Tech executives and survivalism: why are they placing the wrong bet?

The world is going crazy. Who would have thought that, one day, i would have to think (and write) about survivalism? Damn you The Walking Dead!

What are you talking about?!

Last week, i came across a story from Evan Osno about the growing popularity of the survivalism doctrine among the super rich (Doomsday prep for the super rich). I was not really paying much attention until the journalist mentioned the Silicon Valley. So okay, rich people doing “stupid thing” with their money, what’s new? But when that kind of thinking starts to touch a place where we talk so much about the future and how to change the world, my curiosity is tickled.

The pitch

We basically know the different scenarios: a virus outbreak (Ebola, Zika …), natural disaster (earthquake, hurricane …), social revolution etc. that would provoke a temporary (or not) collapse of our government and institutions. Unless you are among the few that still think climate change is a hoax, all of those scenarios are pretty realistic.

The technology threat

Our world relies heavily on technology. Unfortunately, technology can be hacked (we saw many examples recently) and cause massive disruptions. For example, our logistic system (how we move products, food, medicines etc.) depends on GPS, which depends to some degree on the internet. The internet depends partly on the DNS system. Each of those systems are fragile in their own ways. A massive DNS attack could paralyze a city or the whole country: what would you do without food. Without your inhaler? Or electricity?

The other side of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

One of the prevalent fear among tech survivalists comes from the growth and development of artificial intelligence technologies. This debate has been going on for a while now: what will be the impact of AI and automation on the labor market and the overall society? Nobody has the answer yet, but when the people who are developing the tech start to spend millions of dollars on the apocalyptic outcome, it starts to get real.

The plan

We are talking about successful entrepreneurs with strong problem solving skills. So of course, they came up with a plan. And the plan is to buy a bunker, stack-up food, weapons and ammunition. Yep, like in the movies. I’m serious. That’s really the plan! So okay it’s a luxury bunker ($3,000,000/apt) designed to be self-sustaining with all the comfort/technology you could expect, but still, i don’t get it.

Disconnected

Two things that strike me. First, it is the belief that some people could buy their place in a safe haven while the rest of humanity would go ahead and kill each other. I watched Resident Evil, the Final Chapter. Let the world purges itself while we comfortably watch. A class above the rest of us.

Secondly, it is the economic thinking: why would you spend millions of dollars to protect your individual life and wealth? Without society and trust, there is no money and no banking system. Your billions are gone. Plus, do you really want to live your life in autarky, 6 feet under? You, the person that thrives on solving problems for customers?

Putting your money where your mouth is

Those risks are real. Even more considering the bunch of lunatics in charge of the White House and Government. But i am a soccer guy: we win or we lose together. As cheesy as it might sound, we are a team — you couldn’t have created that startup without teachers, policemen, blue collars etc. We are all interdependent, and a chain is as strong as its weakest link. Take care of the link at risk and we are all stronger.

Prevention is so much cheaper than treating the disease. I don’t get why those ultra rich wouldn’t spend the money on programs that would address the underlying causes and limit the risks (prevention) instead of how to deal with the aftermath (“treatment” — which is not even a treatment).

I get the principle of edging. I worked in finance. But i was expecting a little more from entrepreneurs that built their fortune on the promise of changing the world. At least they are taking a stand on immigration.