They don't even want people to realize that the problem is real.

That's not leadership.

Their panic takes two forms, one more apocalyptic than the other.

The first is the sobering realization that if there were wider public awareness of climate change it would mean that people would expect their governments to "do something" and this would disrupt a balance of power that is currently working for them.

The more extreme version of this panic is a kind of bunker mentality.

There will be more refugees in the future, not fewer. Food prices will be higher.

If anyone tells you that they can explain all of the craziness of the world in a single theory be skeptical. The world is complex and many factors drive history.

I do think there is one vector of pressure that we don't talk about directly very often that is playing a role in a lot of political edginess. From nativism, to the rightward swing of the UK and US the silent actor is climate change.

Because at this point wealthy people know that it is real and I think some of them are panicking.

@futurebird I posit there is a cottage industry of security specialists, engineers and architects that developed the last 2 decades around selling the idea to the hyper-rich (the top 0.1%) that their fortune will save them and their family... They happily bought this lie and now believe that overpopulation (specially in the global south) is THE problem. They know hundreds of millions of people will die and for them it's a good thing. I call this posture #ClimatePurge

@futurebird

@futurebird

I have references!

We know the super rich are worried, they straight up asked a tech futurist about their bunker plans.

The super-rich ‘preppers’ planning to save themselves from the apocalypse

Tech billionaires are buying up luxurious bunkers to survive a societal collapse they helped create, but like everything they do, it has unintended consequences

the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)

Or from "we're not in this together: There is no universal politics of climate change "

"Tillerson and those he works with are not in some kind of shadowy conspiracy. The Rex Tillersons of the world have taken a look at the same data, the same trends, the same underlying social and political conditions, and they have noticed that in the probable world in which nothing changes for them, business-as-usual, they end up on the “winning” side of a sharp global and local dividing line. Every structural incentive serves to reinforce such thinking. The best outcome in such a position is to push on with business-as-usual; the costs of climate change will largely be borne by those who already bear the cost today. Indeed, as I will argue, that other people will be bearing those costs helps keep the system going as long as possible and makes the Rex Position of maximal extraction for maximal maintenance, or cashing out, that much better. Even modestly successful climate mitigation and adaptation for the vast majority of people would require socioeconomic and political changes that would pose a steep loss to the Rex Position.

We’re Not in This Together | Ajay Singh Chaudhary

One of the most common misconceptions concerning climate change is that it produces, or even requires, a united humanity.

The Baffler (thebaffler.com)

The Trump administration makes so much more sense as a smash and grab trying to steal many resource for the super rich as they can, while letting the ordinary people die.

Heck even the push for AI, fits in with this story of the super rich looking to replace their dependence on the working class they're trying to kill off.

(edit fixed sentence that was incompletely edited)

@futurebird

I have references!

We know the super rich are worried, they straight up asked a tech futurist about their bunker plans.

The super-rich ‘preppers’ planning to save themselves from the apocalypse

Tech billionaires are buying up luxurious bunkers to survive a societal collapse they helped create, but like everything they do, it has unintended consequences

the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)

Or from "we're not in this together: There is no universal politics of climate change "

"Tillerson and those he works with are not in some kind of shadowy conspiracy. The Rex Tillersons of the world have taken a look at the same data, the same trends, the same underlying social and political conditions, and they have noticed that in the probable world in which nothing changes for them, business-as-usual, they end up on the “winning” side of a sharp global and local dividing line. Every structural incentive serves to reinforce such thinking. The best outcome in such a position is to push on with business-as-usual; the costs of climate change will largely be borne by those who already bear the cost today. Indeed, as I will argue, that other people will be bearing those costs helps keep the system going as long as possible and makes the Rex Position of maximal extraction for maximal maintenance, or cashing out, that much better. Even modestly successful climate mitigation and adaptation for the vast majority of people would require socioeconomic and political changes that would pose a steep loss to the Rex Position.

We’re Not in This Together | Ajay Singh Chaudhary

One of the most common misconceptions concerning climate change is that it produces, or even requires, a united humanity.

The Baffler (thebaffler.com)

The Trump administration makes so much more sense as a smash and grab trying to steal many resource for the super rich as they can, while letting the ordinary people die.

Heck even the push for AI, fits in with this story of the super rich looking to replace their dependence on the working class they're trying to kill off.

(edit fixed sentence that was incompletely edited)

@alienghic @futurebird

Disaster preppers are unaware of just how miserable it would be to be stuck in a bunker with nobody but them.

@michael_w_busch

Also unaware of how much the world would enjoy them being in there.

@futurebird @michael_w_busch

I really Douglas Rushkoff had interviewed the guy with embassy security experience more.

In the article he mentions that after talking to the billionaires panicking about how to maintain control over their guards, a guy with real world security experience approached him and shared his plans for responding to "the event".

"He felt certain that the “event” – a grey swan, or predictable catastrophe triggered by our enemies, Mother Nature, or just by accident –was inevitable. He had done a Swot analysis – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats – and concluded that preparing for calamity required us to take the very same measures as trying to prevent one. “By coincidence,” he explained, “I am setting up a series of safe haven farms in the NYC area. These are designed to best handle an ‘event’ and also benefit society as semi-organic farms. Both within three hours’ drive from the city – close enough to get there when it happens.”"

I feel like "preparing for calamity required us to take the very same measures as trying to prevent one" is an excellent insight.

@futurebird I went to an upper middle class school near DC, and for ages could not figure out why we were taught about climate change ("worst case scenario, we could reach a grim point in ~50 years," graduated 04,) when the "leaders" these kids were being groomed to be were denying this. Clearly, they have known for a long time. But then I realized... well exactly. Of course they knew. They probably knew it was worse than that. But the "leadership" is expected to learn how to lie about it.

They don't even want people to realize that the problem is real.

That's not leadership.

@secretsloth @futurebird I see part of the problem we have today is that some of these people have been simmering in the lies for so long that they legitimately don't believe the truth anymore and really do think that climate change isn't real, the rich who are fighting against climate reforms have empowered true believers and the looniest subnormals, like Alex Jones or Trump, who are just fundamentally unserious people. Anyone who understands and isn't a total loser would do *something* to mitigate the effects if they had the resources and power, even repressive autocracies like China know they have to do something and are doing it, but the US "leadership" has lost the plot.

@alienghic @futurebird

My thought reading that article was that "safe haven farms" are also not actual prepardness for disasters.

Where does he imagine he would be getting fertilizer from?

How does he imagine he would survive a hurricane running over them?

Who is running the hospital that does not exist on them?

And so on.

Forcing him to confront that might have made him realize "preparing for calamity required us to take the very same measures as trying to prevent one" actually means.

@futurebird

I must admit, I feel defeated.

Timeframe:
From 1958 to 2025 is 67 years.

Total estimated extinctions:
150 species/day
×365 days/year
×67 years
≈3,668,250 species

@tuban_muzuru

Part of me has become detached to deal with it. Because in the long line of this planet's history other destructive species have existed, thrived and died. Biodiversity ebbs, flows. So really we are destroying all of this for ourselves. We will never get to see or know what we have destroyed.

Are we exceptional enough to realize and minimize further loss?

Or are we just another creature that will spam the fossil record with our numerous bones?

If anyone tells you that they can explain all of the craziness of the world in a single theory be skeptical. The world is complex and many factors drive history.

I do think there is one vector of pressure that we don't talk about directly very often that is playing a role in a lot of political edginess. From nativism, to the rightward swing of the UK and US the silent actor is climate change.

Because at this point wealthy people know that it is real and I think some of them are panicking.

@futurebird the single theory people know exactly what they're doing. It's called depluralisation, turning all your complex problems into one single manageable hatred "blame the immigrants, blame women..."

It's exactly how those in power try to distract those without power

EIP Explainer: Understanding radicalisation | EIP

What do we know about the process that turns youngsters into single-truth adherents, or possibly terrorists? […]

(www.eip.org)