Why "Black Swans" can destroy parasitic individualists (like me?)

I wanted to share a link to a couple of tweets from Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of “Skin in the Game” (2018) regarding the moral consequences of “Black Swans”.  The first tweet is this.  

  

One of these insights is that personal damage (or damage to your cohort) can be minimized by reducing global connectivity and enabling localism or local self-sufficiency.  Of course, on the surface, this comports with supporters of the Second Amendment and self-reliance.  But this more significance to “non-comformists” who don’t fit in well with their family or social climate of origin, and use globalism to to establish their influence with the world, without close relationships with people who would actually have their backs (reciprocally) in a personal way.  In a sense, they have outflanked those who restricted their freedom, and are taken down when something external (a natural catastrophe, or a terror attack born out of resentment) destroys them.  It’s a very ugly thing when it happens.

Prager U has talked about the difference between “anywhere’s” and “somewhere’s” and the moral tension between them as explaining why Trump won in 2016.

But the more I ponder this, the more I see the point of the far Left’s trying to force all our individualists to admit our vulnerability and join their intersection groups.  However, most people alive today on the far Left didn’t live through the time when we had the male-only Vietnam-era military draft, with a deferment system for the privileged that lowered their risk.  They don’t get the moral aspect of sharing risk.
   
Typical, in most societies, "faith-based" moral systems have factored in large concerns about the survival of the group from the improbable. 

      

Taleb also shared some cartoon material about Black Swan’s that looks like pages from a graphic novel.