I'm not 100% sure you've identified what Americans value most. Honestly, during the pandemic, it seemed to me that they valued the freedom to do what they felt like over whether what they were doing would contribute to many, many more deaths -- especially among the elderly and vulnerable.
Were they interested in food? Well yeah, but only if they could go out and crowd into cafes, bars and restaurants where they could infect one another.
The fact is, the U.S. had a worse outcome (in terms of the number of deaths) than most countries around the world. And they don't seem to mind.
I guess it may be because I live in a desert. Water is an important resource which is often taken for granted, especially by those who live in close proximity to the Great Lakes. But when the water runs out around here, we're all coming to the Great Lakes and drink you guys under the table, so to speak.
But yeah, Americans by and large did screw the pooch during the pandemic. Americans are very much fixated on convenience, instant gratification, and take a rather leisurely approach to life. So, when that gets interrupted or disrupted in some way, people react as we saw them react as during the pandemic.
It's somewhat the same with climate change. But it's not just the right-wingers; it's much of America all across the spectrum. I think of cities like Los Angeles, which is known to be quite liberal and progressive, politically speaking. Most people there support environmentalism, such as banning plastic bags at grocery stores. But I also look at the way the metro area is designed, where some people live in outlying areas and commute 1-2 or more hours in heavy, bumper-to-bumper traffic, consuming energy and spewing emissions. Celebrities talk about climate change and then go on their private plane for a three-minute trip to avoid traffic. We're not going to combat climate change this way.
One thing that Americans seem to value greatly (if they can afford it) is to be able to live in some McMansion out along the periphery of some metropolitan area, where they still commute to their jobs yet live out in semi-rural conditions which are more livable and better suited to raising a family. Others might live closer to the city, in suburbia, but still commuting in cars - because public transport is neither feasible nor practical over large areas of low density housing.
This cuts to the very heart of the American Dream. This is part of the way of life that Americans have grown to love and be very protective of. It's not even a political thing, since both parties tend to promise "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage," even if they've had different ideals regarding how to achieve that goal. For the most part, liberals and progressives have supported a better standard of living for the poor and working people, and they've applied the same basic principle overseas. I, of course, agree wholeheartedly with the idea of a better standard of living for all - which includes modern housing, a viable healthcare system, an efficient transportation system, education - and food and water, of course - along with a sewage and waste disposal system, which goes without saying. But all of that means more energy consumption, more emissions, more environmental alteration. And the population keeps growing as well.
That's the real underlying dilemma to all of this, at least as I see it. People aren't going to change their habits or give up their luxurious lifestyles, and if anything, there will be more and more people around the world more than wanting to acquire those habits and luxurious lifestyles for themselves and their own countries. If they can afford it, someone will be willing to sell it to them.
At least under the current world system, I see the whole thing as a losing battle. The entire world system would have to change. I think our best chance at survival would be if all nations could dissolve and organize a world socialist government to unify the planet.
But just like John Lennon's "Imagine," such ideas are considered naive and impractical. So, individual nations will try to slug it out on their own to survive however they can. Russia and China are already in that frame of mind, and so are some countries of Europe as well. And of course, many in America are openly embracing this nationalistic "America First" doctrine which falls into the same basic category. Since cooperation, egalitarianism, and fair distribution of resources are out of the question these days, this seems an unfortunate but logical result.
I suppose if I had my druthers, I'd rather be snuffed out quickly in the flash of a nuclear explosion, as opposed to a slow, agonizing death from thirst in the hot desert sun. I wouldn't survive in some Mad Max style wasteland.
