Reviews
The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future by Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway
mattbeatty's review against another edition
4.0
I read this based on a review I read by Terry Tempest Williams, so of course I had to pick it up.
It's a great short read. It is scientific and maybe a little didactic, but I liked it and found the sentiments to be very accurate, with the future consequences quite believable. Our society needs a bit of a change or waking up, and maybe relying on the market to govern it all is misguided. Anyway, if you have an hour or two, check it out.
--- ---
"As the world climate began to spin out of control and the implications for market failure became indisputable, scientists came under attack, blamed for problems they had not caused, but had documented." (45)
It's a great short read. It is scientific and maybe a little didactic, but I liked it and found the sentiments to be very accurate, with the future consequences quite believable. Our society needs a bit of a change or waking up, and maybe relying on the market to govern it all is misguided. Anyway, if you have an hour or two, check it out.
--- ---
"As the world climate began to spin out of control and the implications for market failure became indisputable, scientists came under attack, blamed for problems they had not caused, but had documented." (45)
mikeypitt7's review against another edition
2.0
This is a pseudo-fictional look at why human civilization "collapsed" due to anthropogenic climate change. The authors position themselves as future historians reflecting on the events that lead to collapse during the Penumbra Period (i.e. "today").
Not surprisingly, they blame capitalism and fossil fuel self-interest groups alongside the ignorance of citizens in Western Civilization. Interestingly, they do not assign any blame to the rapidly expanding economies and populations of China, India, the African continent, and elsewhere. In fact, they openly applaud policies like China's One Child as sound strategies while excusing the use of fossil fuels in the developing world because they were just trying to "raise their standard of living," and thus can't be blamed for continued carbon emissions. This glosses over the problems linked to such policies and practices...all while advocating for an immediate zero-carbon shift to take place. I wonder how these authors balance their zero-carbon emissions argument against simultaneously advocating for continued use of fossil fuels in the fastest-growing parts of the world. (I don't have the willpower to engage with their One Child argument and the decades of female infanticide that caused.)
What definitely surprised me, though, was the open disdain expressed for statistical metrics commonly used today: for example, the 95% confidence interval. They blame, in part, the collapse of the planet on the arbitrary and misguided use of statistical significance to identify when and why interventions should occur. Like the problems with their One Child argument, this opens the door for authoritarian applications of the "just do this" kind. Indeed, they even flirt with ideas linked to geoengineering (i.e. plastering the stratosphere with sulfur compounds).
This was interesting, but also highly biased. Maybe that's a good thing...but I tend to support a more nuanced approach than kill off any baby beyond #1.
Not surprisingly, they blame capitalism and fossil fuel self-interest groups alongside the ignorance of citizens in Western Civilization. Interestingly, they do not assign any blame to the rapidly expanding economies and populations of China, India, the African continent, and elsewhere. In fact, they openly applaud policies like China's One Child as sound strategies while excusing the use of fossil fuels in the developing world because they were just trying to "raise their standard of living," and thus can't be blamed for continued carbon emissions. This glosses over the problems linked to such policies and practices...all while advocating for an immediate zero-carbon shift to take place. I wonder how these authors balance their zero-carbon emissions argument against simultaneously advocating for continued use of fossil fuels in the fastest-growing parts of the world. (I don't have the willpower to engage with their One Child argument and the decades of female infanticide that caused.)
What definitely surprised me, though, was the open disdain expressed for statistical metrics commonly used today: for example, the 95% confidence interval. They blame, in part, the collapse of the planet on the arbitrary and misguided use of statistical significance to identify when and why interventions should occur. Like the problems with their One Child argument, this opens the door for authoritarian applications of the "just do this" kind. Indeed, they even flirt with ideas linked to geoengineering (i.e. plastering the stratosphere with sulfur compounds).
This was interesting, but also highly biased. Maybe that's a good thing...but I tend to support a more nuanced approach than kill off any baby beyond #1.
redheadrachl's review against another edition
4.0
Took me 3 hours to read, scared the daylights out of me. Kind of repetitive in my opinion. Places a lot of blame on government and scientists and not on own self as people.
12roxy's review against another edition
4.0
Historical fiction is not a genre I prefer, but this is told from the future and is more like science fiction. It's a quick but informative read of devastating strength. The underlying science and policy questions are real, with an interesting discussion of the use and misuse of statistical tests.
mjfmjfmjf's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting but not compelling. Short quick read that is basically a re-telling of the current climate change issues as there it were a history from the future. But mostly if you already believe that the global climate is heating up due to carbon in the atmosphere caused by us, then well there is not a lot new here. And if you think that it's all a bunch of hooey dreamed up in order to support the liberal establishment, then well ... I don't know. 3.5 of 5.
helloandie's review against another edition
2.0
I think this could have been really good, but then it was just... over. It scratched the surface of something I'd really have enjoyed reading and thinking about.
acrisalves's review against another edition
3.0
The Collapse of Western Civilization é um pequeno livro que relata os acontecimentos no nosso século, vistos por alguém décadas no futuro. Escrito sobre a forma de tese, explica a cegueira humana perante o aquecimento global, ou mais explicitamente , como os interesses económicos e políticos silenciam e desacreditam os cientistas, já que a ciência fornece teorias e hipóteses ao invés de certezas.
(continua em https://acrisalves.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/the-collapse-of-western-civilization-naomi-oreskes-and-erik-m-conway/)
(continua em https://acrisalves.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/the-collapse-of-western-civilization-naomi-oreskes-and-erik-m-conway/)
dejaghoul's review against another edition
4.0
Collapse is not a book in the traditional sense, but an academic essay from the future that recounts the downfall of western civilization. It's non-fiction at heart, though, so most of the essay is spent recounting recent history of climate change rather than filling out the gory details of the apocalypse (a bit of a shame, really, since the whole thing is very well researched and I'm sure a fleshed-out version of the apocalypse scenario would be excellent and scary).
The ideas presented here are really smart and interesting—the takedown of climate change denial obviously forms the basis of the book, but it also critiques and satirizes current scientific culture, neoliberalism, capitalism and communism, and corporate involvement in politics. It's got a great sort of wry humor running through it, and the future it predicts is frightening because of how plausible it seems.
The main downside is the writing style is rather dry, and requires a decent amount of concentration to get through. It can also be difficult if you aren't familiar with all the concepts (I wasn't, and found myself struggling in a couple sections), but the text does a pretty good job explaining things for the most part.
Regardless of the occasionally frustrating writing, though, I really enjoyed this smart little novelette and the questions it poses. Definitely recommended!
The ideas presented here are really smart and interesting—the takedown of climate change denial obviously forms the basis of the book, but it also critiques and satirizes current scientific culture, neoliberalism, capitalism and communism, and corporate involvement in politics. It's got a great sort of wry humor running through it, and the future it predicts is frightening because of how plausible it seems.
The main downside is the writing style is rather dry, and requires a decent amount of concentration to get through. It can also be difficult if you aren't familiar with all the concepts (I wasn't, and found myself struggling in a couple sections), but the text does a pretty good job explaining things for the most part.
Regardless of the occasionally frustrating writing, though, I really enjoyed this smart little novelette and the questions it poses. Definitely recommended!