The Collapse of Western Civilization

“At the start of the final phase, in the mid-twentieth century, some physical scientists—named as such due to the archaic Western convention of studying the physical world in isolation from social systems—recognized that the anthropogenic increment of CO₂ could theoretically warm the planet.”

The authors criticize the common scientific practice of reductionism and discipline-specific research methods. Many believe that reductionism impedes the study of complex systems, including climate and climate change. Similarly, specialization prevents researchers from forming a big-picture understanding of climate change. By criticizing these scientific customs, the authors implicitly introduce The Promotion of Interdisciplinary and Holistic Science.

“Meanwhile, a different version of denial emerged in non-industrialized nations, which argued that the threat of climate change was being used to prevent their development.”

This remark reflects modern global inequality, which is one of the most significant real-world considerations for mitigating climate change. The industrialized nations of the Global North have emitted drastically more greenhouse gases than developing nations. Development is carbon-intensive, meaning that for developing nations to continue advancing, levels of carbon dioxide will continue to rise; however, the ethical consensus is that pre-industrial nations are entitled to socially beneficial developments.

“More heat in the atmosphere meant more energy had to be dissipated, manifesting as more powerful storms, bigger deluges, deeper droughts.”

The authors use informative statements to convey climate science and The Potential Consequences of Unchecked Climate Change. Since the text is from a historical perspective, it does not center on the science behind climate change; however, the authors’ intent is to promote climate-change awareness and inspire change, so they incorporate scientific statements to help educate readers who might not be familiar with the underlying processes.

“In the early Penumbral Period, physical scientists who spoke out about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change were accused of being ‘alarmist’ and of acting out of self-interest—to increase financial support for their enterprise, gain attention, or improve their social standing.”

This is a satirical remark criticizing real-world climate change denial. The scientific community has been warning the public about the impending climate crisis and has been asserting the need to eliminate fossil-fuel use since at least the mid-1900s, but such warnings have been met with both skepticism and hostility.

“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 (now part of the Atlantic Continental Shelf).”

Allusions, or references, are used throughout the text and, as in this instance, are often intended to criticize real-world events (See: Literary Devices). House Bill 819 barred government officials from using up-to-date scientific information regarding rising sea levels. By incorporating facts, the authors increase the realism of the book, enhance the satirical tones, and provide accurate information regarding climate change to the reader so that the reader is better informed.

“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.”

This remark suggests that people tend to divert blame away from themselves and onto accompanying phenomena, thereby exacerbating The Potential Consequences of Unchecked Climate Change. By diverting blame from themselves to greenhouse gases and climate change, people avoid having to take personal responsibility and make lifestyle changes.

“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.”

Although the authors generally support real-world scientists’ efforts to warn the public about climate change, they also satirize modern scientists for their methods and approaches. In doing so, they call for real-world changes to scientific practices, advocating for The Promotion of Interdisciplinary and Holistic Science. The word “childlike” also acts as an efficient piece of imagery that imparts a degrading tone to the remark.

“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.”

The historian’s assertation that people would rather not believe a fact than believe a falsehood alludes to human pridefulness. The statement also implies that public errors are met with harsh criticism or ridicule.

“In 2001, the IPCC had predicted that atmospheric CO₂ would double by 2050. In fact, that benchmark was met by 2042. Scientists had expected a mean global warming of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius; the actual figure was 3.9 degrees.”

The authors frequently blend facts with fictional elements. In this instance, the 2001 IPCC predictions are accurate, and the authors include a citation to multiple sources that corroborate the information. However, the assertions that the carbon dioxide was doubled by 2042 and that the temperature rose by 3.9°C are fictional elements. By suggesting the consequences might be worse than predicted, the authors increase the tension. The merging of facts and fiction may also encourage some readers to independently research the information in the book to determine what is true.

“There is no need to rehearse the details of the human tragedy that occurred; every schoolchild knows of the terrible suffering. Suffice it to say that total losses—social, cultural, economic, and demographic—were greater than any in recorded human history.”

The authors use the theory of omission, also referred to as the Iceberg Theory, in which details are left out so that the reader can form their own understanding of the meaning. By alluding to the immense suffering following the Great Collapse and Mass Migration, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway encourage readers to imagine what such a future might be like, resulting in both an immersive reading experience and in the encouragement of critical thought regarding climate change.

“The human populations of Australia and Africa, of course, were wiped out.”

This statement alludes to the idea that civilizations living near the equator are disproportionately at risk of climate change consequences, invoking The Potential Consequences of Unchecked Climate Change. Since the environments near the equator and in desert regions are already hot, the rising temperatures had a more extreme impact, leading to the total annihilation of human populations in these areas. Real-world climate researchers predict similar consequences, demonstrating the intricate realism of the text.

“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.”

The discussion on social power is an allusion to and debunking of the adage “knowledge is power.” The adage is attributed to real-world French philosopher Francis Bacon, and it refers to the idea that knowledge gained through experience, experiments, and observation empowers the knower to act. The authors criticize this idea by suggesting that climate scientists and others who understand climate change do not have the power to enact social change despite their knowledge, due to the economic interests of capitalist industry. This passage points to the Logical Fallacies of Neoliberalism and the Free Market.

“Newspapers often quoted thinktank employees as if they were climate researchers, juxtaposing their views against those of epistemologically independent university or government scientists. This practice gave the public the impression that the science was still uncertain, thus undermining the sense that it was time to act.”

The authors criticize real-world organizations and media outlets for spreading disinformation, creating public uncertainty and promoting climate change denial. They imply that institutions that financially benefitted from fossil fuels intentionally created social discord in order to prevent meaningful climate action.

“By the early twentieth century, it was clear that capitalism in its pure, theoretical form did not exist, and few could argue for its desirability: the failures were too obvious. Intellectuals came to see the invisible hand, akin to the hand of God, as the quasi-religious notion that it was.”

This is a reference to real-world skepticism and rejection of capitalism, highlighting the theme of Logical Fallacies of Neoliberalism and the Free Market. Although capitalism has long been criticized as ineffective, it has remained popular and is still a predominant economic system throughout the world. By drawing attention to the failures of capitalism, the authors satirically criticize modern support of the free market system.

“Perhaps because of the horrible violence in the East, many Western intellectuals came to see everything associated with communism as evil, even—and crucially for our story—modest or necessary forms of intervention in the marketplace such as progressive taxation and environmental regulation, and humanitarian interventions such as effective and affordable regimes of health care and birth control.”

The authors draw a real-world connection between the Cold War and climate change. They assert that anti-communist rhetoric led to the rejection of government interference, even when that interference, theoretically, is beneficial. The authors are at liberty to make such speculative assertions because the text is technically a work of fiction; however, the statement is intended to reflect real-world conditions.

“The ultimate paradox was that neoliberalism, meant to ensure individual freedom above all, led eventually to a situation that necessitated large-scale government intervention.”

This remark suggests that the prioritization of personal liberty is inherently destructive, reflecting the Logical Fallacies of Neoliberalism and the Free Market. This suggestion, in turn, implies that humans are inherently selfish and seduced by short-term gains, and that, in general, their desires do not align with the common good. It also asserts that formal government intervention is necessary to ensure social order and sustainability.

“By blocking anticipatory action, neoliberals did more than expose the tragic flaws in their own system: they fostered expansion of the forms of governance they most abhorred.”

The historian uses both irony and repetition in their assertions that neoliberalism paved the way for the popularity and success of communist governance. By repeatedly stressing this idea, the authors imply that, to effectively mitigate climate change, democratic nations should adopt communist-style governments that would promote the common good over personal liberty.

“The separation of work from ownership produced a concentration of wealth amongst a tiny elite, who could them purchase more favorable laws and regulations from their host governments.”

In the definition of capitalism, the historian includes the idea that financial inequality leads to corrupt government practices, exposing the Logical Fallacies of Neoliberalism and the Free Market. This is intended as a satirical allusion to modern criticism of capitalism.

“A form of magical thinking, popularized in the eighteenth century, that economic markets in a capitalist system were ‘balanced’ by the actions of an unseen, immaterial power, which both ensured that markets functioned efficiently and that they would address human needs.”

By using the word “magical,” the authors succinctly criticize the concept of the “invisible hand.” Without the term “magical,” the statement is a neutral definition. The addition of “magical” also relates to earlier descriptions of the “invisible hand,” in which the belief is referred to as quasi-religious, thus invoking the Logical Fallacies of Neoliberalism and the Free Market.

“Overwhelmingly male, they emphasized study of the world’s physical constituents and processes—the elements and compounds; atomic, magnetic, and gravitational forces; chemical reactions, flows of air and water—to the neglect of biological and social realms and focused on reductionist methodologies that impeded the understanding of the crucial interactions between the physical, biological, and social realms.”

The definition of physical scientists criticizes real-world science. By targeting sexism, reductionism, and discipline-specific studies, the authors implicitly support diversity, holism, and interdisciplinary research methods. These concepts are repeated several times throughout the text, emphasizing The Promotion of Interdisciplinary and Holistic Science and demonstrating that the promotion of these ideas is one of the book’s main purposes.

“Many people on the activist end of the climate change ‘debate’ seem to believe that climate change will result in human extinction. But that’s not what looking back at previous episodes of climate change in human history has to offer.”

Conway finds optimism in The Collapse of Western Civilization. His remark refers to earlier hominins who endured bouts of significant climate change, including the transition to the Ice Age. While humanity will almost certainly suffer drastic consequences from climate change, they will also likely adapt. This sentiment is not intended to devalue the severity of climate change implications but to reduce the negativity in the conversation. By removing the ominous idea that humans will go extinct, Conway and Oreskes invite a more positive environment for discussing climate change, while also emphasizing The Potential Consequences of Unchecked Climate Change.

“Catastrophic natural disasters—particularly those that disrupt food and water supply—are a justification for governments to send in the national guard, commandeer resources, declare martial law, and otherwise suspend democratic processes and interfere with markets.”

The interview at the end of the book allows the authors to defend their literary choices within the text. Here, they assert that taking climate action will prevent future authoritarian actions. If no action is taken, physical and social conditions may deteriorate to the point where governments must become authoritarian to mitigate climate-change consequences, as occurred in the text. This notion supports the book as a call-to-action for climate action.

“Tobacco kills people, and it is addictive. It makes sense to regulate it, just as it makes sense to regulate heroin. It also makes sense to regulate driving, and air traffic control. But that doesn’t mean we should regulate soda.”

Oreskes asserts that whether or not a substance or activity is regulated should depend on their respective “merits and demerits.” She uses tobacco, heroin, driving, and air traffic control as comparisons to climate change regulation. Her argument relies largely on a commonsense approach—these substances or activities are dangerous, so they should be regulated. Climate change, which threatens the habitability of the planet and the stability of society, is dangerous and, thus, should be regulated.