fill in a little prose in main chapters

1 files changed, 32 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/chapter2.md b/chapter2.md
index 7411c83..d760e62 100644
--- a/chapter2.md
+++ b/chapter2.md
@@ -11,3 +11,35 @@ Thesis: anti-apocalyptic criticism of R mis-diagnoses the problem.
 11. In fact, apocalypse can meet the critic's concerns in principle
 12. (In order to do so in practice, those with power need to attack the
     structures which drive the downward spiral)
+
+Since contemporary green rhetoric doesn't work, the rhetors think they need to
+increase the temperature, and drive towards increasingly dire warnings of
+impending catastrophe, thinking that people just need more of a shove. They call
+on the familiar symbolic language of nuclear winter. The interests of mass media
+also favours sensationalist language. This only leads feelings of powerlessness
+to degenerate into despair.
+
+This has led many people to think that the end-of-the-world sensationalism is
+the root cause of the problem. Some have even labelled this trope
+'apocalypticism' and thus blamed the apocalyptic imagination, accusing
+apocalypse as being life-denying, pessimistic, quietist, destructive, and
+hopeless.
+
+This follows a long tradition of authority distrust of apocalyptic imagination,
+and the Apocalypse of St John in particular. Authorities tend to see it as
+exhorting quietist expectation for a supernatural deliverance over taking
+effective action for change, or exhorting sadistic pleasure in witnessing
+vindictive violence, if not participating in such violence oneself. Meanwhile,
+those who have read apocalypse 'from below' tend to emphasise how it has a
+visionary interpretation of the tribulations of this world, and a visionary
+expectation of this world being transformed, and use this vision to motivate
+movements for transformational social change.
+
+In fact, apocalyptic language is perfectly capable of meeting the critics'
+concerns, and the Apocalypse of St John is an excellent demonstration of this.
+
+The apocalyptic form is therefore not the reason that green rhetoric is failing.
+As explored in chapter 1, green rhetoric is failing because it is failing to
+diagnose the root causes of the problem, present a credible route to a credible
+solution, and address an audience that could be persuaded to make a difference.
+Were rhetors to solve these problems, they could use apocalyptic effectively.