From the CIA Teams discussion at work after I shared a link sent to me by Paul K. (slightly edited):
Joe: I have not read all of it yet, but there are some “interesting” projections on AI here: AI 2027.
I want an underground bunker in Idaho.
Sean: (my manager): Got room for more?
Joe: Sorry, all full and then some. I have three children, two step children, their spouses, and five grandchildren.
Sean: What if I can provide valuable skills?
Joe: Two son-laws are army combat vets. One is a world class (#5 or #6) shooter. Stepdaughter is a world class machine learning expert. Stepson and one daughter are top notch computer programmers. The IQ range of the kids and step kids ranges from 125 to at least 155. My brothers are farmers two miles away with non-computerized farming equipment, fully equipped metal and wood shops. One daughter has an accounting degree. There are two art majors in the mix.
We have more guns than we can count. Probably 50,000 rounds of ammunition. Equipment to assemble two to three thousand rounds per hour (given the components).
What are you bringing? We could use someone with high level medical training.
At this point if you haven’t been planning and working on it for several years and the predictions come true you probably are too late.
I’m not convinced the predictions are likely to come true. Historically, there have been many, many predictions of doom. While there have been lots of disruptions of “normal” life, things always resolved into something pretty good. The examples include industrial revolution, nuclear weapon proliferation, nuclear winter, global cooling and more recently global warming. Women’s liberation and the birth control pill were used to predict social catastrophe. Before that, women being allows to vote was predicted to be catastrophic. Even the Internet and video games were predicted to be disruptors of society.
Read the books from the 1960’s and 1970’s such as Silent Spring (I was convinced when I read it but later found out that many of the references were fake and/or severely distorted) and Future Shock (required reading for an engineering class in college, I did not find it believable and was very annoyed with the movie version). They were very popular in their time but dismal failures at predicting the future.
Fear sells and spreads far better than predicting increasing or even maintaining our current comfort level. Looking at the probabilities of propagation, you are far more likely to see doom predictions than the utopia predictions. But the long-term historical trend lines by far favor the utopian vision.
That said, the way you want to bet is not necessary on what is most likely to occur. If you cannot afford to lose the bet but betting in the direction you likely have a moderate outcome in nearly all situations you should give serious consideration to betting on the lower odds outcome.
“Women’s liberation and the birth control pill were used to predict social catastrophe“
Looked at the state of the dating/relationship market lately? Birth rates in western nations? Women’s happiness numbers?
”Before that, women being allows to vote was predicted to be catastrophic.”
Ever pull up a chart showing government spending dated from 1900-ish to present? The spikes for wars are easy to filter out, the trend is clear, the inflection point is… an exercise for the reader?
Given the incentives, this is rational behavior on the part of women. The government has replaced the husband as primary breadwinner. Ironically, one of the biggest income transfers from men to women, Social Security, had its benefits structured based on assumptions about how the family worked. Instead, it played a large part in undermining how the family worked.
“Social Security, had its benefits structured based on assumptions about how the family worked. Instead, it played a large part in undermining how the family worked.”
Government implements something that has consequences the exact opposite of what they claimed they were doing? NOT POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!one!!!!!!
/sarc, in case that’s needed for anyone.
One of the most constant failings of politicians seems to be assuming nothing else with change in response to the changes they make. It’s really, REALLY tiresome.
Every place where voting was switched from male only to include females has virtually immediately resulted in government spending (and taxes) skyrocketing and “kinder and more compassionate” criminal and social policies implemented.
A preppers version of Pasqual’s wager.
Hmmmm… correct.
Speaking of predictions, I’m remembering two “after the apocalypse” stories, or rather, a TV movie and a novel.
The movie was “The day after”. It was shown with dire trigger warnings (before that term was invented). In fact, it was a very optimistic tale of what the day after might look like, with a fully functional government working perfectly to deal with surprisingly small devastation.
Then there was Larry Niven’s novel “Lucifer’s Hammer”. That one I found credible. It’s also severely non-PC — it boggles the mind to imagine it being turned into a movie, though it should be and if done well could be a blockbuster.
“Lucifer’s Hammer” was co-written with Jerry Pournelle.
The 19th amendment has destroyed our Republic. But Adam Smith knew a thing or two when he wrote “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation”. That and Antonio Gramsci’s communist March through our societies institutions was the final nail in the coffin. It just took a century of seditious contamination to bring down a nation as great and powerful as the US once was.
So….it would be “pro-Constitutional” and “pro-American Republic” to immediately cancel all government spending for any type of unearned government payment, ie., “welfare.”
I’ve said it before, but the only thing wrong with the 19th amendment is that it proffers zero responsibility for owning a vote to cast, which is also true for conditions prior to passage of the 19th. (And as a parallel condition, the issue of ‘birthright citizenship” is in need of substantial attention, because “just citizenship” is too minimal a standard on which to grant control of the country’s direction; “basic citizenship” at birth, provided certain parental heritage conditions are met, seems reasonable for the purposes of international law, but there needs to be a higher threshold for the privilege of exerting control over the country’s direction.)
Voting is much too important to trust it to just anyone, there must be some establishment of personal responsibility toward, and of, the Republic. Heinlein proposed military service but that seems a bit too limiting; so does just “property ownership.” I’d suggest raising the voting age – 25 is the minimum age for serving in Congress, and that doesn’t seem unreasonable for voting – and establishing a matrix of values, a certain number of which would be required in either quantity or degree: such as paying federal taxes above a certain amount and/or for a certain number of years; some degree of property ownership, including real estate and/or other property of certain value (such as a business); military service; completion of a certain type(s) of public service; and others as defined.
Since none of that is going to happen, at least not within any sort of foreseeable time frame, buy guns, ammunition and freeze dried food.