Considering how well someone survives the coming decades depends on how wealthy they are (more than in the past), it makes sense. It is a little callous of them, but sometimes survival and being nice are at odds.
This whole mindset of “at least I profited” seems to rely on the notion that there is somewhere on the planet that will still be safe and enjoyable to live in as the climate apocalypse settles in. I don’t see where that is.
I'm still doing my part by advocating for good policies and collective action, but like ActorNightly, I think it's prudent to build a boat just in case things continue to not change.
Given the world’s track record in not changing for as long as the alarm has been raised, I think this is a pretty sensible approach to take. At this point, it may well be more prudent for the individual to assume that the climatepocalypse is going to happen anyways, and prepare accordingly rather than continuing to hope for futile efforts to stem the tide
If we are to overcome climate change as a earth-wide society, it will have to be through collective action of enough people forcing those in power to be "nice" - whether that will happen in a fast and large enough scale - I have my doubts about too.
If we aren't systematically nice to a wider swath of people (even if in a self-interested Machevellian, The Prince kind of way), I share concerns about needing to plan for a general decline of civilization.
Being nice to the whole world? Not so much.