“When it comes to the planetary crisis, the most important question you can ask yourself is 'Where?'”
That's because climate chaos and ecological collapse are hitting differently in different places, and some places are better positioned to weather the storm than others.
"We must begin by understanding the nature of the crisis."
We've entered a crisis so large and complex that it is no longer an issue, but an era. It is a discontinuity with everything we're used to thinking of as normal.
In this era of crisis, where you live will be a better predictor of the prospects you and your family have than any other factor.
Some places are brittle. That is, the tolerances for which they are built — the conditions they need to function — are more and more likely to be overrun. They are at real risk for catastrophic failure.
Ruggedization centers on "designing responses that can mobilize the resources needed for rapid, large-scale change by making those approaches powerful opportunities rather than just protective investments."
Personal ruggedization is the process of choosing your circumstances and setting up your life in such a way that rapid change becomes a chance to do better, to find long-term security and ways to succeed in the service of your purpose.
Of course, if you're wealthy enough, you don't have to seek out a good place to land and work with others to ruggedize it.
You can just buy yourself a luxury survival compound.
They don't come cheap—you have to have a net worth in the tens of millions to even buy into the game.
The reality is that most of us are not in this position.
Indeed, hundreds of millions of people lack the resources needed to ruggedize their lives much at all, even as they are the most vulnerable to ecological chaos.
The problem is, we face a massive ruggedization bottleneck.
There are far too few places being ruggedized for the number of people who need (and, in my opinion, deserve) safer places to live.
Many poor people face barriers of distance and borders closed to newcomers.
"You cannot save yourself by moving if the place you need to move to won’t let you in."
But borders are not the only boundaries.
For a huge number of people in the wealthier parts of the world, it's the cost of living (especially housing) that excludes them from safer places.
Access to well-prepared places is often limited to the already well-off.
That's in part because well-off people are recognizing that the combination of lower disaster risks, good urban form and infrastructure, and wealthy neighbors is the closest thing most countries have to future-ready places to live... and they'll pay a premium to own there.
If you can afford to buy into a community like that, it might be smart to do so.
But competing for a limited and unprecedentedly costly supply of chances to live in that kind of place is not a realistic strategy for even a lot of successful people.
Most of us need to look for different kinds of opportunity. But time is running short. Big money is on its way.
My next letter will explore some of the strategies available to people who live in the wealthy world, have some means, but are not rich as they seek a place to ruggedize their lives.
You can get my letters for free by signing up here.
If you want to support the work, and get access to my podcast with its deeper explorations of these topics, you can become a supporter of the project for as little as $15 a month.
Billions of us are about to go thru a fierce shock of temporal dislocation — of waking up to realize we've been swept up in a vast, heartless discontinuity, one that has been accelerating for years, one we've either ignored or imagined happening sometime in someone else's future.
The cultural, political and psychological impacts of this dislocation are beyond calculation.
I've spent a lot of time studying history, in graduate school and since. I believe there is no analog.
I find that deeply concerning.
I find our unreadiness for it totally terrifying.
I wish it were clearer to me where and how the practices of desperate societal-scale triage and of loving kindness meet.
Folks really don't get the scale of change that is now arriving.
So many powerful interests have a stake in minimizing the urgency/downplaying the scale of discontinuity.
So many people find it easier to denounce the idea of discontinuity than face failed cultural assumptions.
Here in the U.S., almost no part of our debate is fully engaged with the realities of inexorable, discontinuous change—or the disruptiveness of the actions that have now become inevitable.
But we've got lots of predatory delay, downplaying, goalwashing & triangulation.
A major symptom:
How much concern there is for protecting people from the costs of action and how little there is for protecting them from the staggeringly larger harms of inaction.
"A process of participatory planning, rightly evolved to represent interests other than government technocrats and wealthy developers, has also created a culture of Nimby-ism that thwarts even modest proposals."
"Our conversations seem increasingly cramped, mean and small. Is our society just too frayed to come together around basic material needs?"
In an age of growing and combining climate, ecological and economic risks, the inability to most fast and build big is effectively the same thing as an inability to act at all.
Process designed for once-good reasons becomes a massive vulnerability in its own right.
You should immediately mistrust any linear projection of positive climate impact, such as "Alaskan agriculture will benefit from warming temperatures."
First, tho models are improving, there's always the chance that specific, long-term local impacts may work out differently than expected, for complex reasons.
"Our model indicates temperatures will rise" is different that knowing, for sure, that temperatures will rise steadily.
Second, variability is at least as important as trend. If nine years out of ten there are warmer conditions, but the other year there are unprecedented and catastrophic floods, the net result is not a gain for farmers.
This is a fine piece of climate journalism, focusing on efforts to hoard the future by buying up supplies of cobalt, a mineral critical for making a number of low-carbon technologies.
Amos Hochstein, State Department senior adviser for global energy security, calls access to solar panels & EV batteries "a national security imperative."