\magnification=\magstep1
\centerline{MONT 104N -- Modeling the Environment}
\centerline{Reading/Study Questions on {\it The Uninhabitable Earth}}
\centerline{August, 2019}
\bigskip
\item{I.}  Some personal reactions to begin:
\itemitem{A)} Have you or your family already been subject to effects of climate
change?  In what ways?
\itemitem{B)} Is your thinking about the how humans relate to the natural world 
different from your parents' or grandparents' thinking?  In what ways?  For instance, do you, 
or your parents, or your grandparents enjoy doing things outdoors more?   
\itemitem{C)} Have you or your friends been involved in activities related to environmental 
issues?  Do you want to find out how to get involved?
\bigskip
\item{II.}  I believe that one possible (maybe even an understandable and natural) 
response to the dire predictions Wallace-Wells lays out is one of {\it grief} for what 
will be lost if the worst comes to pass and humans engineer a planet on which 
humans cannot survive.  Most of us think, I expect, 
that some of the things humans have done (perhaps our art, philosophy,
literature, mathematics, science, etc.) go at least some way toward
giving our existence value and meaning.  
\bigskip
\itemitem{A)}  What human accomplishment would you be sorriest to see lost?
\itemitem{B)}  What would it take to preserve some of those accomplishments?
\itemitem{C)}  Is there any point to that preservation if no humans are around to 
appreciate what is saved?  (There's a very touching episode called ``The Inner 
Light'' from Season 5 of {\it Star Trek, the Next Generation} that addresses some
of these questions.)
\bigskip
\item{III.}  Part II (Elements of Chaos) of {\it The Uninhabitable Earth}
is a catalog of different effects of
climate change at increases in global average temperature of 2, 4, 6, 8
degrees Celsius over the pre-Industrial Revolution period.  Some critics
(see II below in particular) have pointed out that while Wallace-Wells has
relied for the most part on accepted science in describing the causes and
potential effects of climate change, he has consistently presented only
worst-case scenarios rather than ranges of possible outcomes with estimates
of their likelihood.  
\itemitem{A)} Does this seem like a fair characterization?  
\itemitem{B)} Why do you suppose he has chosen to structure this section in this way?  
\itemitem{C)} Does it add to or diminish the power of the points he is trying to make?
\bigskip
\item{IV.} The well-known climate scientist Michael Mann (originator of the famous
``hockey stick'' graph used in Al Gore's ``An Inconvenient Truth'') wrote
about Wallace-Wells' book on his Facebook page: ``I am not a fan of this
sort of doomist framing. It is important to be up front about the risks of
unmitigated climate change, ... [but there is] danger in overstating the
science in a way that presents the problem as unsolvable, and feeds a
sense of doom, inevitability, and hopelessness.'' You should compare this
with Wallace-Wells' own analysis of ``scientific reticence'' in the
face of charges of ``alarmism'' on pages 155-157.  
\medskip
\itemitem{A)} Did you feel some of that sense of doom, inevitability, and
hopelessness in reading this?  
\itemitem{B)} What do you think Wallace-Wells' reply to Mann would be?  Would he
claim that ``alarmism'' is justified now?  If so, why?
\itemitem{C)} Is the global picture of climate change still too big and too hard
to grasp for most humans?  
\bigskip
\item{V.}  On p. 31, in the midst of Part I (Cascades), Wallace-Wells writes:
``The thing is, I am optimistic.  Given the fact that humans could
engineer a climate that is 6 or even 8 degrees warmer over the course
of the next several centuries--large swaths of the planet unlivable by
any definition we use today--that degraded muddle counts, for me, as an encouraging future.  Warming
of 3 or 3.5 degrees would unleash suffering beyond anything that humans
have ever experienced through many millennia of strain and strife and
all-out war.  But it is not a fatalistic scenario; in fact it's a whole
lot better than where we are headed.''  
\medskip
\itemitem{A)}  What is the {\it degraded muddle} that Wallace-Wells is 
referring to here?
\itemitem{B)}  What do you think about this ``it could be worse'' brand of optimism?  
Is it optimism at all?
\itemitem{C)} According to Wallace-Wells, even the ``degraded muddle'' outcome would
require measures such as world-wide carbon taxes, development and
deployment of atmospheric CO2 extraction technology, drastic changes
in our food-production methods and diets, geoengineering by injection
of other gases (such as SO2) into the atmosphere that would reflect more
sunlight, and so forth.  What are the obstacles to implementing those ideas?
Look for what Wallace-Wells says about those technological solutions
elsewhere in the book(!)
\itemitem{D)}  What would it take to get enough people around the world on board with
them to make a real difference?  Is that at all likely?  
\itemitem{E)} What did you think of the various ``fringe'' responses described in the
``Ethics at the End of the World'' section starting on page 204?
\itemitem{F)} Is there any actual reason for optimism?  Or is it just the only outlook that
does not lead to a complete collapse?
\bigskip
\item{VI.}  On page 220, Wallace-Wells says ``If we allow global warming to
proceed, and to punish us with all the ferocity we have fed it, it will
be because we have chosen that punishment--collectively walking down
a path of suicide.  If we avert it, it will be because we have chosen
to walk a different path, and endure.'' And farther down that same page,
``If humans are responsible for the problem, they must be capable of
undoing it.''  
\itemitem{A)}  What is the relation between humans and the rest of the natural
world at present?  
\itemitem{B)}  Are we really in such complete control of our collective fate?
More concretely, are humans even capable of decision-making and
action on the global scale he is talking about?
\itemitem{C)}  Page 221:  What is the meaning of Enrico Fermi's question:  ``Where
is everybody?''  
\itemitem{D)}  From the review ``Down to Earth,'' Meehan Crist, The New Republic,
April 9, 2019:  ``...the way we define problems shapes our definition of
solutions. If stories locate the problem in a realm where humans have
some control, in politics and policy, they might point down a road toward
salvaging something of human civilization. The future is undoubtedly bleak--to
suggest we will ``solve'' climate change is to ignore the truth unfolding
all around us--but it is not wholly settled. At the end of a political
story, there is at least the possibility, however belated, of action.
At the end of a tragedy, there is just tragedy, though some readers might
feel catharsis on the road to ruin.''  Is this ultimately a political
story?  Are there clear villains to blame?  Or has everything in
human history since the development of agriculture been a colossal mistake?
(see pages 198-199)?
\bye
