Thriving for the next 100-200 years

[thegreatvoid]

If I´m lucky I got maybe 50 years to go, Beyond that I couldn´t give a sh++t . No offspring.
Not really worried about climate Change. The loss of freedom and a global surveillance state is my biggest concern for the future. seeing what the chinese are doing´, makes me sick .

[IlliniDave]

100 years down the road my grandchildren will probably have already died of old age. I'll probably not make it another 30 years. You're talking about skipping ahead 3-6 generations. I can't plan ahead that far. I think we know far less about what a changing climate means than we pretend to. Best I can do is leave the descendants I overlap with what amounts to a bugout bag of resources and hope they are smart and lucky.

[2Birds1Stone]

Get a vasectomy.

[Kriegsspiel]

When I read about Tynan buying a bunch of properties with his friends (a Canadian island, a condo in Budapest, etc), I broached the idea of collectively buying a little retreat in the country to my family. Just a place to get together, play some horseshoes, sit around a camp fire. Hold it in a family trust and pass it down to the next generation. I think I lost them when they found out how much the tank defenses, bunkers, and drone turrets would cost.

[Redo]

I appreciate your willingness to lay down, die, and go extinct for the cause. We need more people like you to give up their share of resources so that my offspring will thrive.

Is this a joke or are you being serious?

[unemployable]

I appreciate your willingness to lay down, die, and go extinct for the cause. We need more people like you to give up their share of resources so that my offspring will thrive.

So whatever rules we come up with to "fix the root cause of unrestricted population growth" shouldn't apply to you. Got it.

[Redo]

Both? @thegreatvoid said that's his plan, so I thanked him for decreasing resource competition.

You're probably trolling, but just in case you aren't.

"I appreciate your willingness to lay down, die, and go extinct for the cause. We need more people like you to give up their share of resources so that my offspring will thrive."

Can't speak for the other poster, but the reason I'm not having kids isn't to make some sacrifice for humanity, or so that other people can have my resources .
I just don't want my kids to grow up in a sick environment and be jobless (due to automation).
But it's cute that you think your kids will thrive in an environment where all the birds, animals, insects and trees are dying. I mean what kind of empty soulless existence is that?

[Redo]

As I said, I knew you were probably trolling. My sarcasm meter isn't completely broken.

Anyways if you want to get rich, then profit off the doom and gloom. Invest in those shady loan companies, charge people to take pictures of almost extinct animals and birds (they're already doing that with coral reef tourism, too late for that party).

[IlliniDave]

Land rights and water rights might be pretty valuable 100-200 years down the line. But it is true, that's a very long planning horizon. How about 100 years. I'll be alive for half that, my daughter might go the whole distance.

They are valuable now. Depending on where you fall on the spectrum of belief regarding how drastically the world will change over the next ten decades and to some degree specifically what will change, the problem becomes determining which land (and water) rights will have value 100 years from now, and what you want the value to be to your family. Should caveat that to say I really don't know much about how water rights work, so I'm mostly thinking in terms of property. Amassing an estate (in the sense of a substantial real estate holding improved to the point of being productive) is an age-old way conferring prosperity through generations, no reason it wouldn't work if you can get a pin in the right spot on the map.

[vexed87]

Land rights and water rights might be pretty valuable 100-200 years down the line. But it is true, that's a very long planning horizon.

Are you assuming that the concept of private property will be socially acceptable and enshrined in law 100-200 years from now? Are you open to the possibility that social order of the coming decades may not reflect the past? Consider first of all that those rights came about under very different conditions of resource availability. Who is going to protect your private property when your country man are hungry and thirsty and need what you have? Is it ethical to withhold it? Capitalism may not survive the coming crisis. Don't mistake this for advocacy to pursue the demise of capitalism. If you are trying to secure your position at the top of the social hierarchy using methods of yesterday, are you truly preparing for tomorrow? Or are you making yourself an enemy of those who would want to take what you have?

I think your best bet is being flexible and to be needed by a community capable of supplying your needs and wants. Rentiers may fall out of fashion, fast, maybe the masses will take you head, or if you are lucky, you'll just become irrelevant.

Edit: IlliniDave beat me to it.

[vexed87]

No reason it wouldn't work if you can get a pin in the right spot on the map.

Agreed, but depending where you are on the spectrum, and how it pans out in reality, it might be easier said than done!

[Dream of Freedom]

Well if I've learned anything reading articles on stocks and economics it is just how bad people are at predicting tje future. So planning ahead that far is a bit iffy in my opinion.

I think your best bet would be to focus on health and education. Healthy people simply perform better in almost every way. So dial in the nutrition. Better education is helpful latter in life. So if they are struggling in a class either tutor your kid or grandkids yourself or pull up Khan academy.

You should also read https://smile.amazon.com/Old-Money-Book ... way&sr=8-1. It's good to learn how to keep money in the family from a family that has actually done it for a few generations.

[Riggerjack]

I do appreciate anyone who wants to go extinct though, because it does decrease resource competition. My descendants thanks you.

We all go extinct. Some of us are simply more motivated than others to lie to themselves about it.

How much does your great-great grandfather live through you? How much of his sacrifices do you appreciate? Do you even know his name? How long ago was he your age?

Does this perspective reframe your question? If not, why not? I'm really curious. I find rational breeders to be rare. And people planning for the future of their offspring are rare, and to be encouraged.

As to your questions, think in terms of things that last as long as your planning horizon. Land. (I wouldn't count on water rights beyond what falls on your land, and even that much is subject to change.) Some kinds of structues. Some kinds of tools. An education in history and economics, with emphasis on how that has worked out for the people of the time, not the political movements and names of groups with dates.

[IlliniDave]

Agreed, but depending where you are on the spectrum, and how it pans out in reality, it might be easier said than done!

Exactly. Which is why I mentioned above my thinking is closer to arranging a bugout bag of resources rather than trying to guess which of the popular list of potentially precipatory conditions for a doomsday will require a response first. That (figurative bugout bag) also is much easier said than done.

[classical_Liberal]

Try this from the reverse... 10 years ago did you think you would be living the life you are today?

Planning is good, if it remains elastic enough to encompass many realms of possibilities. Human nature likes to extrapolate the present into the future, but this is often not the reality. Put in financial perspective, this is why people here want to save 33X spending; "I don't want to have to earn money today, so I need enough for the rest of my life."

This is why good health and personal skills/knowledge will always trump money or assets. A healthy, smart, skilled person can always find ways to provide. However, money can't always buy those things. I think this is why most people are responding they way they are to a 100+ year plan.

[classical_Liberal]

Ha! I stand corrected, you're way better than me at meeting goals! If I had a predication from 10 years ago, it wouldn't even be close.

I don't disagree with your "lame" quoted post. I'd argue, being able to predict is what has made humans the dominant species. It's no coincidence that the predictable climate of the last 10,000 years or so corresponds to our golden age. Still, all the action is in the tails (ie setting up a family dynasty, like monarchs of old). They are notoriously difficult to predict.

I'll stick to my previous skill based plan and hope the Augustus family dynasty will desire some healthcare skills and invite me into their court.