Civilization was already being rebuilt in the Mad Max movies. It wasn’t all roving gangs like Lord Humongous and his marauders. Bartertown was a permanent settlement powered by methane (from pig shit). Immorten Joe also had a permanent settlement. Even Lord Humongous, as brutal as he was, was also pretty intelligent and articulate. I’m sure he realized that there wasn’t much long term future in roaming the wasteland in gas-powered vehicles.
I hope so. I have a fairly large pile of silver dimes and quarters that I plan to use for trade after the zombie apocalypse. I figure they are a known value, weight and quality… So they may become valuable as currency.
Reminds me of a novel I read (Niven? Footfall?) where one of the protagonists wraps up a bunch of reference books on farming, woodworking, crafting, building etc. in plastic wrap and seals them in a septic tank because he knows that they will become incredibly valuable when trying to rebuilt civilization.
Most post-apocalyptic novels I remember feature a small -medium group of folks that come together and pool their skills, expertise and defense to create a working community that looks after and protects each other. The (former) rich dude in a bunker ends up with nothing.
Seems naive. Gold and silver have been successfully used for trade because there is civilization. In the total absence of civilization, they are worth nothing. It is only when there’s a critical number of people who accept not only their value but something resembling a stable value from person to person, i.e. a society/civilization, that they become worth something.
Even if it is at a very low level, there has to be something resembling a functioning society for market economics to work like that. Historically, this was the case - our ancestors have had some level of civilization before we had the written word and, hence, durable metals have had value. So, the question becomes “what does a ‘collapse’ really mean?”
Well, true… I was not thinking of a collapse back to hunting/gathering, when a silver coin would have only be useful insofar as one could sharpen it into an arrowhead. I was thinking more of a collapse into a barter society, where it’s more convenient to trade a coin for a thing I want, rather than try to trade a bag of beans for mending my shoe, and then the shoemaker has to find someone who wants a bag of beans when he wants a chicken. The silver coin will represent a certain value. (1 silver dime = 1 chicken, or 3 hours of labor, or something like that)
The orgies may be better in Vegas, but in the end, you’ll be vaporized.
A former boyfriend once asked me, “If anything like ‘The Stand’ ever happened, where would you rather go?” and I replied, "Oh, I knew you’d ask me that, and the answer will probably surprise you. Neither; I would rather die so early in the epidemic, my name would be in the book. No way would I want to survive anything like that. "
Which is why I think the ultimate billionaire survival plan would be for them to subsidize a community of such people practicing 18th-19th century skills, in a defendable and as close to self-sufficient location as possible.
However I think that a general collapse of technological civilization, while possible after some cataclysm, isn’t as likely as a collapse of central organization and the loss of global or even transcontinental trade. One example I can think of is jet airplanes: there could be a situation in which jet airplanes are certainly still buildable, but regularly scheduled passenger air travel is simply no longer economically viable. Or imagine a North America balkanized into multiple independent countries, with three or four rival claimants to being the lawful federal government, and ranging in their level of peace, security and prosperity from the Republic of Greater New York to the marauding warlords of the south-central Rockies.
So my thoughts the collapse of society are basically three mutually contradictory thoughts:
Society is a lot more robust than post-apocalyptic fiction would have you believe. IMO it will take a lot more than mass death, disasters, and even wiping out and/or replacing the top level government for society to collapse completely. The obvious example that shows this is the Axis powers at the end of WW2. You have mass death and destruction of infrastructure comparable to any (or most) fictional apocalypse, but society continued. People went to work, society didn’t collapse. And thats civilian society, the military is even more resilient IMO (not that the military hierachy surviving but the civilian one not will be a good outcome, but it always bugs me about post-apocalyptic movies “oh no, everyone’s dying and its all going to shit, its every man for himself!” Err no, that’s is literally the circumstances militaries are designed to function in.)
On the other hand we do seem to have set up our society to be really sucepitible to a massive collapse. I’m not talking about “ZOMG! Crime! Imorality! Lack of respect for elders! Our society is doomed!” I mean the actual logistics that make our society function. Things like really long fragile supply chains, really complicated global manafacturing partitioned in specialized niches, and just-in-time logistics. It does seem like a house of cards to me, and then with gobal warming we are pretty much chucking a bowling ball at it.
Then finally there is the one thing that gives me hope, this graph. Birth and fertility rates are dropping all over the world. While people are getting upset by this, it seems to me the only thing that doesn’t scream “stick a fork in society, cos its toast”. I mean there are obviously going to be issues caused by this, but compared to issues like “we’ve screwed up the world so badly we can only support 10% of the population currently alive” those issues seem like a walk in the park. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Declining-Birth-Rates_VC.png
I think whatever non-bsrter currency needs a post collapse society has will be satisfied by regular paper money and coins for a long time. It’s lighter and less forgable (or dilutable) than precious metals
If U.S. currency collapses, then people will start trading with euros, or yuans, or whatever other currency is considered strong, just like how much of the third world currently uses U.S. dollars.
Except that Rome never fell. First of all, only the western half collapsed. And second of all, it didn’t so much collapse as transition to a number of smaller political entities. The first King of France was crowned just 5 years after the death of the last Western Roman Emperor. Politics became less centralized, education levels dropped, and trade was definitely harmed, but all in all, Western Europe survived. The so-called “fall of Rome” has been greatly overstated by historians.
Honestly, I don’t see society collapsing. It’s never happened before, and I don’t think it will happen in the future. Societies may collapse, but that’s not the same thing, and they usually recover very quickly. There’s this belief, which is very strong among the billionaire set, that civilization is an artificial construct imposed on humanity from above by the powerful, and as soon as they’re gone, we’ll all collapse into chaos. I don’t think that’s true. I think civilization is more of a bottom-up affair, and that people want to be civilized, want laws, want a stable and organized society. If a specific civilization collapses, it’ll be replaced by some other civilization. Probably not as efficient a civilization, at least at first, but nature abhors a vacuum, and so does humanity.
And if their country collapses, the rich will survive by moving to a country that hasn’t. That’s an advantage the rich have today they didn’t have in the past - unlike, say, exiled Russian nobles in 1918, the assets held by the super-rich are much more diversified and mobile.
It isn’t civilization that is robust and tough. It’s human beings.
I’m reading a book called Shay’s Rebellion, a dissertation on the agrarian rebellion in New England that took place after the American Revolution. I’ve just started it, and so far the author has set the stage: the western ‘frontier’ part of the state was populated by self-sufficient yeoman farmers and artisans, who did not use currency for most of their transactions, but rather, bartered within the community for what they needed, either with goods or labor. The mercantile part of the state, centered in Boston and along the coast, was where wage capitalism, monetary speculation, international trade, and all the rest of the foundations of our modern economic system, was carried on. Inevitably the two clashed and, guess who was crushed.
The relevance to the OP is pretty clear to me: the barter system works perfectly well for self-sufficient small communities. Rural New Englanders needed very little from outside. Iron, salt.
In this world, those pathetic billionaires would be ignored, and die alone and unmourned, probably violently at the hands of those they planned to protect them. But human community would survive, as it has for tens of thousands of years, in small scale.
Nitpick: The government gives it value by letting you (or requiring you to) pay your taxes with it. That doesn’t give it ALL the value, but it’s a big and often forgotten factor.
If society collapsed to such an extent that nobody was around to collect taxes, then our hypothetical billionaire in a bunker is probably toast. But I don’t know that society can collapse to that extent, at least not beyond whatever short-term calamity caused it. Either so many people are wiped out that there’s no reason to fight over resources, or groups of people will coalesce into feudal systems of self-governance not unlike much of medieval Europe. Mad Max style roving gangs are not how most people want to live, and they’ll form new communities/societies to protect themselves from such nonsense.
Thanks for posting this. I have discussed that article before but couldn’t find it to quote exactly.
It’s a fascinating look into the mindset of the rich and powerful. Whenever I ruminate about the post-event time, I think about how best to cooperate with others for safety and rebuilding a functioning society (I don’t do this so often now that I’m 70). But the wealthy think first and foremost of maintaining power and control even if it means using coercive measures to do so.
Shout out to Euphonious for the Lucifer’s Hammer reference.
I suspect it would be much like @enipla pointed out- some sort of post-Roman style situation, where the billionaires, surviving military commanders, etc… would set themselves up as local strongmen and potentially rule in the name of California or the US, while effectively being local feudal lords.
Now why a billionaire would want to prep for that sort of future, I don’t quite get. I think I’d aim a bit higher and strive to preserve technology, etc… a-la the Brotherhood of Steel or something. Otherwise, you’re actually falling further from being a 21st century billionaire to being a post-apocalyptic feudal lord.
I mean, you may be the guy in charge, but that just means you have your pick of the rad-roach meat, and dibs on the last few rolls of TP.
There’s a pretty good thread around discussing population decline though it’s been inactive for a while now. Like you, I think the ramifications will be huge but not necessarily catastrophic.
Managing the demographic changes will be difficult indeed but if global population eventually settles in around two billion, we’ll still have roughly the same number of people as we had one hundred years ago.
Reading all the references to barter reminded me of David Graeber’s book Debt - the first 5000 years, where he argues convincingly (to me) that debt and credit historically appeared before money, which itself appeared before barter. I warmly recommend that book.
