diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | reading-log.md | 25 |
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 |