It's funny how people think a post-apocalyptic landscape will be relatively flat socioeconomically. At most they think there will be small-scale warlords or Dunbar-scale anarchist communes. No. There will be deathstar billionaires with private armies and narrow-deep tech stacks.
-
Show this thread
-
The industrial age has made us (falsely) believe that an "industrial base" has to necessarily be a nation-state scale at minimum. No. A complete industrial tech stack can be built as a fairly narrow single-billionaire pillar.
3 replies 13 retweets 76 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
The economics might be stable but will the politics? Why will the security guys not shoot the billionaire and take over? The fracturing of power/wealth has been in constant tension against the ambition to expand/consolidate for all of history.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Billionaires exist because there are many stable nations which protect their assets. They are the most fragile peak, the people *most* dependent on the existing social order.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @keith_ng
That can be true at the same time as the opposite proposition that they’re also the ones most likely able to secure a pretty deep survivability of political collapse (mountain bunkers stashed with gold and guns and equipment and medicines and spare parts...)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
But how do they defend the bunker/stop people from torturing them for the code to get into the bunker? In our world, property rights are protected by the government. Without a government, how do you "own" a bunker of loot?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @keith_ng
The same way medieval feudal lords held on to their estates with or without strong kings. You hire a personal army, have loyal people running your affairs, rule like any minor king or baron would.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Ah, but that's the thing. a) For its early history, feudalism was a violent meritocracy - the king was just the best warlord, put there by men personally loyal to them. It took centuries to build up legitimacy as an actual position that had power which could be passed on...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And b) the extent of feudal power was much more limited than a billionaire today. And it had to be devolved substantially - local lords had a lot of power.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Billionairism is also something of a violent meritocracy and we have the tech to get to a higher steady state, faster now. And sure, didn’t say the billionaire citadel had to be an absolute autocracy. Devolving power to subordinates is fine if the system is stable under that
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.