Horizon

As Warren Zevon said: "I'm OK with it, but it'll be a drag if I don't make it 'til the next James Bond movie comes out."

Was there ever genuinely a time when people believed their world was always going to be the same?

The specifics may be different, but do you think that the effect of this apocalyptic vision is any different from those of the past?

Come to think of it, the effects are completely different, aren't they? A real apocalypse is supposed to get people upset and doing things they ordinarily wouldn't do: giving away all their possessions, for instance, or running off to another country, or making homemade bombs, or being nice to each other, that sort of thing.

Whereas in this case, perhaps because it is not a religious apocalypse with characters and a well-defined purpose, but the dull treading of faceless natural forces, almost everyone is really rather blase about it.

And if that's true, then concern about poorly planned asteroid flight paths is really not the same at all and I can fret about it with abandon, without feeling in the back of my mind that I'm being a rube.

On the other hand, maybe the real difference is that no one is pretending to know precisely when it will happen. A date and time captures the imagination more than some very large statistics.

Depends. I think you see in the later Classical writers a cognitive inability to imagine a world without the Roman Empire, even as it was visibly falling apart around them. But then, Rome had been a reality for 1,000 years by then; it would be a bit like us imagining a world without, say, France (append jokes here).

Come to think of it, the effects are completely different, aren't they?

I'm not so sure. If I were the enviro-skeptic type, I might argue that things like the Kyoto treaty and SUV-stickering were modern-day attempts to propitiate the gods by sacrifice and mortification of the flesh. As it is, I do think that that sort of warding-off-the-apocalypse mentality motivates a lot of the participants in environmental debate, even when the suggested courses of actions may be reasonable ideas on their own.

I think you see in the later Classical writers a cognitive inability to imagine a world without the Roman Empire, even as it was visibly falling apart around them.

Not just as it was falling (or being transformed) around them, but for hundreds of years after. "The Holy Roman Empire" was more than just a striking name and a bit of inspired PR.

If I were the enviro-skeptic type, I might argue that things like the Kyoto treaty and SUV-stickering were modern-day attempts to propitiate the gods by sacrifice and mortification of the flesh.

Hm. I guess this whole "evironmentalism as crypto-religion" meme is a good example of how anything dealing with the end of the world will inevitably take on a religious cast, either in the minds of environmentalists or of those who'd like to undermine them through what amounts to an ad hominem attack.

If I go out and take up yoga and give up beer you could say I'm sacrificing and mortifying the flesh, and that, instead of rationally desiring to improve my own health I am in fact a religious looney. For all anyone knows, you might be right too.

I think there's a little more to it than the "looking like a crank" factor. Much like taboo, apocalypticism seems hardwired into the human soul. It's a way we make sense of the world, and one which we use almost instinctively.

Sometimes the cathari are correct, or at least form part of a larger, heterogenous group that is. That doesn't make their motivations more rational, but it doesn't make them wrong, either.

In a lot of these cases, you have to think long and hard about the issues and tradeoffs before you make a decision, and grapple with your own individual motivations. It's especially important to get out of whatever community of likeminded believers you're most familiar with. I recently talked to a couple who are using cloth diapers instead of disposable ones for environmental reasons. I admire their motives, but around here we've got a lot more space for landfills than we do water for cleaning. (I kept my mouth shut, of course.)

I recently talked to a couple who are using cloth diapers instead of disposable ones for environmental reasons.

Ben, are you suggesting that your friends are doing this from a kind of religious instinct?

I think yes, but the whole analogy starts to fall apart each time I try to explain it. Something about ritual performance rather than cost-benefit analysis in the decision-making process.

I'm not sure I can defend the point at all if pressed, though.

Moyers has some thoughts that complement the Diamond/Posner review in the same NYRB issue.

I'd had a couple of pints, they'd warmed me up inside, and the cigar smoke oozing round my new teeth gave me a fresh, clean, peaceful sort of feeling.All of a sudden I felt kind of thoughtful and philosophic. It was partly because I didn't have any work to do. My mind went back to the thoughts of war I'd been having earlier that morning, when the bomber flew over the train. I felt in a kind of prophetic mood, the mood in which you foresee the end of the world and get a certain kick out of it.

- George Bowling

Moyers has apologized for some chunks of the essay, and the rest of his screed has been pretty throroughly taken apart.

Myself, I find it hard to believe that anyone really familiar with sincere Christian fundamentalists could do anything other than roll their eyes at Moyers and assume that the next several articles they read about the administration's environmental policies are also crying wolf. It doesn't help that he looks to George Monbiot of all people to inform his opinion of the Millennialist Peril.

This sort of thing is precisely the type of reasoning that (when it comes from the Right) Tom Tomorrow caricatures so well in his "Why do you Liberals hate America?" strips. It may work to fire up a base who's never had personal contact with the hated Other, but it's so transparently ridiculous to a listener with any real-world experience of the subjects that it's simply self-discrediting. It makes the speaker look like a vicious ignoramus, and tars an otherwise reasonable cause by association with such a jackass.

I don't know anyone who would label themselves a "fundamentalist", but I was surprised to see someone of Moyers's (very low) caliber in the NYRB, and thought his article was extremely poorly written. For whatever that's worth.

My only other exposure to Moyers was his interviews with Joseph Campbell on myth, a very long time ago. Don't remember anything objectionable about that, and was surprised to see this article from him.

I seem to recall he worked for LBJ in the 60's. So he might have that other kind of old time religion.

So the Bush admin's political indebtedness to fundamentalist true believers isn't to worry about?

And what's low about Moyers' caliber?

So the Bush admin's political indebtedness to fundamentalist true believers isn't to worry about?

On other issues, yes. On environmental ones, no.

In fact, this is one of those fracture points where the coalition between economic conservatives and social conservatives could be split very easily, and the rank and file religious would be on the environmentalist side. This should be obvious -- how many serious believers in the Second Coming are concerned with issues of "stewardship"?

Of course persuading them would require a serious effort to understand them, which we're not likely to get by listening to Moyers's rant. In fact, no one will even bother if their only data point is this caricature.

A better response to the Moyers article is here.

And in case it wasn't clear, the correct answer to my "steweardship" question was "most".

I heard Bill McKibben on the radio today talking about conservative religious groups as one of the political categories that might eventually decide its members had a stake in environmental preservation.

Who's Bill McKibben?

Regarding religious conservatives, I really think they're in the same position with respect to Republicans as union members were WRT Democrats in the 90's. The visible leadership isn't leaving the political party any time soon. There are, however, plenty of issues on which the membership is either being poorly served or taken for granted by the party. You'll never sway the leadership, or even the majority of the membership, but might be able to carve out substantial constituencies by identifying issues they have in common with the opposition, rather than the party of nominal loyalty.

If that holds, what are the analogues to gun control? The deep anti-materialist streak among most religious can't jibe too well with the marketolatry in vogue over the past decade — see the book of Joel. Environmental issues would also appeal, so long as the terminology is that of stewardship and responsibility rather than animal rights and Gaia. It's a cliché that homeschoolers are either hippies or fundies: surely there's some sort of common ground there. Dave Ramsey may have come out for Social Security privatization, but he's taken a lot of heat from his fans, and might have a thing or two to say about the bankruptcy bill.

This is what annoys me most about articles like Moyers'. It's as if a Republican strategist in the 90s looked at white union members, noted their reliable support for the Democratic party, and used quotes from some union leaders to paint the membership as a monolithic horde of athiestic gun grabbers who supported flag burning and opposed school prayer. I think that common ground exists, but these guys are not only not looking, they're dissuading anyone else from looking for it.

Back on topic:

Am I being a fool?

Possibly not. I had a similar conversation a year ago about "Peak Oil." Survivalism can actually be quite fun, but in a sense it's The Hobby that Dare Not Speak Its Name. You should probably disguise it as a series of more respectable interests like camping, brewing, and gardening.

I recommend Captain Dave's Survival Center. In particular, his section on caches is lots of fun.

Why does every conversation come back to brewing around here? Are we gonna have to pass a new Godwin's Law about it?

Re: Bill McKibben, see .

Ben, that's a really interesting comparison to union members and the Democratic Party. Worth thinking about.

Oops, McKibben link didn't come through. It's http://www.annonline.com/interviews/981217/biography.html .

It's a cliché that homeschoolers are either hippies or fundies: surely there's some sort of common ground there.

Yes. See here for example. Some homeschoolers are simply dissatisified with the quality of public education, or want to give the benefits of homeschooling to their kids (I think it's well-established now that homeschooled kids do consistently better on standardized tests).

Possibly not. I had a similar conversation a year ago about "Peak Oil." Survivalism can actually be quite fun, but in a sense it's The Hobby that Dare Not Speak Its Name. You should probably disguise it as a series of more respectable interests like camping, brewing, and gardening.

Peak oil, I'd forgotten about that one. Not to worry, I've already informed all my friends that in the event of the collapse of society into a quasi-feudal state -- or for that matter of a zombie-producing plague -- I would be their only source of beer. They don't seem impressed but they aren't wondering yet where their water will come from.

or for that matter of a zombie-producing plague

Ahh — it's just not an apocalypse without flesh-eating zombies, is it?