True, especially in less-developed or stable countries where kidnap gangs are a real problem.
> it's not the cookie-cutter, mixed income, urban sprawl neighborhoods that are going to be set ablaze
It tends to be the dense, liminal, downtown areas that are set ablaze. Being well off certainly does help you get away from the fires.
But I think a lot of people dislike preppers because of the implication that this effort is a substitute for being involved in preventing the disaster in the first place - or, on the nuttier fringe, seemingly trying to accelerate it. Especially political involvement.
Remember, for many people having insecure accomodation, food supply, and access to medical care is everyday life.
(your advice page seems to be from the sensible wing of "preparedness", assigning sensible probabilities to risks)
I had literally never heard of this criticism until I read this article and the ensuing discussion.
It seems a little odd, too, like saying, 'why hedge the risk of an unfriendly regime when you can vote?' Even Bill Gates or Carlos Slim can't ensure that a disaster won't happen to him or his family; while I'm sure that they take steps to prevent them, I'm equally sure that they also have plans in place for how to respond to unprevented disasters.
That's only at first. Once all the food is gone, they'll go after the rich in their compounds.
The thing that I don't like with this reasoning is that it implies there is a limit of wealth and that above that line, the benefit of regular economy stop applying and the rich person, on a voluntary basis should just have the decency to invest back directly into the community instead of through the regular means.
I somewhat agree with that on principle, but if people really share that thinking then it should really become a law: punitive tax level, maximum salary, don't know of any practical mechanism, but that's not the point, it is not even discussed by any party.
Otherwise there is no reason you can criticise the rich for buying the stuff he wants than the poor (relatively) for doing exactly the same.
Every dollar you spend on your bunker is a dollar you don't spend helping the world keep out of the sort of trouble that would make your bunker necessary.
I'm not saying you aren't entitled to spend your time and money however you like, but there is a mathematical sense in which the goals do conflict, even if only via opportunity cost.
But it's also a dollar that's been spent - paying for school supplies for the daughter of the welder employed by the manufacturer, the medicine the truck driver's mom needs, and a few drinks at the bar for the retired vet who ran the backhoe for the bunker.
The economy isn't a closed system, so anything that gets the super rich to spend their money rather than stockpile it will benefit the economy as a whole.
Especially if you don't have any political clout or an army to back it up.
Would donating $5 million really help in some catastrophic event? Especially when compared to the multi-billions that nations spend each year?
Money is probably at peak value: more valuable than it has ever been, but people are realizing its limitations and it will probably never again be as valuable as it is today.
Other forms of value are ascending. That's why people who rely on money and armies for their livelihood are so scared.
If you want to help the world, money and armies are not the tools to use. Start with your time, human time will never be less valued than it is today.
* needs shortening (it's too long-winded)
* a note that it mainly applies to the US when it comes to economy/lack of social safety net; e.g. you mention that governments won't help you in case of a financial crisis and big increase in unemployment, but you also point out this happened recently in Greece and Spain - obviously all those people weren't preppers, yet they are still surviving
* for several of the natural disasters you mention (e.g. Katrina and the European heat wave), most fatalities were old and sick people, which you can't really prep against (being old)
* the Fukushima mention is weird - at least 100x, maybe 1000x more people died from the earthquake and tsunami than from the nuclear accident, even when you take into account future cancer deaths
* needs more discussion of how to prepare for/handle situations when no water, toilets and toilet paper are available - how to build a latrine outdoors, how to conserve limited toilet paper supply, the hygienic setup and use of slop buckets indoors, and how to manage without toilet paper, water and soap
* no mention of learning how to conserve food and keeping jars and salt/sugar/vinegar/etc around for this purpose
* no mention of stockpiling diaper rash cream (can be vital when you can't shower for weeks), Vaseline, and blister bandages as well as womens' stocking socks (for avoiding blisters on long hikes)
* no mention of getting a high-durability water filtration system (like the Sawyer water bottle, 3.7 million liters durability of cleaning bacteria and parasites from river water)
* AM/FM radio should be crank powered
Yes, but then I'd do what I already do, spend most of my energy and passion on thinking about and working on fixing problems I didn't cause and that hardly affect me. Which I'm sure plenty of wealthy -- the best of them -- already do. I agree it's not mutually exclusive, for what it's worth. That is completely true, and there are empathic, responsible super rich people just like sociopathic, reckless poor people exist. But let's not use people we can imagine to exist to excuse the detached clowns we see with our own eyes and who make sure we get to hear about their every brain fart, too.
> We should also remember that unlike many many of the stars of "Doomsday Preppers" who seemed inexplicably frightened by the prospect of social unrest in the US, the ultra-rich may actually have something to worry about.
I know what you mean, but really, think about you just wrote. For every person, for every living being, their life is an ocean in which you, your wealth and all your ancestors and offspring are not even a tiny speck, and when they die, "their whole universe" dies with them. So, does having a lot of material, or things to worry about, really increase the intensity of that attachment? Is that not also at the very least orthogonal? When it comes to intensity of live, of being at ease with who one is, of not being on the run from oneself, then little kids and dogs and a million "types" of people come to mind before the super rich do. But of course, that's all very subjective. I just know who makes me think "good for them" and who makes me feel sad for them.
> When angry masses take it to the streets, it's not the cookie-cutter, mixed income, urban sprawl neighborhoods that are going to be set ablaze.
Whenever catastrophy strikes, or war or other things are done by people, it's the elderly, the children, the poor, the sick and so on who suffer first, last, and the hardest throughout, make no mistake. Besides, so far various elites have been doing great at polarizing angry masses and having them at each other's throats. They might also be the ones who have the drones and whatnot, so angry crowds taking to the streets would be the perfect excuse to fast track totalitarianism even harder, but I'm sure there will be ways to goad them into it anyway. To me, that's the greasy old man showing his junk in front of the curtain, I can't even imagine what is behind it.
In fact, I suspect that once you're in that particular wealth bracket, it's no longer about people who have contingency plans versus the ones who don't. I'm pretty sure that almost every Fortune 100 CEO has private security parked in front of their house and a plan to get out quickly something bad were to happen. There are many security consulting companies that cater exclusively to this segment - and they are doing very well. It's just that most of the CEOs won't talk about it to The New Yorker - partly because of opsec concerns, but partly because such revelations would make it even easier for us to vilify them.
And before we assume that their plans are lopsided and irrational, I think it's worth keeping in mind that the article is written to be entertaining. The author wants to tell us about the stuff that is out of ordinary and out of reach of mere mortals. That doesn't mean that the people featured in the article don't also have a fire extinguisher and some tarp and nails in their garage. Heck, perhaps 95% of their prepping goes toward more pedestrian risks? Perhaps they practice defensive driving and situational awareness? Perhaps they go camping or hiking every other week? Perhaps they take EMT courses and participate in community preparedness drills? Who knows... that stuff is boring. ICBM silos and helicopters are fun.
We should also remember that unlike many many of the stars of "Doomsday Preppers" who seemed inexplicably frightened by the prospect of social unrest in the US, the ultra-rich may actually have something to worry about. When angry masses take it to the streets, it's not the cookie-cutter, mixed income, urban sprawl neighborhoods that are going to be set ablaze. We had quite a few big revolutions, and it's usually the heads of the variously defined aristocracy that roll. It's not ancient history, too.
Lastly... one viewpoint presented in the article is that it's somehow immoral for the CEOs to worry about self-preservation instead of trying to give back to the community. I think that's a non-sequitur - is it also immoral for them to buy a fire extinguisher or install sprinklers before making the world a better place? - but more importantly, the two goals are not mutually exclusive.
PS. Disclaimer - I'm the author of http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/, so I might be not entirely impartial.