The mistaken notion that the opposite of individualistic survival prepping is a diffuse notion of solidarity and calls for resilience, when it is in fact focused, responsible civic/institutional action to ruggedize for the specific realities of a community, place or system.
Generalized invocations of solidarity presume that the largest human power structures can be quickly captured or replaced completely, in time to execute large-scale collective changes that can protect or restore continuity for all.
This is not a plausible future, now.
I say that as someone who spent many years of my life advocating for that kind of collective systemic change.
I think a lot about this, and about the misapplication of attention in much Californian climate politics.
It's the cars, which mostly means its the land use.
Then I think about our housing shortage.
That's the lack of homes, which also mostly means it's the land use.
Supposedly progressive governments, across a wide swathe of coastal CA, have planed cities that impoverish their non-land-owning residents, accelerate the planetary crisis and cheat the young.
By any standard of effectiveness — much less equity — it's an unmitigated debacle.
That is, of course, unless your *only* standard of effectiveness is how effectively plans and policies enrich current landowners with windfall profits from rent-seeking behaviors.
We could build new, low-car, zero-carbon, walkable, affordable, vibrant districts on brownfields, transit areas, sprawling parking lots and dead malls, everywhere, drop our climate impacts permanently—and do it *fast*.
Not being "able" to do so is a political choice—a wrong one.
When it comes to the planetary crisis, the public good depends on protecting people from inaction by shattering barriers to action, speed is justice, and scale is inclusion.
Most people are vastly more endangered by the worsening impacts of climate change, ecological collapse, systemic brittleness and societal instability than they are by the price tags of investments in action.