I made a mistake on climate change. I came to think climate change has been made up by the left; however, the left never makes anything up entirely—in actuality, they are always more factual than conservatives; for example, the left will accurately observe racial differences but claims these differences are cultural constructions that need to be altered to ensure equality—easily malleable, problem solved. The right then responds that the left, as with their wives, is “imagining things again” and that they only see individuals—never entertained a racial thought in their lives.
Climate change is real: conservatives are people who are—as the left says—greedy and complacent hypocrites who only care about money and conventional social status. However, leftists are people who only care about status as conceived through a counter-signal to the right as constructed through moral righteousness—and this makes them worse, since outright greed is not so bad as moral hypocrisy.
Neither side is prepared to take the necessary action to avert the klimate katastrophe: kill 87.3% of the world population (at least)—quite viable, since most jobs, even in the contemporary West, are make-work that produce no value (a sub-set connected to the state actually remove value). Further, all people only see as “human” their own tribe—this is why Europeans care about the holocaust, since the Germans did it and the Jews look European; and yet Europeans care not at all about Chairman Mao and Pol Pot (who killed millions in more horrific ways). For us, the Chinese and Cambodians are not people—hence you can wear your ironic Mao t-shirt to your local Brooklyn bar and quaff your punk IPA in peace, whereas if you break out the Hitler t-shirt people will give a double take. “Hey, that’s not okay…”
Unfortunately, since nobody is prepared to kill 87.3% of the world’s population—even though the infrastructure-preserving nerve gas is ready to go in climate-controlled concrete bunkers in many nations—the planet is about to degenerate into a rather ugly mess; it will be, as usual, death by a thousand cuts—and when you die that way, the blood gets everywhere. Notions such as “climate refugees” are real; except nothing will be done to stop their movement, conservatives lack the harshness for that—and so the migrants will swamp the Western lands and reduce our postmodern societies to something akin to a Disneyland that has been overrun by Somali clan warfare. Indeed, we are there already when it comes to cities like London—they spit at my feet when I walk past them (contempt the West deserves for its weakness).
The left suggests deindustrialisation as a remedy, since they want to preserve maximum raw life even if the quality has reduced to pre-industrial levels (every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great)—whereas the right has decided just to pretend the issue does not exist at all, or that we can transcend it with nuclear power. However, nuclear power is itself poisonous short-termism; to produce waste you cannot safely dispose of for thousands of years is irresponsible—it passes a problem down to future generations, the opposite of conservatism; and this is quite aside from the fact that the nuclear industry relies on state subsidies. People who advocate nuclear power are leftists, they worship technology—“we will have worked something out by then”, they think that because they believe technological progress is linear and inevitable; and so it is a leftist eschatology they have in mind—I tend to the position that what goes around comes around.
The other prospective alternative is that we will leave the planet—or an elite leaves the planet, a solution I am not averse to insofar as elitism is acceptable to me. However, the idea that we can trash this planet and just move on—like, err, space locusts—itself constitutes a reduction to insectoid parasitic life. We do only have one home and a terraformed Mars is a distant prospect, again a gamble—we can trash this planet and then jump to a new terraformed one; and then jump again, perhaps. We locusts. No responsibility in that proposition: it sounds like a huge gamble predicated on long-term social stability, constant technological progress, and the idea novel technology will work in a predictable way—it sounds a lot like a potential Aral Sea, a terraformed planet is an unknown (remember that projects like SpaceX are state-subsidised indirectly and hence against nature—there is an irresponsible flaw in them as yet undetected).
As usual, we just have to live up to our responsibilities, responsibilities technology has genuinely made easier: “Exterminate the brutes, mistah Kurtz.”