This article is poorly reasoned and full of logical fallacies. It is doomerism in disguise, using red herrings and gish gallop to distract from the faulty premises the author builds her argument upon. It is hypocritical at many turns, being guilty of exactly what it critiques.
First of all, the black or white fallacy: not all hope is delusional. Hope is integral to being human, and courage is not its substitute. The two are intertwined at every turn. The author characterizes hope only as pathological, to avoid what is painful and difficult, which is wrong. Each of hopes every day in putting food in the fridge and going to sleep at night in hopes of waking up the next day, even refreshed!
Early on, the author writes: "We cannot save the world but we can embody our best human qualities...."
When anyone writes "save the world," it's a red flag because a) it's a black or white statement b) it doesn't define what saving the world means c) it doesn't acknowledge degrees of what can be saved d) we CAN save a lot, according to the science.
I could write volumes to address all the fallacies in this terribly reasoned piece, so let's look at just one paragraph, for more:
"When we declare our human power to create change, we deny the planet and the known sciences of how the planet works. It seems bizarre, but our declarations of human power are based on science denial."
Huh? The science says we can turn this thing around....not to save everything, but to save a good deal more than if we simply give up based on nonsense assertions like this.
"Who would have thought we’d be in league with climate deniers."
When you deny the science and become a closet doomer, yes, you end up in the same camp as climate deniers because you are out of touch with reality and proselytizing false information. If climate deniers have false hope, called "hopium," doomers engage reverse hopium, as the author does: denying the science that says we can save a lot of what we hold dear. Either extreme, I argue in my Climate Cure, seems to be driven by fear (irony, again) to be in control, as well as intimately knowing of the future, which we cannot be, save to say it will be worse than today; the science is clear about this, but the extent of that "worse" is up to us.
"We have no trouble accepting the fact that humans have caused these massive losses of species and habitat and the new-normal of climate extremes. But when we believe we can stop these processes by banding together and singing songs of hope to each other, we are denying the science, the reality of how this planet works, the reality of where we are."
Another logical fallacy by way of mischaracterization: climate hope is not to "sing songs of hope to each another." It's to fuel our best humanity and courage to make change and to save what we can. And no, having hope and science denial of "where we are" are not antithetical. We can--and I do--embrace reality and have hope....because, ironically, the science says it's not too late to save us from the worst of climate crisis. And what science are we denying, Margaret? There is no science that says we are doomed.
"To say we are unstoppable or indomitable is to place humans in the God position, a role we’ve failed at for several hundred years."
More illogic by mischaracterization. We do not have to believe we are unstoppable or indomitable to reverse climate crisis, nor believe we are God. Simply, and scientifically, we created the crisis; it's up to us to change it. Superlative red herring ad hominem attacks on humanity have no place in the argument.
"Now, living in the wreckage we created by ignoring the planet, living now with the planet’s predictable responses, who do we think we are to reenter the arena declaring our capacity for victory?"
We are the ones who caused the problem and no one is claiming victory, another falsehood. We are the ones to what we can.
"We pump ourselves up with hope like a sports team on steroids preparing for a tough game. But this game has its own rules which we ignored and violated for centuries. It is the height of Anthropocentrism — asserting ourselves as the primary players — to proclaim that we are indomitable."
More nonsense. Hope doesn't have to be like steroids. It can simply be based on reality and the science. The game of climate crisis abides the rules of science, not your made up assertions, ironically enough. Yes, we are primary players because we caused the mess. Indomitability has nothing to do with it; it's about care and responsibility.
This essay breeds nihilism and depression, **unnecessarily** because the info is not scientifically backed.
I've written at length on the climate crisis and a section of the book, "Navigating the Doom and Denial of the Climate Crisis," shines a more realistic light on all these dynamics. The section of the book is available for free, here:
https://jackadamweber.com/free-downloads/
And no, I didn't write this comment to advertise my own writing, which I offer for free. :) I wrote it as an activist for accuracy and critical thinking and to save anyone grief who is disheartened by the nonsense.
