That New Statesman cover is all too true, and all too frightening. Trump’s environmental policy seems to be “consume everything, or be a loser”. The Earth does not matter to him because he will not be here that much longer; a couple of decades at the most.
Your Name’s not Bruce?
He mustn’t care much about his kids, either, though I think that a lot of rich people think their wealth can insulate them from the consequences of global catastrophe. It might for a short time, like laying on an asbestos beach towel spread out on a lava flow, but in the end, they’re just as fucked as everyone else. Steerage flooded first, but first class staterooms on the Titanic sank at pretty much the same rate as the rest of the ship. Of course first class passengers were disproportionately represented in the lifeboats, and this might be what the rich are thinking of and hoping for. Earth, however, is not equipped with lifeboats for anyone at all.
David Evans
Climate change is not like the sinking of the Titanic. Some places will remain habitable for centuries, and I would be surprised if some billionaires are not planning to take possession of those places, bribing as many of the local politicians and military as becomes necessary.
Places maybe, but systems probably not. There will be droughts, floods, and famines, and that will mean huge migrations and wars. The systems of trade seem likely to break down, so finding a dry spot might not do the billionaires much good.
guest
One of the things I tried to do while working in a small town in the Midwest back in the ’90s was to get local ranchers to install water monitors so we could understand how much water was being drained from the Oglalla aquifer. (These ranchers didn’t have to pay for the water, as they were draining wells on their land, but scientists wanted to have some idea how fast the aquifer was disappearing.) They all flatly refused. In subsequent conversations I would say things to them like ‘you realise that once the water is gone this property will be worthless; it may not be gone in your lifetime but you’ll be leaving this land to your children who will have no way to make a living off it’–and that didn’t penetrate at all. I was genuinely shocked–I knew these people didn’t care about anyone else, but I’d always thought that these ‘heartland of America’ types at least cared about their own children (not the rest of their families–I heard some horrible things said about other relatives in general–but their own actual flesh and blood), but no, apparently not.
guest, what I think is happening is that they feel if they don’t drain off the water, their neighbors will, so they want to get what is “theirs” before someone else grabs it…they don’t comprehend the idea of limits and regulating withdrawal by cooperation, because they think all their neighbors are thinking the same way (and they’re mostly right about that)
@iknklast I guess I knew this, and I’m sure I periodically have this realisation, but I don’t focus enough on the fact that all the deplorable behaviour we’ve been seeing comes of anxiety over scarcity (and, honestly, for good reason–almost every good is genuinely becoming scarcer for most people).
Scarcity is key. I learned this decades ago from reading Isaac Deutscher.
guest
I’ve just looked him up…I’m not that interested in Russian/Soviet history in general; I’ve ordered one of his books of essays, but what in particular of his would you recommend?
Essays are good. My introduction to him was his three volume bio / history of Trotsky, and I found his essays from there.
I think his basic argument was that Communism was never going to work in Russia because it was far too underdeveloped, so scarcity was in charge, and scarcity always entails inequality.
He was writing before it was clear that resources are not infinite…
guest
Thanks–with a PhD to wrap up I’m not prepared to take a three-volume diversion into Trotsky, but I’ll have a look at his essays.
Years ago a friend and I and her teenage daughter were having a leisurely brunch at a restaurant, and at one point the daughter began to get a bit anxious and agitated at the idea that we might have eaten more bacon than her. I pointed out to her that if we ran out of bacon we’d just order more, and there was no reason at all why she wouldn’t be able to have as much bacon as she liked. It was really enlightening to see what emotional state even a minor perceived scarcity can throw someone into.
Comments
12 responses to “They’re all gonna laugh at you”
That New Statesman cover is all too true, and all too frightening. Trump’s environmental policy seems to be “consume everything, or be a loser”. The Earth does not matter to him because he will not be here that much longer; a couple of decades at the most.
He mustn’t care much about his kids, either, though I think that a lot of rich people think their wealth can insulate them from the consequences of global catastrophe. It might for a short time, like laying on an asbestos beach towel spread out on a lava flow, but in the end, they’re just as fucked as everyone else. Steerage flooded first, but first class staterooms on the Titanic sank at pretty much the same rate as the rest of the ship. Of course first class passengers were disproportionately represented in the lifeboats, and this might be what the rich are thinking of and hoping for. Earth, however, is not equipped with lifeboats for anyone at all.
Climate change is not like the sinking of the Titanic. Some places will remain habitable for centuries, and I would be surprised if some billionaires are not planning to take possession of those places, bribing as many of the local politicians and military as becomes necessary.
Places maybe, but systems probably not. There will be droughts, floods, and famines, and that will mean huge migrations and wars. The systems of trade seem likely to break down, so finding a dry spot might not do the billionaires much good.
One of the things I tried to do while working in a small town in the Midwest back in the ’90s was to get local ranchers to install water monitors so we could understand how much water was being drained from the Oglalla aquifer. (These ranchers didn’t have to pay for the water, as they were draining wells on their land, but scientists wanted to have some idea how fast the aquifer was disappearing.) They all flatly refused. In subsequent conversations I would say things to them like ‘you realise that once the water is gone this property will be worthless; it may not be gone in your lifetime but you’ll be leaving this land to your children who will have no way to make a living off it’–and that didn’t penetrate at all. I was genuinely shocked–I knew these people didn’t care about anyone else, but I’d always thought that these ‘heartland of America’ types at least cared about their own children (not the rest of their families–I heard some horrible things said about other relatives in general–but their own actual flesh and blood), but no, apparently not.
guest, what I think is happening is that they feel if they don’t drain off the water, their neighbors will, so they want to get what is “theirs” before someone else grabs it…they don’t comprehend the idea of limits and regulating withdrawal by cooperation, because they think all their neighbors are thinking the same way (and they’re mostly right about that)
Tragedy of the commons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
@iknklast I guess I knew this, and I’m sure I periodically have this realisation, but I don’t focus enough on the fact that all the deplorable behaviour we’ve been seeing comes of anxiety over scarcity (and, honestly, for good reason–almost every good is genuinely becoming scarcer for most people).
Scarcity is key. I learned this decades ago from reading Isaac Deutscher.
I’ve just looked him up…I’m not that interested in Russian/Soviet history in general; I’ve ordered one of his books of essays, but what in particular of his would you recommend?
Essays are good. My introduction to him was his three volume bio / history of Trotsky, and I found his essays from there.
I think his basic argument was that Communism was never going to work in Russia because it was far too underdeveloped, so scarcity was in charge, and scarcity always entails inequality.
He was writing before it was clear that resources are not infinite…
Thanks–with a PhD to wrap up I’m not prepared to take a three-volume diversion into Trotsky, but I’ll have a look at his essays.
Years ago a friend and I and her teenage daughter were having a leisurely brunch at a restaurant, and at one point the daughter began to get a bit anxious and agitated at the idea that we might have eaten more bacon than her. I pointed out to her that if we ran out of bacon we’d just order more, and there was no reason at all why she wouldn’t be able to have as much bacon as she liked. It was really enlightening to see what emotional state even a minor perceived scarcity can throw someone into.