Different Judgments, Same Narrative

On page 95 of The Energy Reader,  authors Tom Butler, Daniel Lerch, and George Wuerthner discuss the idea that there are two pervasive myths about the future in our society; the myth of progress and the myth of apocalypse.

The first, they posit, is the idea that “human history… is a grand tale of human improvement” (Butler 95).  It is a belief that throughout human history, our species and the societies we create have been getting progressively better and better.  Humans used to be primitive and superstitious, this myth says, but then something changed and led us on the path to where we are now; civilized and have scientific knowledge that allows us to lead better lives and have a greater understanding of our world.  Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner further posit that the myth of progressed in predicated on the idea of limitlessness.  In the past, limits (such as that on the amount of energy available to us) gave way before us as we gain technological knowledge and skill, so the impending limits (on fossil fuel use, CO2 production, and population, to name a few) will give way as well as our knowledge increases, posit believers in the myth of progress. 

The myth of apocalypse, on the other hand, is a myth that “people once lived in harmony with their world, each other, and themselves, but that golden age ended with a disastrous wrong turning and things have gone downhill ever since.”  According to this myth, at some point, things changed and led us out of harmony and into a chaotic world where priorities are misplaced and people are frenzied and lonely.  Our society, posit believers in the myth of apocalypse, is on a collision course and will soon fail in an epic manner.

Neither of these myths are correct, say Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner.  Contrary to the tenets of the myth of progress, there truly are limits, and progress is not always good.  Also, our society did not actually change as radically over the centuries as believers of this myth think.  Progress is also not inevitable; when we run into limits, progress will slow down begin to move in the opposite direction.  On the other hand, our civilization will not crash and burn.  Yes, there will be famine and war, the authors say, and people will eventually be using technology of the level available before the industrial revolution, but society will remain intact.  Also, this regress will not happen immediately, but rather will take many decades.

What I find interesting is about these two myths is that in fact they are incredibly similar.  They have make different value judgments about what is right, and different beliefs about what is successful, but ultimately the narratives they describe are the same.  In both beliefs, life used to be simpler, people had less knowledge, and humans and nature had much closer interaction.  Then, something changed, and society became more complex, humanity conquered nature, we gained greater knowledge, our social mores changed, and individuals had greater opportunities.  And we are going to continue along this trajectory to its natural conclusion.

The disagreements, then, are about whether these things -- complexity, knowledge, dominion over nature, current social mores, and greater individual opportunity – are good or bad.  But neither belief questions whether these things are the case in the first place, and maybe that is the problem.  We tend to underestimate how advanced previous civilizations were, or, even when we recognize the complex of an ancient civilization, are surprised and consider it an anomaly.  But really, there were many complex ancient societies – and not just Western ones.  The Mayans, Egyptians, and Chinese come to mind.  As for dominion over nature, regardless of whether it’s good or bad, I don’t think we actually have it.  We may think we do, but massive destructive storms and impending climate change disprove that thought.  I recently watched a video that illustrated this fairly well – in a community meeting in Hawaii, several people of European descent argued for trying to divert a lava flow despite a poor track record of success with this technique, until native Hawaiians reminded them that lava doesn’t work that way – it’ll go wherever it goes and you can’t control it.

In conclusion, I think the myth of progress and the myth of apocalypse, while seemingly opposites, actually share the same narrative as a premise.  I don’t think that this premise is accurate, however, which is why the myths’ predictions are not accurate.