Amitav Ghosh Questions Billionaire Apocalypse Preparations as a Sign of Societal Failure
For centuries, humanity has been fascinated by the concept of its own demise, with apocalyptic themes permeating scriptures, myths, novels, and films. However, for the world's ultra-wealthy, the apocalypse is no longer a mere allegory or source of entertainment. It has become a practical scenario that demands concrete contingency plans, including bunkers, exit strategies, and technological escape hatches. In a recent lecture delivered in New Delhi, acclaimed novelist and essayist Amitav Ghosh explored this fixation, arguing that it signals a profound crisis of imagination and a perilous politics of abandonment among contemporary elites.
The Rise of Apocalyptic Thinking Among the Cognitive Elite
Ghosh, known for his works on climate change and colonialism such as The Great Derangement and The Nutmeg's Curse, delivered a memorial lecture titled "Intimations of Apocalypse: Catastrophist and Gradualist Imaginings of the Planetary Future" at BML Munjal University. He focused on what he termed the "cognitive elite"—a narrow class of highly educated tech leaders and intellectuals who believe their knowledge and technology equip them to navigate or even steer through civilizational crises. Ghosh noted that this group often displays little faith in the survival of the global poor, with some viewing the potential deaths of billions as a "comparatively trifling issue." This mindset, he suggested, offers a window into how power anticipates disruption and reveals a shift in apocalyptic thinking from historical contexts like the Cold War nuclear fears to today's plural crises.
From Nuclear Fears to Convergent Crises
Ghosh acknowledged that apocalyptic thinking is not new, citing how nuclear annihilation during the Cold War inspired films, novels, and political movements. However, he emphasized that today's scenarios are more diverse, encompassing climate change, biodiversity loss, pandemics, artificial intelligence risks, and geopolitical instability. Rather than a single trigger, many elites now envision a "convergence" of crises leading to cascading system failures. This worldview is reflected in what media theorist Douglas Rushkoff calls "the Event"—a catch-all term for societal breakdown from various causes. Ghosh pointed out that it is not fringe groups but founders of major technology companies, venture capitalists, and billionaires who are most invested in preparing for such possibilities, raising critical questions about their motivations and the implications for global solidarity.
The Bunker as a Coherent Worldview and Its Historical Echoes
Stories of luxury bunkers and remote compounds are often dismissed as eccentric hobbies of the rich, but Ghosh argues they express a coherent worldview. These shelters aim to be "self-sufficient and off the grid in all respects," based on three assumptions: collapse is likely, its impact will be unequal, and wealth and technology can buy survival. This raises ethical questions about who is expected to live or die. Ghosh connected this thinking to Western intellectual histories, including eugenics and colonial ideologies that treated certain populations as expendable. He warned that such visions resemble "the re-emergence of the vein of exterminationist thought," with parallels to past assumptions about Indigenous peoples under colonialism and current discussions that imply climate catastrophe will disproportionately affect the global South.
Catastrophists vs. Gradualists: Divergent Visions of the Future
In his lecture, Ghosh distinguished between "catastrophist" and "gradualist" imaginations. Gradualists, who dominate climate negotiations, view planetary crises as problems of governance, policy, and technology that can be managed through coordinated action and innovation. Catastrophists, on the other hand, expect sudden, violent disruptions and system collapses, seeing collapse as an inevitability rather than a risk. While Ghosh did not dismiss catastrophist concerns—acknowledging scientific warnings and systemic fragilities—he critiqued the conclusions drawn by some elites. Instead of investing in prevention and shared solutions, they focus on insulating themselves, a approach he views as a misunderstanding of survival dynamics.
The Myth of Elite Escape and Rethinking Resilience
Ghosh questioned the practicality of escape fantasies, whether to Mars, fortified islands, or sealed compounds. In a true systemic breakdown, he argued, private jets may not take off from blocked runways, high-tech systems could fail without global supply chains, and armed guards might become unreliable. These plans assume survival is primarily a technological problem, but Ghosh emphasized it is equally social and ecological. He provocatively suggested that resilience may not align with wealth; subsistence farmers or fishing communities, who already live with uncertainty and possess skills like food growing and local cooperation, might be more adaptable in a crisis. This challenges the techno-futurist assumption that advanced societies are automatically more survivable.
Climate Politics as Biopolitics and the Role of Literature
Another key thread in Ghosh's talk concerned "ways of life" and climate politics as a form of biopolitics. When leaders declare that a national lifestyle is "not up for negotiation," it signals that climate action involves identity, comfort, and power. Ghosh framed this as a conflict over modes of living, with historical echoes in colonial expansion that destroyed Indigenous lifeways through ecological transformation. If elites see collapse as inevitable and unequal, they may invest less in prevention and more in insulation, eroding solidarity. Ghosh, through his literary work, uses stories to shape societal perceptions of climate reality, arguing that literature is a tool for understanding these complex dynamics. He ended with a thought-provoking question: in a collapse, would you rather be with a tech magnate or a farmer who knows the land?
