Thread by @swardley

X : Will the fires in Australia kickstart a global response to climate change?
Me : I doubt it. I suspect they won't even kickstart a meaningful change in Australia. I suspect these fires need to become biennial events in our lifetime to force the change of attitude required ...

... what I do expect to happen is lip service paid to climate, business as usual, dismissal as a one off event and then when it occurs several more times over the next few decades, the argument that it's "part of the natural cycle" and the "importance of the economy".

I think the sensible thing for Australian policy makers to be discussing is how are they going to manage when such fires at such a scale become almost annual events. What preparations need to be made, funding of the fire service etc etc.

The key is not prevention, we currently lack the attitude to make the changes necessary ... the key is to focus on survival and what are we prepared to lose i.e. we can assume we will lose Sydney over time but how will we cope with the necessary migrations?

... and the importance is preparation. This stuff will happen in most of our lifetimes. It's the same in the UK, we need to be preparing on what parts of the country we are willing to lose to climate change i.e. how much of Kent etc.

X : My, aren't we cheery today.
Me : I like to be pragmatic. I like to prepare for questions we will need to face. No good doing an IBM and ignoring change for 20 years, watching AWS launch in 2006 and then going in 2016 - "Where's our hardware business?'

In shocking news, billionaire mining magnate revealed as a key funder of thinktank promoting the views of billionaire mining magnate - theguardian.com/business/2018/…

X : How will the fires happen every two years if the forest has gone?
Me : Ah, yes. The almost inevitable report from some ThinkTank that the problems were caused by "too many trees". What's the betting that some "scientist" will be dug up (paid enough) to write that article?

What you need to remember, is that a key part of "managing" a population today (whether in business or in politics or war) is to create enough confusion / alternative truths that most have difficulty in making a choice and simply give up.

It's not an easy technique though. You have to balance both alternatives to creative that confusion. Same with cats and the fight or flee response. Get the conditions right, the cat becomes confused between the two and starts preening instead.

X : Why make people give up?
Me : Because they become more controllable, more susceptible to strong man politics / imagery / slogans as they look for someone to simply "provide answers". They are more malleable.