The Collapse of Western Civilization

These two addendums support the text by providing more nuanced satirical criticism in the “Lexicon of Archaic Terms” and by sharing insight into the authors’ choices and intentions in the interview, which allows the authors to explain how they wish for the text to be interpreted, thus helping the authors achieve their purpose.

Most of the definitions included in the lexicon are real-world terms, and the definitions, although often satirical, are relatively accurate. The main exception is the term “synthetic-failure paleoanalysis”: The term is briefly mentioned in the first chapter alongside historians and archaeologists. Its importance is gleaned from its definition in the Lexicon, which allows the reader to infer that the historian is also a synthetic-failure paleoanalyst, or someone who researches failure. The emphasis on failure can be interpreted as either a warning or an observation; the reader may understand the discussion as a warning that Western humans must change their ways to preserve their societies, or they may view societal collapse as an inevitability.

The definitions for “environment” and “environmental protection” elaborate on the idea that humans are part of the natural environment. Many people living in the modern world draw a sharp distinction between human activity and nature; this reinforces the traditional view that humans are separate from nature and some religious views that humans have dominion over nature. The text defines “environment” as “[t]he archaic concept which, separating humans from the rest of the world, identified the nonhuman component as something which carried particular aesthetic, recreational, or biological value” (55). Those living in the Penumbra who argued humans are part of the environment, such as Paul Ehrlich and the Meadows, are called “radical.” These definitions imply that modern humans need to adjust their mindset to eliminate this distinction between humans and the environment. To protect the environment is to protect humanity, and vice versa.

In the interview, Fitzgerald targets multiple controversial points, which allows Oreskes and Conway to clarify several points more directly and avoid misinterpretation. Climate change discussions are often controversial because supporters of climate action often use drastic and ominous warnings, including the idea that humans will go extinct if they do not mitigate climate change. Conway points out that humans have lived through other climate change events. This is a reference to studies of earlier hominin species. Hominins existed before the last ice age, and they not only adapted to the dropping temperatures but also expanded northward during that time. Thus, the authors assert that The Collapse of Western Civilization is an optimistic tale; although many people suffer and perish because of climate change, humans are able to adapt, regroup, and create a seemingly better world.

Other controversial topics that Fitzgerald brings up include the choices to set the text in neo-communist China and to criticize American culture. The former decision was influenced by Merchants of Doubt, which was a prior collaborative effort of Oreskes and Conway. The characters were anti-communists—“They believed that political freedom was tied to economic freedom, so restrictions on economic freedom threatened political freedom” (69). Rather than promoting communism, the choice to set the text in neo-communist China was intended to emphasize Logical Fallacies of Neoliberalism and the Free Market. By not acting to prevent climate change, people make it more likely that authoritarian governments will emerge. As Oreskes argues, “So people who care about freedom should want to see early action to prevent catastrophic climate change” (70).

The authors similarly defend their portrayal of the United States. Fitzgerald poses the question in confrontational language, asking, “Just how much do you hate the American way of life? What gives you the intellectual chutzpah to make these kinds of projections?” (78). His phrasing suggests either his disagreement with the book or an attempt at dramatizing the interview to add tension and make it more appealing. The authors respond that traditional American lifestyles and values are being replaced with capitalistic consumption. Through their answers, they directly state that one intended purpose of the text is to protect what they regard as more authentic American values by discouraging neoliberalism and encouraging climate action.