Apocalyptic rhtoric is both wrong and a mind virus that cripples meaningful policy discussions.
I have my problems with Steven Pinker but this is one issue where he is so correct on it's not even funny.
Apocalyptic rhtoric is both wrong and a mind virus that cripples meaningful policy discussions.
I have my problems with Steven Pinker but this is one issue where he is so correct on it's not even funny.
You've got your causal arrows backwards. Technological progress is fueled by environmental destruction and our use of fossil fuels. I recommend Smil's Energy and Civilization as a relatively neural view on the relationship between our energy usage and civilizational progress.
I understand where the mass denial comes from, recognizing the current state of collapse we are in uproot many of the essential structure of meaning we use to survive so our minds won't trivially let us see them.
Still it is ultimately healthier for everyone to come to grips with this rather than struggle through more and more aggressive and cognitively dissonant forms of denial.
I think that, increasingly, people disagree with this, but it is still a minority opinion.