I respect Jem’s right to interpret the data as he chooses. I greatly appreciate that his article has galvanized many people who were previously numb to the climate crisis, but if I were a reviewer on his academic committee, I would also have rejected it for publication-not because of its “alarmist” character, but simply because it doesn’t adhere to academic standards by constantly jumping from factual evidence to personal opinion without clarifying the distinction. Quite honestly, I was disappointed by the lack of academic rigor in Jem’s arguments. with serious ramifications for the lives of readers.” Then, about halfway through, he inserts the terms “probable” and “likely.” He opines that “the evidence before us suggests that we are set for disruptive and uncontrollable levels of climate change, bringing starvation, destruction, migration, disease and war.” “The evidence is mounting,” he goes on, “that the impacts will be catastrophic to our livelihoods and the societies that we live within.” On that basis, he declares: “Currently, I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction.” He introduces his paper with the declaration that there will be an “inevitable near-term social collapse due to climate change. What I noticed was that Jem kept slipping between the terms “inevitable” and “likely” in his analysis. But after carefully reading his paper, I didn’t find anything new of significance. I was keen to see what new information or methodology he’d uncovered that changed the picture so dramatically. Now, Jem was claiming to have discovered that collapse was, in fact, inevitable. but the odds of avoiding collapse seem small.” Regardless of the odds, they aver, “our own ethical values compel us to think the benefits to those future generations are worth struggling for, to increase at least slightly the chances of avoiding a dissolution of today’s global civilization as we know it.” For example, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, whose work I admire tremendously, wrote an article in 2013 entitled “Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?” They concluded: “The answer is yes, because modern society has shown some capacity to deal with long-term threats. ( Bibliography below for anyone interested in researching it further.)Ĭollapse, in my view and in the view of many thinkers I respect, is a real near-term possibility, perhaps even likely, but not certain.
Having read extensively on the topic, I felt I understood the issues reasonably well. I’ve spent years researching the topic of civilizational collapse, which I cover at length in the final chapter of The Patterning Instinct. On the contrary, when I became aware of his article, I was driven to read it thoroughly. Jem implies that I may have “misrepresented the concept” of Deep Adaptation by failing to read his original article. Responding to Green Positivity Critiques of Deep Adaptation by Jem Bendell, April 10, 2019 What Will You Say to Your Grandchildren? by Jeremy Lent, April 4, 2019 I hope our public dialogue has so far been of value to those who care passionately about what’s happening to our planet and civilization, and that this article continues to move the conversation forward in a constructive fashion. However, as I read Jem’s refutations, I was concerned that some deeper issues are at stake that need to be brought to the surface, and I’m writing this response accordingly. I believe that Jem and I agree on much more than we disagree, and that we share a similar heartbreak at the unfolding catastrophe our world is experiencing. On April 10, Jem Bendell wrote a detailed and thoughtful article in response to my critique of Deep Adaptation, “ What Will You Say to Your Grandchildren.” I appreciate the care he took to ponder my arguments, note where he concurred, and refute what he felt was wrong.
0 kommentar(er)
