December 12, 2016 - 21:02
How are people supposed to create change? Do we work hand in hand with government leaders or do we try to usurp them and try our hand at anarchy? With conflicting ideals and a society that seems to race for profit, it seems implausible for us to work with other groups towards a common goal. Even faced with the facts, many choose to ignore the dire state that the world is in. Throughout literature, common themes surrounding the lack of cooperation between governments, corporations, and individuals becomes common. Namely, it becomes strikingly obvious in both Collapse of Western Civilization and As the World Burns that the world is taking a severe downturn with its environmental health. The apocalyptic framing leaves us with two possible futures: one where we are forced into a system where the government takes all control, or a vision of change led by individuals that is far too idealistic to realistically take place. While both scenarios provide possible outcomes to the world’s current situation, neither provide a favorable solution. Thus, the focus should not be on the split between government and people, but instead a shift towards a balance of the two extremities so that human society is neither completely broken down nor completely controlled. Beginning a mindset shift into a balanced give and take relationship with the earth seems to be a realistic, yet effective path towards helping the environment.
Still, humans seem to be inherently greedy creatures, focused on their present gains rather than planning for the future ahead of them. Throughout the Collapse of Western Civilization, people struggle to face the consequences of anthropogenic climate change. Although by that point “scientists had recognized that concentrations of Co2 and other greenhouse gases were having discernable effects… threating grave consequences if not rapidly controlled,” there was a severe lack of movement towards a sustainable future (Oreskes and Conway 4). Even with these scientific facts, many critics in the population denied the oncoming change. Although many knew of the drastic effects climate change would have, corporations continued to invest in fossil fuels while denying the adverse effects to come. Even with the rising sea levels and dry weather, the collapse of Western civilization seemed to lie in the hands of those who “had a strong interest in maintaining the use of fossil fuels” or the industries that were all associated with drilling (Oreskes and Conway 36). The future depicted here makes the profit motive that drove the earth to its demise obvious. Governments who were controlled closely by corporations had a difficult time changing their habits, even when the opportunity to do so was there. This dystopian world exemplifies the realities that the current world is facing: governments who are weak to the fossil fuel industry’s clutch and the lack of power for individuals to change it. However, the future that the novel outlines depicts a society that is undesirable, if not frightening. While society collapsed due to its mistake, other governments took a stronger hold on their people, regulating and managing resources and output. While this is one way for governments to free themselves from corporate control, it seems to be a painful one for individual citizens to imagine.
Although humans are just as greedy, if not more, in the fictional world in As the World Burns, the solution this novel provides for impending doom is far too idealistic to be real. The heavily polluted world is sold off for mere bricks of gold with no care for the future. While both the corporations and government are labeled as institutions that are unwilling to make change, a few individuals are chosen to portray those who want to help the world. Even so, there are individuals like the lobbyist who depict common human greed where claiming to go so far to leave only seventy-five fish and trees for the environment is the best that they could do (Jensen and McMillan 110). Any reasonable reader would realize the absurdity of the situation. Still, even when the world is in disarray, corporations are willing to destroy the world to provide themselves with more material wealth, a cycle that even the government meant to protect people falls into. The novel makes it clear that even if the readers are not a part of these institutions, their inaction is problematic as well. Even minor actions such as recycling or reaching out on social media, the larger effects of climate change will continue. Therefore, in combating these institutions, people must deconstruct society by going against what is considered the norm and return to nature. While this seems to be an ideal way to combat climate change while maintaining individual freedom, it seems impossible to create collective action. After all, this would require everyone to reject the entirety of their current lifestyles. Simply hoping that everyone would make a drastic shift away from modern inventions is impossible to achieve—if the difficulty for everyone to switch to greener technology is already so high, the chances of completely eradicating said technology is even slimmer. Without a drastic shift, this type of change is only a dream.
Neither of these worldviews seem very livable, or likeable to say the least. Either live within a totalitarian government dictating the people’s every move, or destroy current society and live with nature. While both provide solutions to the current state of affairs, neither of the two choices are favorable. Rather than moving to such extremes, we as people who live on the earth should foster a relationship with the world that serves a healthier balance. Finding a middle ground between the two extremes seems to be a better alternative, one that displays an opportunity for people to create change while modifying the current structure of society. With stricter environmental regulation from the government such as repopulating resources that have been used and support from the individuals in making sure that they do not support those who are breaking regulation, this provides a method for gradual yet effective change in the way that we live on this earth. Of course, this does not come without its difficulties as it is still possible that there will be those who are unwilling to distance themselves from the consumerism that much of Western society is built upon. However, this requires that people take at least some part in fostering an environment where we can live in harmony with nature. In doing so, this creates a space in which individuals are not only working within the system, but can combat against the overlying assumption that greed rules people’s minds. As commonly seen throughout the Collapse of Western Civilization and As the World Burns, people are often driven by profit to act as they do, whether it be selling off the environment for their own gains or denying the changes that are going on around them. In this new method of thought, where individuals work in partnership with the environment, people are instead an opportunity to combat consumerism by opting out of the capital-driven society we are so focused upon. By placing our beliefs on the environment and in living with the earth, people are given an opportunity to shift away from harmful modes of living.
Although we are given negative outlooks on the future of environmental change, especially given the recent events surrounding climate change denial and the heating of the globe, there is still a positive outlook on what we are still able to accomplish. Neither a totalitarian society nor anarchy provides the answers that the people need in the world today. Instead, society on both the individual and institutional level, should be focusing on working towards a mindset shift that would enable us to work together in relation to the earth to create the change that we need. Working in partnership with the government and focusing on guiding institutions as individuals may be the best option for us to make substantial change. Minor changes to our everyday lifestyles as well as major changes to the way society works must go hand in hand to create change. Instead of focusing on either end, such as total governmental operation of resources or individual levels of rejecting society, people need to focus on taking the beneficial aspects of each extreme and find a balance that in the end, will balance with the earth as well.