Why are environmentalists wishing for the end of the world?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Why are environmentalists wishing for the end of the world?

Postby nomo » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:24 am

http://www.slate.com/id/2189573/pagenum/all/#page_start

Envirogeddon!
Is it time to start wishing for the end of the world?

By Rebecca Onion
Posted Monday, April 21, 2008, at 4:56 PM ET

James Howard Kunstler, author of the cranky anti-sprawl manifesto Geography of Nowhere and the alarmist peak-oil diatribe The Long Emergency, is, as Paul Greenberg pointed out in the New York Times Book Review yesterday, an environmentalist obsessed with a secular Armageddon. His latest book, published in February, is World Made by Hand. The noveldescribes one glorious summer in the life of a man in a small, upstate New York town after oil shortages, climate change, and nuclear war have destroyed the world. Notably, it was blurbed by Alan Weisman, another visionary of the eco-apocalypse. Last year, in The World Without Us, Weisman imagined how nonhuman nature might retake the globe after a total extinction of Homo sapiens. Both accounts suggest a fascination with environmental destruction that verges on wishful thinking. Why can't the world just collapse already? Then "we"—or, at least, those of us with taste, discretion, and true environmental feeling—could get on with the business of remaking it … without all those pesky extra people around.

World Made by Hand takes place a couple of decades in the future, after a series of rolling catastrophes has left people without electricity, communications, or transportation infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of others have died of the "Mexican flu." Despite their burdens, the men and women of this imaginary world seem to have pretty good lives. Robert has lost his wife and children, but now he lives in an Arts and Crafts bungalow and makes his living as a carpenter—having been rescued, by the apocalypse, from an emasculating job as a software-marketing guy. The townspeople replace the suburban infrastructure with ever-more creative and beautiful houses and hold lively square dances. A beautiful and much younger widow, needing protection, falls into Robert's bed and makes him chicken stew with new potatoes and peas for dinner. (Kunstler's post-apocalyptic women have given up trying to be involved in government for their true roles as cooks and sex partners.) Even the occasional bouts of violence are cleansing, putting hair on Robert's sunken chest. In short, thanks to the world's upheaval, Robert becomes a true man while the people around him become a true community.

I would write off this hatefully regressive book as a fluke, unconnected to the environmentalism I know and love, if not for the resonances it shares with so many other green fantasies of the apocalypse. Kunstler and Weisman seem to relish the idea of an emptier earth—a longing that must have grown during eight years of Bush-era inaction on climate change and pollution. Their stories invite us to imagine how awesome the world would be if we could just live through one tiny apocalypse: Politicians, naysayers, and people who drive Hummers would get their final comeuppance. This strain of thought dates back to the 1970s, when, as anthropologist Bernard James wrote in his 1973 book The Death of Progress, "there [was] a sense of desperation in the air, a sense that man has been pitchforked by science and technology into a new and precarious age." After the Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969 and the oil crisis rearranged perceptions of America's place in a global economy, some environmentalists turned to dire predictions as a way of shocking citizens into action. A few of these Cassandras wondered whether there might be positive outcomes for those who lived through the fall.

But the sunny environmental apocalypse has its roots in the thinking of the first American environmentalists. These turn-of-the-century gents were obsessed with the "tonic" provided by an individual's immersion into pure wilderness. Frontier stories—which describe landscapes where other humans are scarce, technology and law are nonexistent, and Nature reigns—are ancestors of the positive apocalyptic tales of both the 1970s and today. As many recent writers have pointed out, the idea of "wilderness," experienced by one happy camper, necessarily excludes many of the people now existing on earth—or, at least, relegates them to some other non-"wild" place.

The apocalyptic stories of the anxious 1970s indulged in this frontier dream of wiping the slate clean and starting over. This was the moment when overpopulation began to seem like a big problem, aided and abetted by tomes such as Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, published in 1968. Ehrlich has already been taken to task for his own fantasy of redemption through annihilation, imagining that potential die-offs or dramatic mass sterilizations would be necessary for a more balanced environment. Ehrlich apologized for his bluntness even as he advocated sending trained medical professionals to India to perform vasectomies. For the United States, he proposed the creation of a Department of Population and Environment to regulate procreation and industry and suggested that with a little government planning, we might all achieve an easygoing, pre-20th-century lifestyle with "more fishing, more relaxing, more time to watch TV, more time to drink beer (in bottles that must be returned)."

Another environmentalist of this time, Edward Abbey, was famously invested in the idea that the wilderness should be reserved for a relatively small number of people—only the physically fit and environmentally minded. In his 1980 novel of the apocalypse, Good News, the Southwest has collapsed, as has the rest of the United States and the world, after increasingly paranoid nations divert so many of their natural resources to weapons production that they lose the ability to provide food for their citizens. What survivors there are revert to a free-holding, barter-oriented society. There's a lot of violence between these anarchists and the repressive, impromptu army that springs up in the vacuum of state power. But here's the good news: The people left alive by the rampaging army get to ride horses for transportation and see the stars as they were meant to be seen.

Another doomsayer of the 1970s was Philip Wylie, who had become famous 30 years earlier when he lambasted the mothers of America for producing spoiled and coddled male children. His 1972 novel, The End of the Dream, told the story of a world that had collapsed under waves of environmental catastrophes, including a river that exploded (the Cuyahoga, taken to the next level); a poison gas event that killed most of New York City; and an invasion of sea nematodes, generated by massive imbalances in oceanic ecosystems, that ate human beings alive. However! A "Great Man" of vigor and resources has foreseen the world's downfall. This Rooseveltian figure shepherds his people into a secure location at his upstate New York manor, where he will proceed to rebuild the world with improved sexual mores and family structures.

This equation of emptiness with rebirth and human freedom was a new kind of frontier story—predicated not on distance from civilization but on the wholesale death of civilization itself. As such, it also forms the basis for Kunstler and Weisman's utopian visions. While the enviros of the 1970s worried about population, we worry about climate change, but the possibilities for post-crisis humanity remain rosy. Kunstler's glorious images of ripped-up strip malls and catamounts in empty houses echo Weisman's regenerating landscapes, and both recall the new eco-orders of Abbey and Wiley. In the perfect green apocalypse, population reduction leaves a world in which everybody wins—birds, bees, and people.

Stories of post-calamity lives can help us imagine what it would take to restructure our world in the aftermath of ecological collapse. (They can also be cathartic for those enviros who would be happy to say goodbye to their apathetic neighbors.) But it is possible to write about post-apocalyptic green utopias that don't come off tasting a bit elitist. Kim Stanley Robinson, a sci-fi author beloved by environmental theorists, has written several series of books about environmental management. The Mars trilogy and the Three Californias trilogy in particular are noteworthy for their focus on the nitty-gritty of the creation of utopia. Rather than describe a pleasantly empty post-apocalyptic world in which humans rediscover their environmental connections, Robinson's books describe endless negotiations, summits, and conferences where futuristic earthlings hash out what's to be done with their environments. This vision of crisis reimagines a greener human society without killing tons of people off or excluding women from the political process. It may be boring and bureaucratic in comparison to Kunstler's, but at least in these stories there's a sense that rethinking our environmental ethics doesn't have to mean falling into a state of frontier justice or Nietzschean domination. Let's move forward with what we have, he says, not imagine it all away.
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:33 pm

.

Kunstler is a huge disappointment. I found him to produce very clever and thought-provoking analysis, if relentlessly in love with his own nihilism. Then, however, he recently (!) spoke out in favor of the Iraq invasion, saying the US had to strike some Arab target after 9/11 or would have appeared weak, a justification worthy of Michael Ledeen's "every ten years the US has to pick up some crappy country and throw it against the wall just to show who's still boss." Now looking back on his work, he really is into the big die-off as spectator sport. So fuck him.

Otherwise the headline on this article is outrageous - a textbook "when did you stop beating your wife" question belied by the acknowledgment of thoughtful and practical utopians who don't want the world to end in the last paragraphs.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lunarose » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:28 pm

hi mr. riddler.

"Otherwise the headline on this article is outrageous - a textbook "when did you stop beating your wife" question belied by the acknowledgment of thoughtful and practical utopians who don't want the world to end in the last paragraphs."

yep. as well, there is an underlying assumption that everybody who's not completely in love with our current 'way of life' is somehow suspicious and anti-humanity. face it, there's a large part of how we live now that sucks and is unnecessary and unsustainable. but people jump all over you if you say it.

i was discussing the views of many people her on population control with my dad's wife sunday. you breathe the concept and everyone jumps all the way to hitler and the holocaust (not, of course, that that made so much as a dent in the population for any length of time). when what you are getting at is that we should send more resources to people in need, and stop ripping them off of the resources they have but that we're stealing to support our 'lifestyles'. mr. riddler pointed this out in another thread, and a couple of people listened to him......so maybe there's some hope.

but the "environmentalists' want us all dead!" meme is convenient since then no one has to listen to anything environmentalists have to say. gee, wonder who would benefit from that.......
"Some people just want to believe that there are nude space people out there somewhere." John Keel
lunarose
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: O'Neills,
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tazmic » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:32 pm

The God's are angered. The Earth doesn't need us. We must bow our heads in shame.

As the 'Raging Earth tries to destroy humans with immense power' I'm sure Mikhail Gorbachev will be tending the first buds of his Earth First religion as it begins to flower:

Earth begins to kill people for changing its climate
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

I don't wish for the end of the world

Postby slow_dazzle » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:06 pm

I do, however, believe we have fucked the planet up within a very short space of time, say about 200 years. The result of what we have done is fairly obvious. For a start about 200 species are dying off every single day.

I don't wish for the end of the world: I do wish for an end to wrecking the planet and killing off our fellow travelers, namely the other species that share it with us.

As TSHTF I expect there will be even more attempts to play down environmental issues, in case they provide a focus for the growing dissatisfaction with a life based upon gobbling up resources.

Oh yes, I should add that not all those people concerned about the fate of the species and all the other ones that live around us are like Kunstler:

“Elegant and almost poetic in tone, What a Way To Go gently takes us by the hand as it explains to us the harsh reality of how things really are, where they’re likely to go, and how difficult the challenge is”


What a Way to Go
On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

John Perry Barlow - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
slow_dazzle
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:30 pm

Isn't Why are environmentalists wishing for the end of the world? kind of like asking Why do you hate America? Just because you think things have gone to hell doesn't mean you enjoy being there.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:35 pm

Jeff wrote:Isn't Why are environmentalists wishing for the end of the world? kind of like asking Why do you hate America? Just because you think things have gone to hell doesn't mean you enjoy being there.


Isn't it more like Why are these postmen creating such horrible letters from the Inland Revenue?
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tazmic » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:48 pm

Isn't it more like Why are these postmen creating such horrible letters from the Inland Revenue?


It might be if the postmen were funded by the IR...
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby justdrew » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:29 pm

Image

What are we going to tell our overgrown omni-entitled spoiled brats? Oh, I mean... the average citizen.

People are in deep denial. if oil supplies are interrupted for a just a FEW DAYS, people start going hungry. Massive starvation is just around the corner, and no one, surely not Rebecca Onion wants to face that fragility.

I completely hate Slate, what a teeming cess-pool of half-witted self-satisfaction.

it's not "an Armageddon" were talking about. Armageddon is a fictional idea in an old book made up by people we can barely even comprehend. A religious fantasy.

the compounding environmental crises we face are very real. Particularly with oil, we face something that is almost entirely up to us. It'll also be a political crisis, because the leaders and systems we've seen the last 40 years, are not capable of dealing.
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Postby sfnate » Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:23 pm

Kunstler has written a cautionary tale of what the world might look like if the current situation deteriorates beyond our capacity to fix it. Some people believe--and this is only controversial among those heavily invested in the status quo, which is probably just about everyone these days--that we've already crossed the point of no return, that no matter how many groovy ideas we come up with for free energy and endless food supplies, we're already so far down the path to catastrophic failure that we soon won't have the infrastructure or societal and corporate organization to actually implement these technological solutions. Thinking that technology will save us is a bit like hoping the aliens will land on the White House lawn and save us from ourselves. Rebecca Onion's accusation that Kunstler is a curmudgeonly misanthrope wishing for the extinction of the human race strikes me as the beginnings of a great hyperbolic campaign against the prophets and jeremiads in our culture, who have gotten a whiff of something foul and deadly and are trying to let us know that this time the times really are a-changing, in ways that may not comfort techno-fetishists, liberal elitists, conservative religionists, and other tribes fully and inflexibly committed to their peculiar notion of privilege and status and comfort. I find that Kunstler has a funny, if a bit acerbic, sense of humor, and that his depictions of life just beyond the oil peak have more to do with hope and the restoration of human values than they do with a hatred of humanity and all things human. But expect to hear much more from the Rebecca Onion's of this world, who are understandably nervous that people like Kunstler may have it more right than wrong, and if that's the case, then world we all know will change forever in ways we may not be ready for.
User avatar
sfnate
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: Le Grand Fossard
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Why do meteorologists insist on giving us bad weather?
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:00 pm

I am sickened by the destruction of the Amazon, the rape of the Earth by careless corporations, the toxic sludge that pours into the oceans and rivers, the crap that filters into the sky by factories, the ruining of water supplies by Bechtel, Pepsi and other companies overseas...you name it.

However Im just as sickened at this social Darwin Malthusian
"human beings are a scurge, a disease on the planet, and we need to be wiped out".

From Dr. Pianka and the late Jaque Custeau to Ted Turner and all these
militant leftists...

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and bring it on baby!"

I see no difference between them and the Christian Zionist eschatology end time nuts.

It's like how "animal rights" activists are using the same tactics and violence against Parkinsin/Alzheimer researchers as the militant pro life people are using against clinic doctors.

I also dont buy the "global warming is 100% manmade", and Im starting to see how the same elites who denied global warming are now beginning to use it as scaremongering propaganda.

We'll watch as "enviromentalism" is used to take away land and subjegate people(Agenda 21 anyone?)
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Kunstler sez it like it is...

Postby slow_dazzle » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:23 pm

sfnate wrote:Kunstler has written a cautionary tale of what the world might look like if the current situation deteriorates beyond our capacity to fix it. Some people believe--and this is only controversial among those heavily invested in the status quo, which is probably just about everyone these days--that we've already crossed the point of no return, that no matter how many groovy ideas we come up with for free energy and endless food supplies, we're already so far down the path to catastrophic failure that we soon won't have the infrastructure or societal and corporate organization to actually implement these technological solutions. Thinking that technology will save us is a bit like hoping the aliens will land on the White House lawn and save us from ourselves. Rebecca Onion's accusation that Kunstler is a curmudgeonly misanthrope wishing for the extinction of the human race strikes me as the beginnings of a great hyperbolic campaign against the prophets and jeremiads in our culture, who have gotten a whiff of something foul and deadly and are trying to let us know that this time the times really are a-changing, in ways that may not comfort techno-fetishists, liberal elitists, conservative religionists, and other tribes fully and inflexibly committed to their peculiar notion of privilege and status and comfort. I find that Kunstler has a funny, if a bit acerbic, sense of humor, and that his depictions of life just beyond the oil peak have more to do with hope and the restoration of human values than they do with a hatred of humanity and all things human. But expect to hear much more from the Rebecca Onion's of this world, who are understandably nervous that people like Kunstler may have it more right than wrong, and if that's the case, then world we all know will change forever in ways we may not be ready for.


He coined the term "the psychology of previous investment" to explain why many ppl go into denial mode when confronted by his views. He writes about architectural and urban design matters and his Podcast site contains a lot of really insightful comments about both disciplines. I listen to him and find myself nodding in agreement. He made a good comment about multi-storey car parks having ceiling heights too low to accommodate suspended ceilings to carry services if we ever need to convert them to another use. Bloody short sightedness of the worst sort. The plan forms are a bit deep to convert without punching light wells into the middle which is a shame because the floor loads these structures carry is way in excess of anything needed for, say, office use and office uses require about double the floor loads of domestic structures.

Once oil and gas become scarce anything over four or so floors is going to be difficult to service. And tall buildings are very risky because, if there is an electricity outage during freezing weather, the water supply pipes might freeze up and burst thus rendering the buildings uninhabitable. How do we accommodate people who are thus displaced? Nobody has thought that one through.

I am hoping for a slow transition to a different way of doing things. But I follow the energy crisis very closely and it is looking like the wheels are coming off the cart. As for the silly comments about free/cheap energy from alternative sources, I would point to the laws of thermodynamics. Energy flows in one direction only and the second law is the real killer. Anyone who promotes zero point energy needs to answer the question of whether an action is required to generate a reaction. There is some evidence that the second law can be violated at quantum level. It does not scale up to higher levels so zero point energy is a myth. I don't believe in the myth of zero point energy - I believe in the "show me the energy source" actuality.

All life is a corollary to energy flowing through a system. All economic activity is a corollary to energy inputs leading to stuff happening. Take away energy and life dies off. Take away energy and economies grind to a halt. This is the basic, scientific fact that cornucopians conveniently ignore.

Kunstler might be wrong headed on some things. He is spot on about what will happen once our complex society is deprived of the stuff that allows it to function. At the end of every civilisation there were probably wise people making comments about how everything was hunky dory. Every one of those civilisations has gone the way of the dodo.
On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

John Perry Barlow - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
slow_dazzle
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sfnate » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:25 pm

8bitagent wrote:"human beings are a scurge, a disease on the planet, and we need to be wiped out".


We needn't be, but that fate becomes more likely if we continue to act upon the earth like a disease, an out-of-control malignancy that grows and consumes more and more until it eventually destroys the very body that sustains it.

I'm not sure what being a leftist has to do with an attitude of deep antipathy toward human beings, but I suppose there are a fair number who have issues with unregulated growth.

I agree it's counterproductive and downright unscientific to take absolutist positions on the causes of our environmental woes--the reality is there are a variety of contributing factors, and we ignore any or all of them at our peril.

But to the extent we have any control over what our own species is contributing to this mess, I think we should be prepared to engage in vigorous conversations about (for example) the impact of overpopulation on global resources, or how we can reduce the amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere. Getting bogged down in arguments over whether this is a natural cycle or a manmade one simply diverts our energies away from implementing solutions to mitigate the effects, whatever the cause(s) may be.

I think we're entering the final years of the great expansion of our species, and as our options become increasingly fewer due to bickering and inaction, we'll find that some kind of a solution will be imposed on us from the outside, which is a perfectly natural thing to occur. Suggesting that a dieoff is possible is not the same thing as saying "bring it on!" There are people who are drawn to fantasies of being the only person alive on Earth, but that kind of nonsense is hard to take seriously and I doubt that even your most inveterate leftist would relish the prospect of having no one left to harangue on Marxist theory.
User avatar
sfnate
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: Le Grand Fossard
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tazmic » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:29 pm

He coined the term "the psychology of previous investment" to explain why many ppl go into denial mode when confronted by his views


This thread is becoming quite ironic.
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 191 guests