Are any/many anarchists migrating or otherwise preparing for climate change?

Question

I was wondering if "prepping" exists outside of hippie or libertarian scenes. Is anyone taking "emergency-preparedness" seriously (like moving locations) that is NOT living in a conservative, gun-proud scene like that of rural US?

I come from a region of "preppers" i.e.: those who prepare for social-upheaval (for whatever reason) by stocking food, weaponry, and moving away from cities. And to be honest, though I would NOT like to "bunker-down" with the prepper-types I am trying describe, I have stored food off-and-on and practiced a skill-set that I sought in some seriousness. (I've since moved to a city; this was a while ago). I'm conflicted. There is a part of me that is embarrassed by this... the mindset can stink of white paranoia and christian end-times.

Anyway, what are anarchists doing to survive climate-change? Does anything need to be done? Is this a stupid question? Is death just an epic release from pain and you're like whatever about it?

Comments

not a stupid question, and i like your addendums. i tend to be "whatever" about it, mostly because i live in the bay area, which has always been earthquake prone. so now we get one more (? at least it's only one conceptually) threat to so-called normal life. will the rising seas get us before the earthquake-caused mud avalanches?

i have heard of climate change being something that anarchists consider when they think about buying land together. that's about the extent of it as far as i've heard though.

---

The climate has always changed, humans have always moved, why panic?

---

Well, yes. Climate changes and migration is constant... it's the degree of change (pun!).

I just worry about anarchyland. I will do some self-reflection as to the deeper WHY I am concerned. Maybe its that I don't want to lose connections? Is that some sort of leftist/mass commodification of friends and comrades? I like getting online and absorbing anarchist media projects: please don't die? That's kind of shallow. I have a kid and I'm trying to make-up (act responsible?) for bringing them into this world? Am I nurturing and protective because I'm performing some fucked up gender-role?

Why won't I write in statements?

Notes to myself: research critiques of humanism (it has to be more than speciesist, right?)

---

there's a critique of humanism on this very site...

http://anarchy101.org/2664/what-are-some-anarchist-critiques-of-humanism?show=2664#q2664

---

This is from NothingResonates: 

Humanism is a pitiful scheme and a program of pity which seeks to protect people from themselves. The politics trains its vision on our singular and collective humiliations and weaknesses without any desire to destroy the situation that gives rise to them. It prefers refugee camps to fighting enemies and values charity over acting on our rage. An anarchy worthy of the name strives for strength, values our capacity to fight and be cruel, does not bow to the notion that "we", like a chain, are only as strong as our weakest link.

Humanism simply does not exist. There is no innocent and benevolent politics or political actor. It is a contradiction so insurmountable that one can only buy into a humanist project when they subscribe to the moral architecture that undergirds such politics or when they fail to see that political representation is definitionally anathema to anarchy - a state that is sadly far too common. There is no "we". There is no imagined community to protect. There are obstacles to the life we pursue. We wish to destroy them, not to make them more palatable. Humanism is just such an obstacle in need of annihilation.

"a program of pity which seeks to protect people from themselves" 

Have y'all city-slickers prepared?!?!    (sorry)

"there is no 'we'. There is no imagined community to protect."

So.... could I rephrase this as "there is no 'group of anarchists.' There is no 'anarchyland' to 'worry about.'    

 (I feel like this is becoming a strange conflation - that this is a poor method of critiquing my question. But I'm gonna keep going). 

"There are obstacles to the life we pursue. We wish to destroy them, not to make them more palatable. Humanism is just such an obstacle in need of annihilation."

Rephrase as: "There are 'traffic jams' to the life 'individual anarchists' pursue.  'Individual anarchists' wish to destroy 'traffic jams,' not to make them 'avoidable.' Humanism is just such an obstacle in need of annihilation." 

hmmm. I'll chew on this. I want "traffic jams" to be destroyed, but that sounds like a lot of work. 

But, one conclusion, I did recognize some of my incongruent thinking while reading through that Humanist post. So I'm glad you shared that, dot. Thank you. 

---

Isn't climate change just a scam to rob us, tax us, stir up fear and keep us in control? I've read both sides and I'm prone to conclude the above is correct. Some of our ways don't help, but are minimal in comparison with natural fires or volcanoes for instance. Plus what's the point in surviving if the sun won't shine?

---

Isn't climate change just a scam to rob us, tax us, stir up fear and keep us in control? 

I don't believe that climate change is a scam, an invention.   Is it now and/or will it be used to do those other things? My guess is yes. Like, what is not? 

Some of our ways don't help, but are minimal in comparison with natural fires or volcanoes for instance. 

You wrote "our ways don't help." I'm reading this as anarchists contribute a relatively small amount of matter into the air (relative to volcanos and wild fires), that it is not worth the effort to change polluting behaviors. 

There hasn't been any talk about managing air-pollution. The question is if "prepping" for climate-change (preparing for a consequence of climate change) is in a larger anarchist discourse / is it a thing.

Will "prepper" be the new "spook?" Pull up your five-gallon bucket of rice and stay tuned for the next episode of Anarchy Landspeculation! 

Plus what's the point in surviving if the sun won't shine?

see above. 

---

I was addressing all of us, as in like, humanity as a whole. I think my last question covered the "prepping" question as what is the point if the earth is so fucked up that it couldn't sustain us anyways? Maybe there's a better alternative to prepping.Anyways, the military and gov are all going to be around still, they've got the resources that a handful of preppers don't, so again, why live in a world like that?

---

I think anarcho-primitivism/anti-civ has "survivalists" aspects to it in some form, but probably not in the ways you're meaning.

I personally don't really think too much about "prepping" for the impending doom of climate change or other end of times scenarios. I have learned interesting things from those "survivalist" type of folks though.

---

Climate change really does exist, i don't just go off scientific data for this one (because i might agree with ppl who deny it if this were the case) but the climate has gotten a lot warmer over my lifetime. "Winter" as i used to know it (sub-zero temperatures) has practically disappeared in the temperate eastern-america regions.

I think prepping is a good idea as long as it's less about future scenario fears and more about coping with the way that things are, or just learning how to not be so dependent on electricity and the internet. The typical "prepper" is always thinking about some disaster situation that is very unlikely to occur, to me this feels completely worthless and boring. The fear and survivalist mentality is what's going to create the new hierarchies once climate change leaves a lot of people starving and stranded.

Also, while I own guns and don't have a problem with people have them, there are some preppers who do firearms training on a regular basis, which is both very expensive and may end up in you shooting someone for no reason than just protecting yourself.

---

"may end up in you shooting someone for no reason than just protecting yourself."

sounds like a helluva good reason for shooting someone, to me. do you think otherwise?

---

i thought the whole point of gun training was to train people so that they *didn't* shoot without thinking about it, encouraging people to think it through and not do things out of panic or ignorance. surely it works both ways (normalizes gun use as a response to everything, and encourages people to think more about what gun use actually means)?

---

Bullets are expensive, and I don't think it's worth it to me to own [a gun] at this point in my life. (Not only for the money, but for other, probably obvious, four-year-old reasons.) I've shot different types of guns and rifles, but that's because I once lived out of city-limits, and urban friends would come out to practice.

I've seen some sketch-ass gun practice. Not the group of friends that I mentioned earlier; they took gun-ownership very seriously.

Sketch-ass shit I've seen:

1) taking edgy photos of your babies holding guns. I don't want to nit-pick the details of this exercise, but this is state risk. Families have been investigated by the state for photos such as this. I have seen people that I know take edge-lord photos like this, and I fucking break out in a sweat.

This link is just a random example that I found:       http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/03/23/mans-selfie-with-toddler-holding-gun-prompts-request-for-police-probe/

2) Not knowing where your fucking guns are:    I'd been borrowing my friend's vehicle for months off and on. On day, we go to unload the back, and a pistol rolled out of a plastic tarp. I'd been driving around with this gun without knowing it. I'd even let my kid play in the vehicle as a sort of "play-pen" every once in a while.   Fuck that.

3) A friend of mine told me that their partner drunkenly waved the gun around one night, threatening suicide. But being in that experience doesn't "just feel like they're threatening suicide" if you know what I mean.   There's a lot to unpack when it comes to the relationship of guns, alcohol, and suicide.  I'm not up for it.

4) My creep-ass prepper neighbor said that he didn't need to stock food and supplies since he owned guns and he knew which neighbors did stock food and supplies.   Thanks, Mr. Rogers.

GUNS, tell you what.

edit is a one to [a gun]

Answer 1

I live in what is generally considered a safe zone regarding climate change, in that my bioregion (and more specifically the locality I live in) is both located where things like rising sea levels, tsunamis/hurricanes/etc won't hurt us (too much), and is resilient enough (meaning it is not totally destroyed yet) to adapt.

That won't change that people are flooding here for those, and other, reasons (faster than anywhere else in the US, as of right now). And that won't change the fact that like the Bay Area, I sit on a timebomb of a fault line.

I was a Boy Scout, and "be prepared"  stuck with me when the patriotism and homophobia failed.

I don't really believe in anarchist community, which means I am looking out for my immediate people, because in a real crisis most anarchists I know (myself included, I guess) aren't gonna show up just because of solidarity and stuff. They (we) are going to be dealing with shit on the ground.

I am not a prepper, but I kinda want to be. Growing up, my mom always made sure we had lots of canned goods. I still do that (much to my partners' dismay - the cupboards are too full!), as well as keeping water that is either potable or that could be potable on hand. I also know which people who live close to me I would consolidate with, and I know that between us we have the means to defend ourselves, not against the army or police, or some Mad Max Gang, but well enough (my sister lives close and she is viscious with a chainsaw like I can't even describe, but I wouldn't fuck with her).