Scan barcode
A review by mikeypitt7
The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future by Erik Conway, Naomi Oreskes
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.