4 ms·

Curious about what he means by "that wealth can be a shield against the ravages of warming". That is--I can see a case for the wealth of a nation not being a sh

Curious about what he means by "that wealth can be a shield against the ravages of warming". That is--I can see a case for the wealth of a nation not being a shield for every citizen, but I wonder whether the very rich could weather climate change for a long time. But I suppose that's not the same thing as being totally unaffected.

graeme 7y ago
Wealth is a claim on the output of society. It's very hard to store wealth outside of society. Actual stored wealth: * precious metal and fossil fuels, etc * seeds, canned goods, grain reserves * Buildings, wells, physical infrastructure on the land * tools etc that last through time Money is only useful to the extent it can buy things. If civilization collapses, then that's a destruction of wealth. If output merely diminishes, that's also a destruction of wealth. It will still be better to be rich than to be poor, but even the rich depend on what society produces.
jordanbeiber 7y ago
I take it he means it's a delusion because fiat currency means very little when the environment that our civilisation is tuned to breaks down.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
What's a currency, asset or web business going to be worth if the economy breaks globally, there's a major crash and depression, or wars break out over migrants, resources or water? Weimar Republic made vast wealth disappear in moments. The US civil war came awfully close to full-on hyper inflation.
UglyToad 7y ago
There are certainly rich people planning to sit out the worst effects, how widespread this is I don't know: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doomsday-preppers/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doo...
Balgair 7y ago
History guides us well in this fallacy. No matter the wealth or influence of a person, we're all just humans in the end. Look at Carthage [0], it was 100 years before major settlements began after their bronze-age war. No ammount of wealth saved their elites. Look at the Zone Rouge [1] and the ecological effects we still see today. That land is just outside of Paris and used to be some of the most beautiful in Europe before the first modern war. Now it is toxic. Look at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Radiation cares not for your credit card color. True, in some of these instances, the wealthy could and did flee. But they had to flee to escape and could not stay. When the whole world is a Zone Rouge, where can they flee to? For how long? Time and again we see that it is not long at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Carthage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Carthage [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge
munificent 7y ago
If climate change kills the bottom 90% of the population, the remaining 10% will follow shortly behind them because nothing that made them "the 10%" will exist once those 90% are gone. "Wealth" at it's most fundamental means "can pay less wealthy people to do things for you". Without the poor, no one is rich.

graeme 7y ago

Wealth is a claim on the output of society. It's very hard to store wealth outside of society. Actual stored wealth: * precious metal and fossil fuels, etc * seeds, canned goods, grain reserves * Buildings, wells, physical infrastructure on the land * tools etc that last through time Money is only useful to the extent it can buy things. If civilization collapses, then that's a destruction of wealth. If output merely diminishes, that's also a destruction of wealth. It will still be better to be rich than to be poor, but even the rich depend on what society produces.

jordanbeiber 7y ago

I take it he means it's a delusion because fiat currency means very little when the environment that our civilisation is tuned to breaks down.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

What's a currency, asset or web business going to be worth if the economy breaks globally, there's a major crash and depression, or wars break out over migrants, resources or water? Weimar Republic made vast wealth disappear in moments. The US civil war came awfully close to full-on hyper inflation.

UglyToad 7y ago

There are certainly rich people planning to sit out the worst effects, how widespread this is I don't know: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doomsday-preppers/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doo...

Balgair 7y ago

History guides us well in this fallacy. No matter the wealth or influence of a person, we're all just humans in the end. Look at Carthage [0], it was 100 years before major settlements began after their bronze-age war. No ammount of wealth saved their elites. Look at the Zone Rouge [1] and the ecological effects we still see today. That land is just outside of Paris and used to be some of the most beautiful in Europe before the first modern war. Now it is toxic. Look at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Radiation cares not for your credit card color. True, in some of these instances, the wealthy could and did flee. But they had to flee to escape and could not stay. When the whole world is a Zone Rouge, where can they flee to? For how long? Time and again we see that it is not long at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Carthage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Carthage [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge

munificent 7y ago

If climate change kills the bottom 90% of the population, the remaining 10% will follow shortly behind them because nothing that made them "the 10%" will exist once those 90% are gone. "Wealth" at it's most fundamental means "can pay less wealthy people to do things for you". Without the poor, no one is rich.