[PeterisP]

If you want to figure out how to do something, you have to take pure selfishness as granted - that's how people and society works; huge parts of sociology, economics, political science, etc are about structures and processes that allow to get large scale coordination and results despite lots of pure selfishness involved.

If any proposed solution (to climate change or anything else) relies on huge numbers of people not exhibiting pure selfishness, then it's not a solution but wishful thinking disconnected from reality. We have a good idea on how large groups of homo sapiens function. Selfishness is unavoidable. There will be lots of great unselfish, heroic, altruistic exceptions, but the mass behavior will still be overwhelmingly selfish in aggregate.

People trying "to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle" is a very important factor that needs to be taken into account for any calls to action. This is what's happening already and this will be happening - and I'm not pointing out this as something that "needs" to change; it kind of does, but it doesn't matter if it "needs" to change because it will not change, I'm pointing it out as something that's inevitable, people will try to hold on tight to unsustainable lifestyles (and fight to gain unsustainable lifestyles that they never had but others did) and any proposed solution needs to work despite that trend in order to be plausible and feasible.

[Ensorceled]

> People trying "to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle" is a very important factor that needs to be taken into account for any calls to action.

This is what concerns me, calls to action that require our better nature to override our immediate self-interest require thoughtful and inspired leadership.

We have a real leadership vacuum right now: Boris and Donald, lightweight leaders in many countries (my own country, Canada, included), rise of Dictators and Fascists. We are not solving this problem with this team.

[PeterisP]

This is not an accident, but a causal relationship - the increaseing desire to "to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle" is a factor that's likely to drive the people even more towards populistic leaders like the worst cases in multiple countries now, or "strongman" fascist-like parties.

As the effects of climate change become apparent and causes economic strain either due to attempts to prevent climate change or the consequences of not preventing it, well, in times like these that's the exact type of team that people will vote for.

And even more, as the global 'tragedy of commons' scenario of splitting the burden of mitigating climate change becomes even harsher, and the very unequal burden of consequences of climate change strains relationships, we should expect that agressive nationalistic movements will become even more popular both in developed and developing countries. In short, we'll have a situation that has many parallels with the worst aspects of the 1930s and the type of autocratic leaders that people in so many countries worldwide chose back then.