I think one axis that many people would try and write off as already being covered by the individualism v. collectivism axis, but that is altogether deserving of its own consideration, is the idea of generativity.

Even once someone embodies individualistic or collectivist perspectives, they tend to focus or make comment only on the here-and-now of the individual's existence. There's little consideration that many people, I think, give to the idea of making the world better (even if incrementally) for generations that we and our immediate families/offspring will never see. We see this in the apathy of climate change concern where unless climate change is having an immediate impact on an individual's life or the lives/futures of their immediate offspring there is little to be cared about.

I think this is largely a problem of asymmetric agency. People have a lot of agency over improving their own children's future via their individual actions, like buying a house, setting up a college fund, teaching them good values, leaving them a large inheritance, etc., while they have very little options for their personal action on climate change to have a meaningful impact on their children's prospects.

Collective vs individual action is a real hurdle on climate change in general, but I think it shows particularly strongly when it is combined with generativity. I think the real crux is that most people, deep down, still care infinitely more about their own children's future than about the future of other people's children, and are willing to throw the latter under the bus for the sake of their own offspring if necessary.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 14 2020 10:34pm

I think that's a good collection of categories. It seems more economically focused than socially focused to me, but at this point in time I don't have any good suggestions as to how to modify that.