Re:The super-rich ‘preppers’ planning to save themselves
by locutous on Sunday September 04, 2022 @09:12AM
(#32712668)
Seems clear enough to me. The author returns again and again to the idea that the men are "responsible" for the coming black swan event they are preparing for. They are but small men in a wider world whatever their wealth.
Such an idea is ridiculous particularly considering the event hasn't happened and is unknown.
It is sad how little the group appears to care about their fellow men. Perhaps that's the lens of the author, I don't know.
But the author also strongly links survival thinking with selfishness, which is hogwash. Poor article, snatching ideological defeat from the jaws of victory.
Re:The super-rich ‘preppers’ planning to save themselves
by fleetwoodsnack on Sunday September 04, 2022 @09:29AM
(#32712828)
Before I proceed, I’d like your prespective on the following:
1) Does industrial activity reliant on fossil fuels contribute significantly to climate change?
2) Does engagement-first online political content curation contribute to political instability?
3) Does large scale arbitrage in the areas of real estate, energy, and food production significantly contribute to quality-of-life instability?
Use more rigorous language and provide a rationale for your argument. “[C]urrent state of affairs” is vague and inoperative, and you point to an understanding of “far more complicated” issues but do not substantiate it.
However, your comment does serve to express your superiority over the following:
* the author, Douglas Rushkoff
* third-grade economists
* marxists
* contemporary journalists
* the guardian
All of which can be true, but it is lacking for want of certain things like evidence, synthesis, or nuance.