“Climate change safe” for the rich:

- Hard to reach by land (not vulnerable to migration waves)

- Not so small there will be incredible deprivation if sea trade volume plunges (this rules out the vast majority of island nations)

- Not badly overpopulated

- Correct latitude (not too close to the equator)

- Stable liberal democracy (so they probably won’t take all your stuff)

- Unlikely target for outright conquest in great-powers games or expansion.

Bonus points:

- Interesting, varied natural environments.

They are indeed thinking about this stuff. It’s why so many are buying New Zealand citizenship and buying land there (and sometimes building their survival bunkers there too). It checks every single box, and basically nowhere else does.

▲

maxerickson an hour ago | parent | next [-]

There's about 1 billion people in North and South America. If there's some sort of catastrophic collapse, there's not going to be overpopulation or problematic waves of migration anywhere on those continents.

▲

xienze an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Stable liberal democracy

Isn’t it precisely these stable liberal democracies where we have the most “the rich aren’t paying their fair share” rhetoric?

	▲	genthree an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Some more taxes are a lot better than being disappeared with no due process whatsoever, or having huge amounts of your property seized with no due process. The rich benefit immensely from liberal democracy. The alternative is being forced to play all kinds of power-games with stakes a hell of a lot higher than the ones they deal with when they mess around with politics in democracies, and at a disadvantage if they’re foreign and those aren’t open, pluralistic societies. Their worst-plausible-case in a liberal democracy (barring state collapse into something else) is they lose a teensy bit of their stuff. Nowhere near all of it.