3 ms·

“Climate change safe” for the rich: - Hard to reach by land (not vulnerable to migration waves) - Not so small there will be incredible deprivation if sea tra

“Climate change safe” for the rich: - Hard to reach by land (not vulnerable to migration waves) - Not so small there will be incredible deprivation if sea trade volume plunges (this rules out the vast majority of island nations) - Not badly overpopulated - Correct latitude (not too close to the equator) - Stable liberal democracy (so they probably won’t take all your stuff) - Unlikely target for outright conquest in great-powers games or expansion. Bonus points: - Interesting, varied natural environments. They are indeed thinking about this stuff. It’s why so many are buying New Zealand citizenship and buying land there (and sometimes building their survival bunkers there too). It checks every single box, and basically nowhere else does.

xienze 7mo ago
> Stable liberal democracy Isn’t it precisely these stable liberal democracies where we have the most “the rich aren’t paying their fair share” rhetoric?
- genthree 7mo ago
  Some more taxes are a lot better than being disappeared with no due process whatsoever, or having huge amounts of your property seized with no due process. The rich benefit immensely from liberal democracy. The alternative is being forced to play all kinds of power-games with stakes a hell of a lot higher than the ones they deal with when they mess around with politics in democracies, and at a disadvantage if they’re foreign and those aren’t open, pluralistic societies. Their worst-plausible-case in a liberal democracy (barring state collapse into something else) is they lose a teensy bit of their stuff. Nowhere near all of it.
maxerickson 7mo ago
There's about 1 billion people in North and South America. If there's some sort of catastrophic collapse, there's not going to be overpopulation or problematic waves of migration anywhere on those continents.
gcanyon 7mo ago
In the next 30 years: Is anyone predicting damaging "migration waves" in: Washington state, British Columbia, Argentina, Italy, Australia, South Africa, Japan? That's just off the top of my head, I think the real list would be much longer than that. "The vast majority of island nations" -- this doesn't seem like much of a constraint in the first place? But are you talking about Japan, New Zealand, and Indonesia? Or Tuvalu and Fiji? "Not badly overpopulated" -- apart from a very small handful of countries, this doesn't shorten the list of locations. Do you expect latitude to matter in the next 30 years? My guess is that the ultra wealthy will, in general, not have "all their stuff" in one place. But also that most places are unlikely to take advantage of people bringing significant spending to the location. If the U.S. continues its current course, yeah, games and expansion are risk factors. But again, there's a long list of countries that meet this criterion. I'm just failing to see how we're headed for Mad Max-style anarchy in a human time frame.

xienze 7mo ago

> Stable liberal democracy Isn’t it precisely these stable liberal democracies where we have the most “the rich aren’t paying their fair share” rhetoric?

genthree 7mo ago
Some more taxes are a lot better than being disappeared with no due process whatsoever, or having huge amounts of your property seized with no due process. The rich benefit immensely from liberal democracy. The alternative is being forced to play all kinds of power-games with stakes a hell of a lot higher than the ones they deal with when they mess around with politics in democracies, and at a disadvantage if they’re foreign and those aren’t open, pluralistic societies. Their worst-plausible-case in a liberal democracy (barring state collapse into something else) is they lose a teensy bit of their stuff. Nowhere near all of it.

maxerickson 7mo ago

There's about 1 billion people in North and South America. If there's some sort of catastrophic collapse, there's not going to be overpopulation or problematic waves of migration anywhere on those continents.

gcanyon 7mo ago

In the next 30 years: Is anyone predicting damaging "migration waves" in: Washington state, British Columbia, Argentina, Italy, Australia, South Africa, Japan? That's just off the top of my head, I think the real list would be much longer than that. "The vast majority of island nations" -- this doesn't seem like much of a constraint in the first place? But are you talking about Japan, New Zealand, and Indonesia? Or Tuvalu and Fiji? "Not badly overpopulated" -- apart from a very small handful of countries, this doesn't shorten the list of locations. Do you expect latitude to matter in the next 30 years? My guess is that the ultra wealthy will, in general, not have "all their stuff" in one place. But also that most places are unlikely to take advantage of people bringing significant spending to the location. If the U.S. continues its current course, yeah, games and expansion are risk factors. But again, there's a long list of countries that meet this criterion. I'm just failing to see how we're headed for Mad Max-style anarchy in a human time frame.