Lately I’ve been given three separate scenarios for our imminent demise. The problem is, these forecasts aren’t usually given like opinions, they carry much more implied moral weight, as if I’m supposed to take them as seriously as the speaker, or woe betide. But are we in for three separate catastrophes? To slightly mangle the German saying; things only have one end, and only the sausage has two.
Two of the anticipated endings have vague timelines; ecological catastrophe due to global warming, and global economic collapse due to contagion from the European financial crisis. The third though had a time point, that there would be global economic collapse due to the USA waking up to its impossible financial state after President Obama wins his second term in November. It’s really good to be able to put a date on it like that. So in three months we will know.
Thing is though, when I was a kid in untroubled Perth, a good contender for city most likely to survive WW3, there were men standing on street corners shouting ‘The end is nigh’. Sure, they were anticipating a god-made end, which has the vaguest of timelines having been anticipated for over 2000 years, but few would call me rash for not heeding their herald. A school friend’s father dug a bunker under his lounge room (Perth has perfect sand for this) and filled it with weapons. He also had an armored vehicle parked out back. No kidding. I also remember dinner party conversations of the 70s that oil would surely soon run out, but meantime I grew up, got my license, drove for 20 years before I got tired of it, and still the car is king.
So how much of this doomsaying is psychologically driven? One thing all three recent forecasters have in common is that they all see themselves as survivors, due to their circumstances. They have buffers of wealth and property, and are ready to watch the rest of us perish, shaking their heads and tutting. No, it’s not nice.
Is it training from Sunday school? Are we carrying Noah’s ark around? They perished for they were sinful and did not heed? Or is there something innate, something we see because we want to see it?
Of course you can’t put an argument like this without disclaimer. Doom saying has a vital role in society. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring never dawned because people were shocked and took action. I’ve taken a lovely bike ride through the Black Forest because sulfur emissions were stopped, after forecasts there would be no trees left due to acid rain. World governments took extraordinary action to ban CFCs in very timely fashion. But nobody said ‘You must believe in the coming silent Spring or you are irresponsible’. Well nobody who can justify it in hindsight.
My beef is, why does it have to be so extreme? Is the only way to break self interest to say ‘IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THIS YOU WILL DIE!’? Clearly it’s a good thing to cut carbon emissions, but do you have to threaten people in order to get them to support a carbon price?
When did allegory become dogma?