Amazon Prime Free Trial
FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button and confirm your Prime free trial.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited FREE Prime delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
-26% $7.39$7.39
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
$7.02$7.02
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Jenson Books Inc
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Audible sample
Follow the authors
OK
The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future Paperback – Illustrated, July 1, 2014
Purchase options and add-ons
In this haunting, provocative work of science-based fiction, Naomi Oreskes and Eric M. Conway imagine a world devastated by climate change. Dramatizing the science in ways traditional nonfiction cannot, the book reasserts the importance of scientists and the work they do and reveals the self-serving interests of the so called "carbon combustion complex" that have turned the practice of science into political fodder. Based on sound scholarship and yet unafraid to speak boldly, this book provides a welcome moment of clarity amid the cacophony of climate change literature.
- Print length104 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherColumbia University Press
- Publication dateJuly 1, 2014
- Dimensions4.7 x 0.4 x 6.6 inches
- ISBN-10023116954X
- ISBN-13978-0231169547
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
Oreskes and Conway's startling and all-too-plausible history of the century to come is in the spirit of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley and all the writers who have turned to prophecy in the attempt to ward off an oncoming disaster. Witty in its details and disturbing in its plausibility, this is an account of the Long Emergency we're entering that you will not soon forget. -- Kim Stanley Robinson, author of Shaman, 2312, Science In the Capital, and the Mars trilogy
A chilling view of what our history could be. Ignore it and it becomes more likely. Read this book, heed its warning, and perhaps we can avoid its dire predictions. -- Timothy Wirth, vice chairman, United Nations Foundation, and former U.S. Senator and Member, U.S. House of Representatives
Regret, Oreskes and Conway argue, is an equal-opportunity employer. Yes, climate change will be a nightmare for environmentalists. But global warming also threatens free marketeers, because unabated, it guarantees big government intervention. And that's the great service of this short but brilliant parable: it creates bipartisan empathy for our future selves. From that gift, perhaps we can summon the will to act today. -- Auden Schendler, Vice President, Sustainability, Aspen Skiing Company
Provocative and grimly fascinating, The Collapse of Western Civilization offers a glimpse into a future that, with farsighted leadership, still might be avoided. It should be required reading for anyone who works―or hopes to―in Washington. -- Elizabeth Kolbert, author of The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History
The scenario portrayed in this valuable little book is scarily possible. It would be apt if readers took action to keep it from, you know, happening. -- Bill McKibben, founder 350.org
Packed with salient science, smart speculation and flashes of mordant humour. ― Nature
This science-historical fantasy is thought-provoking, but is it prescient? ― Scientific American
[A] must-read... What is science fiction today will someday be the history of real, live people ― billions of them. Kudos to Oreskes and Conway for finding a creative way to talk about the immoral choice we are making today and how those billions of people will suffer for it. ― Climate Progress Blog
Though short, Collapse provides a detailed examination of how we've failed our environment ― and a call to action to save what's left. ― Discover
The authors' creative attack, ahead of the 2014 U.S. midterm elections, on those who today deny climate change and advocate a hands-off approach by government, is what makes this work a must-read in the politics of climate change. Its gift -- the real reason why everyone should read it -- is that it gives us an opportunity to imagine the world as our grandchildren will encounter it. ― Haaretz
... Oreskes and Conway have carved out a new space for historians to use their knowledge of alternative pasts to help imagine alternative futures. ― Public Books
A gripping and deeply disturbing account Based on sound scholarship and yet unafraid to speak boldly, this book provides a welcome moment of clarity amid the cacophony of climate change literature.All Things Environmental ― All Things Environmental
Excellent The Collapse of Western Civilization is a very readable and effective way of communicating the catastrophic implications of where we are heading under the climate crisis. ― Climate, People & Organizations
Oreskes and Conway do justice to the full seriousness of climate change. That seems to me prime among the many values of their book For all its dispassion the book is a call to arms. ― Hot Topic
Oreskes and Conway's book contains potent, thoughtful analysis... ― Huffington Post
The Collapse of Western Civilization illustrates the potential dangers from climate change, which can help readers think more clearly about the risk management choices society faces. The book may also encourage scientists to reflect on their role in society. If it helps scientists engage more effectively with the public by focusing on the key strengths of science, the book could help improve a flawed political system and enhance the potential for all branches of science to further benefit society. -- Paul A. T. Higgins ― Issues in Science and Technology
About the Author
Erik M. Conway is a historian of science and technology employed by the California Institute of Technology. He recently received a NASA History award for "path-breaking contributions to space history, ranging from aeronautics to Earth and space sciences," and an AIAA History Manuscript Award for his fourth book, Atmospheric Science at NASA: A History.
Product details
- Publisher : Columbia University Press; Illustrated edition (July 1, 2014)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 104 pages
- ISBN-10 : 023116954X
- ISBN-13 : 978-0231169547
- Item Weight : 2.31 pounds
- Dimensions : 4.7 x 0.4 x 6.6 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #89,292 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #56 in Environmental Policy
- #164 in Environmentalism
- #179 in Environmental Science (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the authors
Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history and science studies at the University of California, San Diego. Her essay "Beyond the Ivory Tower" was a milestone in the fight against global warming denial.
Erik M. Conway is a historian of science and technology employed by the California Institute of Technology. He recently received a NASA History award for "path-breaking contributions to space history, ranging from aeronautics to Earth and space sciences," and an AIAA History Manuscript Award for his fourth book, Atmospheric Science at NASA: A History.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book informative and thought-provoking. They describe it as a great, well-written read with an imaginative concept. Opinions differ on whether it's fiction or fact-based, with some finding it compelling while others consider it a frightening read. There are mixed views on the story quality, with some finding it interesting and informative while others feel it falls short as a compelling work of fiction. There are also mixed opinions on the length, with some finding it brief and effective while others feel it's too short with too few details.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers find the book informative and thought-provoking. They say it cites relevant science and extrapolates from our current knowledge. It's a good read based on science over ideology that calls a spade a spade. The historical and philosophical analysis is interesting yet deeply rooted in real evidence. The authors are fine historians with strong science backgrounds and have written a disturbing short book/extended version. They use clear, layman's terms, not complicated scientific terms that you'd have to google.
"...And this is yet another reason why I loved this book: the authors managed to shed new light and come with new insights on an argument, climate change..." Read more
"...They cite a great deal of relevant science, and they extrapolate from our current knowledge about what may happen to this Earth of ours given our..." Read more
"...author, but by a team of high qualified scientists and other technical experts, based on the best scholarship currently available...." Read more
"The book is well-researched with solid scientific background and info...." Read more
Customers find the book easy to read and understand. They find it compelling and well-written in a first-person narrative style. The content is clear and concise, making it a quick and enjoyable read.
"...minor details and don't detract from the main strengths of this excellent book, which is to unravel the puzzle of climate denial...." Read more
"...and how our choices extrapolate into the future, then this is a worthwhile book...." Read more
"I hoped that this book would be more fun and more compelling than lecture...." Read more
"...It's a quick read (or listen) and is "fun", if alarming as it reveals a frightening path for humanity if climate change mitigation and adaptation is..." Read more
Customers find the book imaginative and well-researched. They appreciate its originality and unique approach that combines history and science fiction. The book explains the possible future very persuasively, especially with carbon combustion.
"...And it is refreshingly novel. The fact that it is short (a mere 100 pages) no doubt also helps. This is both a powerful read and a wake-up call...." Read more
"...It's not exactly a *fun*, but an exciting and trustworthy picture of a future that is becoming much too likely...." Read more
"...What a narrow view. We want visionary imagination from sci-fi. Help us see paths to a better future and motivate us to choose change...." Read more
"...I think this book explains the possible future very persuasively, especially with the carbon-combustion complex mentioned and the themes of..." Read more
Customers have different views on the fiction in the book. Some find it a well-researched, fact-based account of civilization's descent into a dark future. Others find it frightening and thought-provoking, though some consider the plot undeveloped.
"...A real page-turner. Yet it's not fiction, far from it...." Read more
"...read (or listen) and is "fun", if alarming as it reveals a frightening path for humanity if climate change mitigation and adaptation is not made an..." Read more
"...Because the authors are both historians of science, they enjoy street cred with both the science community and the larger community, or at least me...." Read more
"...I find McIntyre to be completely credible and the whole saga to be incredible...." Read more
Customers have different views on the story. Some find it interesting and informative, while others feel it lacks character development and is not a compelling work of fiction.
"...They have partly succeeded. For a more compelling approach, I recommend James Powell’s future-historical 2084." Read more
"...Lastly, this was the most glitchy Kindle book I've ever read. Trying to highlight a word often sent me immediately to the table of contents...." Read more
"...For historians writing about climate, Oreskes and Conway missed a great story! You don't even need Climategate...." Read more
"...Here, I think the authors have made unforgiveably poor use of this literary device...." Read more
Customers have different views on the book's length. Some find it a concise and effective summary of climate change that can be read in one or two sittings. Others feel it is too short with few details and feels more like an essay than a complete work.
"...-Too short. Much more could be said, or detailed in the "historical view of the future" even with some superficial research...." Read more
"...And it is refreshingly novel. The fact that it is short (a mere 100 pages) no doubt also helps. This is both a powerful read and a wake-up call...." Read more
"...It is a short work, more an essay than a complete work, but then it was grim enough reading as it was...." Read more
"...This is a short, novel-like book written as if it were a history, looking backward from about 300 years in the future...." Read more
Customers have different views on the book's value for money. Some find it reasonable and educational, offering a great summary of economics in a fiction style. Others feel it costs as much as a cheap book and offers little value.
"...Costs will rise, production will decline, and economies will stumble until Game Over, which seems likely well before 2050...." Read more
"...book because it covers so much information while offering the real deal in fiction style...." Read more
"...Wrong knowledge cost money, time and probably much more. Caution leads to change perspective, get more data and improve the research...." Read more
"...The best part was that it was short and inexpensive." Read more
Customers have different views on climate change. Some find the book accurate and believable, with plausible scenarios and integration of social and environmental impacts. They appreciate the integration of social and environmental aspects and maintaining a human-tolerant biosphere. Others feel it's a polemic against contemporary climate-change deniers, focusing on how western culture has failed to address global climate change.
"...Second - the Precautionary Principle is important, and it could even be fun, in a sci-fi novel...." Read more
"...Climate change is grave threat to the entire planet and to judge this attempt at informing people just on its length was wrong...." Read more
"...This book gives some plausible scenarios and details just a few of the social impacts our children will experience with the chilling matter of..." Read more
"...Basically a review of how our western culture has failed to seriously address global climate change. (Don't we all know this already?)..." Read more
Reviews with images
Western Civilization is not a Sacred Cow.
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
- Reviewed in the United States on January 20, 2015Delightful read if one may be allowed to use that particular adjective when the subject is so grim. And the authors, two science historians coming from the best universities in America (Harvard and the California Institute of Technology), managed the feat of making serious analysis read like fiction. A real page-turner. Yet it's not fiction, far from it. The book is in fact reviewing what's wrong with our society, pin-pointing with deadly accuracy the reasons why we are unable to stop our "civilization" from rushing to "collapse". This is a book that should be taken seriously by anyone concerned with our future, and in particular by our political leaders.
The idea of analyzing what is happening in the climate change debate from the standpoint of the future (the book is purportedly written by a future historian located in China in 2393) is particularly effective as it gives a neutral, balanced voice to the whole account. And it is refreshingly novel. The fact that it is short (a mere 100 pages) no doubt also helps. This is both a powerful read and a wake-up call. I found the arguments particularly convincing and being an economist, I especially liked the twist they put on economic concepts, for example, Hayek's and Milton's "neo-liberalism" calling it "market fundamentalism" (indeed, those theories are ideologies rather than scientific) or "gross national product" amusingly described as an "archaic" concept.
The humor is there but it is ultimately very dark humor. The message is clear. If we don't do anything, if we don't reverse engine and control gas emissions, we are doomed and why this is so is masterfully demonstrated. Many factors are at play and the authors pull them together in a compelling way, using the detached tone of a future historian who is puzzled by the fact that Western Civilization could not avoid collapse in spite of its remakable advances in science and technology.
The reasons for our failure to address climate change are clearly analyzed and deconstructed - and suddenly, reading this brilliant essay, I began to feel like the Mayas must have felt when decades of unexpected drought destroyed their civilization, causing economic collapse, local wars and social chaos. Just like in the case of the Mayas, the reasons we are failing are all linked to each other - to global warming of course, but more importantly, to the way we handle it (or rather do not handle it - we simply deny it's there).
The book is at its best in explaining exactly why we deny climate change, in pointing to the "internal" causes, things that lay at the heart of our civilization, things that made it once great and that are now causing its fall - like, for example, "reductionism" which is the idea (that began in Descartes' time) of solving large problems by breaking them down into smaller, more "tractable" elements. The approach has proved powerful to advance knowledge but as the narrator coldly remarks "reductionism also made it difficult for scientists to articulate the threat posed by climate change, since many experts did not actually know very much about aspects of the problem beyond their expertise." As a result, scientists did not speak in a single voice, climate change continued to be denied, fueled by the interests of the "carbon-combustion complex" - another witty take on Eisenhower's famous "military and industrial complex" - and political leaders thought they had more time to address it than they really had.
Other contributing factors are also identified, such as over-reliance of scientists on the concept of statistical significance (also termed an "archaic"!) - something that had never occurred to me before and yet totally makes sense. And this is yet another reason why I loved this book: the authors managed to shed new light and come with new insights on an argument, climate change, that I tend to consider "closed", in the sense that I can't imagine what more could be added. There are only two aspects I regret, one, is the reference to just one climate fiction novelist (there are many, climate fiction is a brand new genre and rapidly rising with the likes of Margaret Atwood) but of course, the authors have a right to their own likes and dislikes in fiction; the other, is the premature burial of the United Nations following the collapse of international talks on climate change at some point in the mid-21st century. Personally, I view such a collapse totally unlikely - the United Nations are here to stay, they are indispensable and most likely to preside over the collapse of our civilization rather than being buried before...But those are minor details and don't detract from the main strengths of this excellent book, which is to unravel the puzzle of climate denial.
Highly recommended.
- Reviewed in the United States on October 29, 2014This book by two historians of science examines our world through the lens of dystopian fiction. For anyone looking for plot and character, go elsewhere. (I think that they’d recommend the work of Kim Stanley Robinson, whom they acknowledge in the book.) This is a “history” book written by historians looking back from the year 2393 while working in the "Second (Neocommunist) People’s Republic of China". But if you want to learn about what we currently know, what we’re currently doing (or not doing), and how our choices extrapolate into the future, then this is a worthwhile book. Anyone who’s read this blog or followed my Tweets knows that climate change and our collective indifference to it and the future that it holds for us is a major concern of mine. I used to say that this concern would be the problem that my daughters and their generation would have to face. Of course, events have proven this expectation false—it’s here now, staring us in the face, as these two authors make abundantly clear.
Because the authors are both historians of science, they enjoy street cred with both the science community and the larger community, or at least me. (I won’t give my “all knowledge is a matter of history” talk here, but if you need a quick refresher, see below*.) In a previous book, Merchants of Doubt: Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco to Climate Change (New York: Bloomsbury, 2010), these two authors detailed the use of scientists to peddle doubts for the purpose of delaying action on issues of public health from tobacco use to global climate change. They understand not only the science involved in these issues but also the social context in which that science is practiced. Indeed, the whole point of this exercise is the examine how we in the early 21st century have convinced ourselves that we can ignore these issues and blithely continue down our current path toward disaster. They cite a great deal of relevant science, and they extrapolate from our current knowledge about what may happen to this Earth of ours given our current choices. But their observations about canons of knowledge and ideologies are the more unique and insightful aspects of their project.
Following are some of the more interesting points taken from the book with my commentary following.
The physical scientists studying these steadily increasing disasters did not help quell this denial, and instead became entangled in arcane arguments about the “attribution” of singular events [floods, fires, storms, droughts & other weather-related events]. Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2014-06-24). The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future (p. 7). Columbia University Press. Kindle Edition.
Although they don’t come out and say it (Oreskes is a Harvard professor), the scientific community often lives in an ivory tower. Science is a social enterprise, a human enterprise par excellence, and to ignore this all too human aspect of science is a terrible mistake. To whom much is given (to wit, money for research grants), much is expected. While arguments over standards and protocols are important, they don’t override the greater concerns of society as a whole.
[M]ost countries still used the archaic concept of a gross domestic product, a measure of consumption, rather than the Bhutanian concept of gross domestic happiness to evaluate well-being in a state. p. 8
It’s good to realize that the word about the utter inadequacy of GNP as a measure of well-being is growing in popularity. But we should move beyond our snapshot in time (as the authors later suggest) and beyond the immediate human world in measuring performance and well-being.
Though leaders of the scientific community protested, scientists yielded to the demands, thus helping set the stage for further pressure on scientists from both governments and the industrial enterprises that governments subsidized and protected. Then legislation was passed (particularly in the United States) that placed limits on what scientists could study and how they could study it, beginning with the notorious House Bill 819, better known as the “Sea Level Rise Denial Bill,” passed in 2012 by the government of what was then the U.S. state of North Carolina . . . . pp. 11-12
This is a really frightening realization, one that makes Tennessee’s outlawing of the teaching of evolution (as displayed in the Scopes trial) seem trivial. Really, in 21st century America this could happen? This is Orwellian—or more bluntly, Stalinist. (Orwell, of course, decried such lies; Stalin and his cohort used the airbrush on history and reality with abandon.)
It is difficult to understand why humans did not respond appropriately in the early Penumbral Period, when preventive measures were still possible. Many have sought an answer in the general phenomenon of human adaptive optimism, which later proved crucial for survivors. p. 13
We humans believe that we can always prevail in the last reel. Maybe, but reality isn't a Hollywood movie, and we test the limits at our peril. One thing that the authors don’t do in this “history” is to explore fully all of the likely social, political, and economic disasters that will likely befall humanity if our environment comes crashing down around us. The Four Horsemen of war, famine, pestilence, and death will ride freely throughout the world. To think that we can “innovate” our way out of such a situation amounts to fantasy, mere wishful thinking.
Even more elusive to scholars is why scientists, whose job it was to understand the threat and warn their societies—and who thought that they did understand the threat and that they were warning their societies—failed to appreciate the full magnitude of climate change. To shed light on this question, some scholars have pointed to the epistemic structure of Western science, particularly in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which was organized both intellectually and institutionally around “disciplines” in which specialists developed a high level of expertise in a small area of inquiry…. While reductionism proved powerful in many domains, particularly quantum physics and medical diagnostics, it impeded investigations of complex systems. Reductionism also made it difficult for scientists to articulate the threat posed by climatic change, since many experts did not actually know very much about aspects of the problem beyond their expertise. pp. 13-14
Again, an important criticism of what is typical of academia: learning more and more about less and less. We can’t afford this now. Specialization and narrow focus can be a tool in some situations, but like many useful tools, it proves useful only for particular occasions.
Other scientists promoted the ideas of systems science, complexity science, and, most pertinent to our purposes here, earth systems science, but these so-called holistic approaches still focused almost entirely on natural systems, omitting from consideration the social components. Yet in many cases, the social components were the dominant system drivers. It was often said, for example, that climate change was caused by increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Scientists understood that those greenhouse gases were accumulating because of the activities of human beings—deforestation and fossil fuel combustion—yet they rarely said that the cause was people, and their patterns of conspicuous consumption. pp. 15-16
This is a good point about systems and complexity theories. They are better (i.e., more useful in this context) than reductionist theories, but some do divorce humanity from Nature. We are at once a part of Nature and apart from Nature. We now need to appreciate just how much a part of Nature we are.
Other scholars have looked to the roots of Western natural science in religious institutions. Just as religious orders of prior centuries had demonstrated moral rigor through extreme practices of asceticism in dress, lodging, behavior, and food—in essence, practices of physical self-denial—so, too, did physical scientists of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries attempt to demonstrate their intellectual rigor through practices of intellectual self-denial. These practices led scientists to demand an excessively stringent standard for accepting claims of any kind, even those involving imminent threats. In an almost childlike attempt to demarcate their practices from those of older explanatory traditions, scientists felt it necessary to prove to themselves and the world how strict they were in their intellectual standards. Thus, they placed the burden of proof on novel claims—even empirical claims about phenomena that their theories predicted. This included claims about changes in the climate. p. 16
This is a fascinating insight: scientists as the new ascetics. This helps me understand someone like the late Seth Roberts, who was (in essence) a human climate-change denier. I argued (in comments on his blog) that the judgment was a practical one requiring action, not one that should be governed by abstract principles of skepticism. My thinking came from my knowledge and experience with the common law tradition of making judgments about practical matters of liability. He never made clear (to me anyway) the nature of his skepticism in the face of so much contrary proof.
Much of the argument surrounded the concept of statistical significance. Given what we now know about the dominance of nonlinear systems and the distribution of stochastic processes, the then-dominant notion of a 95 percent confidence limit is hard to fathom. Yet overwhelming evidence suggests that twentieth-century scientists believed that a claim could be accepted only if, by the standards of Fisherian statistics, the possibility that an observed event could have happened by chance was less than 1 in 20.. . . . We have come to understand the 95 percent confidence limit as a social convention rooted in scientists’ desire to demonstrate their disciplinary severity. p. 17
I’m so glad to read this. I’m untrained in statistics (one of my many shortcomings), but it always seemed to me that the whole enterprise could be quite arbitrary. This is what they say: you have to do better than 1/20 to have “statistical significance”. That’s probably an extremely useful heuristic, but as a “law”, it’s junk. And as a guide for action? Maybe, but maybe not. The appropriateness of any standard depends upon what’s at stake, other sources of confirmation or disproof, and the time scale in which we must judge. In other words, a common law type of judgment: the likelihood of harm, the magnitude of possible harm, and the cost of alternatives serve as benchmarks for decision-making.
Western scientists built an intellectual culture based on the premise that it was worse to fool oneself into believing in something that did not exist than not to believe in something that did. p. 17
Again, which is the worst mistake depends on the practical outcome of the actions taken as a result of the belief or unbelief. The likely practical consequence of a mistake, not the cause of the possible mistake, should guide action.
To the historian studying this tragic period of human history, the most astounding fact is that the victims knew what was happening and why. Indeed, they chronicled it in detail precisely because they knew that fossil fuel combustion was to blame. Historical analysis also shows that Western civilization had the technological know-how and capability to effect an orderly transition to renewable energy, yet the available technologies were not implemented in time. p. 35
Exactly: how can we be so dumb? (And by dumb, I mean in action, not simply as a means of name-calling.) This is a social-political problem, a problem of persuasion and decision-making of the highest importance.
The thesis of this analysis is that Western civilization became trapped in the grip of two inhibiting ideologies: positivism and market fundamentalism. p. 35
Yes!
[T]he overall philosophy is more accurately known as Baconianism. This philosophy held that through experience, observation, and experiment, one could gather reliable knowledge about the natural world, and that this knowledge would empower its holder. Experience justified the first part of the philosophy (we have recounted how twentieth-century scientists anticipated the consequences of climate change), but the second part—that this knowledge would translate into power—proved less accurate. p. 36
This suggests an extreme naiveté in the scientific community and those who support them.
A key attribute of the period was that power did not reside in the hands of those who understood the climate system, but rather in political, economic, and social institutions that had a strong interest in maintaining the use of fossil fuels. Historians have labeled this system the carbon-combustion complex: a network of powerful industries comprising fossil fuel producers, industries that served energy companies (such as drilling and oil field service companies and large construction firms), manufacturers whose products relied on inexpensive energy (especially automobiles and aviation, but also aluminum and other forms of smelting and mineral processing), financial institutions that serviced their capital demands, and advertising, public relations, and marketing firms who promoted their products. pp. 36-37
While I’m skeptical of conspiracy theories in general, I do believe that the mindset of the "carbon-combustion complex" (in part held as an intentional choice and in part as a matter of false consciousness or akrasia). In any event, this mindset trumps rational judgment because it's based upon tangible special interests, and it's repeated frequently and widely disseminated. If the propaganda of communist governments had proven anywhere nearly as effective as the promotion of the "carbon-combustion complex" and market fundamentalist ideology, those regimes would probably still be around today.
[A] large part of Western society was rejecting that knowledge in favor of an empirically inadequate yet powerful ideological system. Even at the time, some recognized this system as a quasi-religious faith, hence the label market fundamentalism. Market fundamentalism—and its various strands and interpretations known as free-market fundamentalism, neoliberalism, laissez-faire economics, and laissez-faire capitalism—was a two-pronged ideological system. pp. 37-38).
The first prong held that societal needs were served most efficiently in a free market economic system. Guided by the “invisible hand” of the marketplace, individuals would freely respond to each other’s needs, establishing a net balance between solutions (“supply”) and needs (“demand”). The second prong of the philosophy maintained that free markets were not merely a good or even the best manner of satisfying material wants: they were the only manner of doing so that did not threaten personal freedom. p. 38
Another example of good ideas gone bad. A market economy is better than other forms, but it isn't perfect, and as we humans tend to do, we overreached and made the market absolute.
The ultimate paradox was that neoliberalism, meant to ensure individual freedom above all, led eventually to a situation that necessitated large-scale government intervention. p. 48
This forecast is probably correct. How ironic!
Period of the Penumbra The shadow of anti-intellectualism that fell over the once-Enlightened techno-scientific nations of the Western world during the second half of the twentieth century, preventing them from acting on the scientific knowledge available at the time and condemning their successors to the inundation and desertification of the late twenty-first and twenty-second centuries. pp. 59-60
This leads me back to an insight that I’ve had since I started thinking about this world: human power—via technology—has outrun human wisdom. We've set loose a genie that we can’t control. We humans are the Sorcerer’s Apprentice and none but Nature (the Master Wizard, if you will) can restore order. And it will be messy.
[Naomi Oreskes being interviewed] The nation in which our historian is writing is the Second PRC, because we imagine that after a period of liberalization and democratization, autocratic forces become resurgent in China, justified by the imperative of dealing with the climate crisis. EC [author Erik Conway]: Chinese civilization has been around a lot longer than Western civilization has and it’s survived a great many traumas. While I’m not sure the current government of China is likely to hold up well—the internal tensions are pretty glaring—it’s hard to imagine a future in which there’s no longer a place called China. And as Naomi explains, authoritarian states may well find it easier to make the changes necessary to survive rapid climate change. With a few exceptions, the so-called liberal democracies are failing to address climate change. p. 70
The authors suggest that China will “go renewable” sooner than the West and will adapt more effectively than the Western nations. Maybe. Currently, China is hell-bent on further economic development, and we can see the effect every day in the air quality. [N.B. As I write these words I'm living in China.] The central government currently has the power to make drastic changes, but how drastic and under what conditions would create a major stress test. The assumption of anything less than a Hobbesian state of nature (or the rise of a Leviathan led by someone as bloodthirsty as a Stalin or a Hitler) seems overly optimistic to me if things deteriorate with the speed and to the extent that the authors suggest that it might.
This was a one-sitting read. It goes along with William (Patrick) Ophuls and Thomas Homer-Dixon on my (electronic) shelf about the challenge of global climate change. I hope that we can prove their “history” false.
P.S. The NYT article interview tipped me off to Oreskes and her work, and her TED talk on the practice of science.
* In sum, the history of anything amounts to that thing itself. History is not a social science but an unavoidable form of thought. That "we live forward but we can only think backward" is true not only of the present (which is always a fleeting illusion) but of our entire view of the future: for even when we think of the future we do this by remembering. But history cannot tell us anything about the future with certainly. Intelligent research, together with a stab of psychological understanding, may enable us to reconstruct something from the past; still, it cannot help us predict the future.
John Lukacs, At the End of an Age, 53-54.
- Reviewed in the United States on August 28, 2024I was surprised that I liked, and came to trust, the innovative presentation. And, even more, that it made me hopeful about what the future can be for us humans.
This is a short, novel-like book written as if it were a history, looking backward from about 300 years in the future. But it was created not by someone arguing a side, or by a science fiction author, but by a team of high qualified scientists and other technical experts, based on the best scholarship currently available.
The intention was to combine what we know from many, many careful studies about how Earth's climate is changing, then analyze how these trends would most likely combine if the human response continues to be the same. The value is not really a prediction of humanity's future. It is coming to understand how one heartbreaking but quite possible path could unfold. After reading it, we non-specialists can see how the hundreds of individual experiences and discoveries about climate change matter to all of us...and *really* matter to our kids, and to theirs.
It's not exactly a *fun*, but an exciting and trustworthy picture of a future that is becoming much too likely. And in a surprising way, it made me feel much more hopeful about our shared ability to head off disaster. Highly recommended.
Top reviews from other countries
- David Gutierrez MannixReviewed in Mexico on July 18, 2019
5.0 out of 5 stars short and important to read
It's an excellent short source of insight about the future of the planet
- Patricia FinneyReviewed in the United Kingdom on February 2, 2020
5.0 out of 5 stars A plausible take on how our dithering over global heating could destroy Western civilization.
You really don’t expect to laugh out loud at a book dealing with climate change and sporting the title “The Collapse of Western Civilization.” But I did.
A satirical look at the appalling prospects for the rest of this century, from the point of view of a Chinese historian from the year 2393, this book skewers our idiotic complacency, fossil fuel vested interests and the general deadly dithering over global heating.
The only thing wrong with it was that it was too short!
- Jacques LavoieReviewed in Canada on April 20, 2017
5.0 out of 5 stars A very clever and intelligent approach to educate populations on how serious
A very clever and intelligent approach to educate populations on how serious, catastrophic and economically heavy our indolent attitude with climate change will lead our civilisation. Thanks.
-
DidierReviewed in Germany on September 14, 2014
5.0 out of 5 stars Ein exzellentes kleines Büchlein, das Angst macht.
Die Wissenschaftshistoriker Naomi Oreskes und Eric Conway schreiben eigentlich sonst keine Fiction-Literatur. Bekannt sind sie durch ihr Buch "The Merchants of Doubt" (auf Deutsch: Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft: Das Netzwerk des Leugnens), das die Mechanismen insbesondere hinter dem Leugnen des Klimawandels sehr eindrücklich beleuchtet. Nun haben sie angesichts des immer bedrohlicheren Klimawandels ein fiktives Szenario basierend auf den neuesten wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen vorgelegt, um vielleicht doch noch die Verantwortlichen aufzurütteln.
Ich kann nur hoffen und wünschen, dass es bald auf Deutsch erscheint, um auch hier hoffentlich eine Wirkung entfalten zu können, bevor es zu spät ist.
-
Client AmazonReviewed in France on July 16, 2014
4.0 out of 5 stars Du niveau de Dune ou Foundation, sauf que ce n'est pas de la fiction...
L'analyse détaillée des événements récents et leur mise en perspective donne froid dans le dos, quand on considère le résultat...