How many of the people who pay for these things were entrepreneurs who felt they could change the world with their new products and services when it would profit them, yet when it comes to changing the world to stop growing so much and steward our resources for future generations, they say, "we can't change human nature" and build bunkers and rocket ships to escape the devastation they accelerated?
Don't quite understand how a nuclear bunker is useful. MAD means you would have maybe 30 - 60 minutes to get into them? Plus, if I was attacking the country where the bunkers are located, I would make sure to blow them sky high, since I can't verify what is in them. Maybe in a pandemic they are useful, although using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, you can't be sure you aren't locking yourself up with someone carrying the virus.
When I watch an apocalyptic movie, it always strikes me that the help gets free refuge.<p>If the bunker entrance is sold with a ticket, the security personnel and the engineering gets to live as part of their jobs when the rich need to pay 1 billion euros per ticket.<p>However, those real-life rich peoples bunkers are much more individualistic. They don't seem to intend to keep a social structure down there.<p>I find the movie version of the apocalyptic survival more realistic.
These are glorified man caves. They exist to be written and talked about.<p>Yes, they ostensibly have a purpose. But as comments here call out, most would never function as actual shelters.
If it's the nuclear apocalypse then just accept your fate. A bunker will just prolong the pain. However if it's something like a global pandemic and you don't want to encounter any other people for a while, then I'd much rather own a resort on a Caribbean island or the like.
This makes me think about the bunker that was discovered by the monk at the beginning of A Canticle for Liebowitz, where rubble on the exterior blocked the door from opening and the people inside died. The moral of the story is: make sure your doors open inward?
The idea behind a bunker makes some sense as temporary shelter. However, a nuclear bunker feels completely pointless. The luxury "amenities" will cease to function once all the power plants are down. If the bunker isn't located near a farm then you're going to run out of food. You're going to abandon it in the long run. It's a much better strategy to live away from population centres and next to food production. A last minute emergency bunker is practically useless in comparison.
Every time I hear about doomsday bunkers I think of Megadeth's <i>Polaris</i> lyrics (1990) [1], in particular:<p><i>Bomb shelters filled to the brim</i><p><i>Survival such a silly whim</i><p>[1] <a href="https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/megadeth/rustinpeacepolaris.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/megadeth/rustinpeacepolaris....</a>
Pathetic headline. Most of these projects are only concepts, some not even built and several years old now dug up for the purpose of this apparently fake article. Finally, you don't need to be a billionaire to afford those in Poland or Czech republic.
And once the apocalypse is over, they can live altogether in a devastated world where money has no meaning, and where true skills are the only riches. No one to steer the yatch, no pilot for the aircraft, no petroleum.<p>So much money is wasted in this world.<p>Wait, couldn't it be used to live in a better world altogether ?