reading log: goldstein 2024

1 files changed, 25 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/reading-log.md b/reading-log.md
index 645076a..e228f13 100644
--- a/reading-log.md
+++ b/reading-log.md
@@ -6,6 +6,31 @@ author: Joe Carstairs
 
 ## 2026-04-24
 
+### @{goldstein-2024}
+
+Goldstein argues that right-wing people have labelled the climate movement
+'apocalyptic' in order to try and discredit it. He says it is ironic that the
+right wingers are accusing the climate movement of being religious when it is
+them that are denying the science. He concludes that climate science (which he
+conflates with the climate movement, because the climate movement is based on
+climate science) does have some aspects of biblical apocalypticism, but not
+others, and it should therefore be happy to adopt a 'secularised' notion of
+apocalypse.
+
+The features climate science shares with biblical apocalyptic are revealing the
+future, catastrophe and moral dualism. This is fine and should not change: these
+are simply the scientific facts. The differences are as follows: there is
+nothing 'otherworldly' or 'metaphysical' about climate science, there is no hope
+placed in a messianic saviour but rather in collective action, and there is no
+guarantee of a redemptive afterwards or of judgement or of salvation.
+
+I found his argument very weak and distressingly myopic. His account of the
+similarities and differences between 'climate science' and apocalyptic neatly
+summarised, I think, just the kind of climate apocalyptic that is justly
+criticised for a variety of reasons, and fails to recognise the need for climate
+communication, even that which is 'scientific', to be fictionalised, and the
+need -- as many people see it -- for an ultimate hope.
+
 ### @{fagan-2017}
 
 Horribly unreadable, in the way I associate with 'critical theory.' A couple of