Well, Andrew Revkin successfully suckered me into listening to his talk. The faux-controversy over the title and Clive Hamilton's hissy fit sucked me in.
Nowhere in the talk does Revkin actually say that we are going to have a good Anthropocene. It's mostly just Revkin being Revkin -- "Don't scare the nice people, wear more bright colors, you'll never find a husband if you don't smile more."
Clive Hamilton's response, meanwhile, could be a prearranged piece of performance art intended to strengthen Revkin's argument about the limitations of "Woe is me, shame on you" rhetoric:
The irony of this is that Revkin's "Smile more" argument cuts very little ice with me or, really, anyone, but if you wanted to drive the point home that the rhetoric of "Woe is me, shame on you" is dominating the climate discourse to an unhealthy extent, you could not do better than to point to Clive's demand that we all unite behind a vision of the 21st century as an unending hell of pain and despair in which the living will envy the dead.
I think Revkin underestimates the power of shaming and blaming in the process of achieving social change, as I've argued before. But that doesn't excuse Hamilton. Look, one of the fundamental principles of rhetoric is that you vary your approach. From Lincoln to King to Kennedy, you can see this principle in action. Long sentences and short sentences. More formal language and more colloquial language. Conciliation and righteous anger. Anything which is unvarying and repetitive becomes wearying and, ultimately, background noise.
So what if Revkin wants to spin things a little happier and Hamilton wants to play the role of a discount Hebrew prophet? Can that variety not also be a source of strength and persuasiveness? Has Hamilton never heard of Good cop/Bad cop?
Nowhere in the talk does Revkin actually say that we are going to have a good Anthropocene. It's mostly just Revkin being Revkin -- "Don't scare the nice people, wear more bright colors, you'll never find a husband if you don't smile more."
Clive Hamilton's response, meanwhile, could be a prearranged piece of performance art intended to strengthen Revkin's argument about the limitations of "Woe is me, shame on you" rhetoric:
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dp
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dp
In the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
untly.
In short, I think
those who argue for the “good Anthropocene” are unscientific and live in
a fantasy world of their own construction. - See more at:
file:///Users/robertfarrell8/Downloads/The%20Delusion%20of%20the%20%E2%80%9CGood%20Anthropocene%E2%80%9D_%20Reply%20to%20Andrew%20Revkin%20@%20Clive%20Hamilton.html#sthash.zbjDOsCe.dpuf
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
Why not say the word "bad" a few more times, Clive, then I'm sure we'll get it.Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.elSdryoA.dpuf
The irony of this is that Revkin's "Smile more" argument cuts very little ice with me or, really, anyone, but if you wanted to drive the point home that the rhetoric of "Woe is me, shame on you" is dominating the climate discourse to an unhealthy extent, you could not do better than to point to Clive's demand that we all unite behind a vision of the 21st century as an unending hell of pain and despair in which the living will envy the dead.
I think Revkin underestimates the power of shaming and blaming in the process of achieving social change, as I've argued before. But that doesn't excuse Hamilton. Look, one of the fundamental principles of rhetoric is that you vary your approach. From Lincoln to King to Kennedy, you can see this principle in action. Long sentences and short sentences. More formal language and more colloquial language. Conciliation and righteous anger. Anything which is unvarying and repetitive becomes wearying and, ultimately, background noise.
So what if Revkin wants to spin things a little happier and Hamilton wants to play the role of a discount Hebrew prophet? Can that variety not also be a source of strength and persuasiveness? Has Hamilton never heard of Good cop/Bad cop?
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.pOAOt3bb.dpuf
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.pOAOt3bb.dpuf
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.pOAOt3bb.dpuf
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.pOAOt3bb.dpuf
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.pOAOt3bb.dpuf
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.pOAOt3bb.dpuf
In
the end, grasping at delusions like “the good Anthropocene” is a
failure of courage, courage to face the facts. The power of positive
thinking can’t turn malignant tumours into benign growths, and it can’t
turn planetary overreach into endless lifestyle improvements. Declaring
oneself to be an optimist is often used as a means of gaining the moral
upper hand: “Things may look bad but, O ye of little faith, be bold and
cheerful like me.”
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.pOAOt3bb.dpuf
Things are bad, and if we carry on as we are things will be very bad. It is the possibility of preventing bad turning into very bad that motivates many of us to work harder than ever. But pretending that bad can be turned into good with a large dose of positive thinking is, even more so than denying things are bad, a sure-fire way of ending up in a situation that is very bad indeed.
- See more at: http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/#sthash.pOAOt3bb.dpuf
Some of the most contentious discussions I've had with people who I likely agree with about the science, has been about science communication. It does seem as though some people have extremely strong views about how we should communicate, and what sort of message we should be sending. I'm not sure if this is quite what you were getting at, but I certainly think we'd benefit if more people accepted that there might be more than one way to communicate about this topic. Certainly, fighting about how best to communicate, does seem rather pointless and possible a bit self-defeating.
ReplyDeleteWhat shall I say. I write / work on what I've termed The Ecology of Happiness, and it's a theme squat in the middle of these things.
ReplyDeleteThe eternal optimists just seem to read that it says happy and say it's all they've been saying, so let's just all go on as we have been and see things get better. Which isn't how things will be going (or what I'd argue for).
Meanwhile, the prophets of apocalypse just read where it says happy and immediately get into righteous anger and indignation because woe is us must certainly be the only way to get to change (because it's worked so well so far).
But hey, I'm probably still hiding what I'm actually saying - that we could make things better, but not without a lot of thinking ahead, being humbly creative, and getting in quite some hard work.
Too bad the fighting is often in-fighting about words, done while both "sides" want the same thing - and perhaps, to avoid actually having to do it.
I'm guessing we probably write in the way that motivates us (although I'm not letting Revkin off the hook--he is way too fond of straw-man argument for someone who purports to be discussing things seriously). What motivates me, and keeps me at the computer every day, is understanding just how serious the problem is, so that is mostly what I communicate. I do throw in a chunk--maybe 20%--about people who are doing the right things that all of us need to do, immediately, but I personally don't think downplaying the dimensions of the problem really gets us very far. I know other people feel differently, and that's just the way it is.
ReplyDelete