All Things Considered: Climate Change from Different Angles
By Steven ArnerichFrom the January 8, 2010 issue | Posted in Books , Culture , Reviews | Email this article

Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto
By Stewart Brand
Viking, 2009
Now that more people are attuned to the ticking clock of climate change, there is no shortage of theories for how the next act will play out. Though scientists, activists and theorists have been wildly off the mark so far, they continue to guess at what will be the solutions — and pitfalls — for getting the planet back on track.
Stewart Brand first made his mark not by imagining the future, but by making it happen. His Whole Earth Catalog of 1968 (published through the early 1970s), changed publishing, kick-started the computer revolution, the green movement, organic farming and the whole concept of living off the grid.
His signature scattershot style — he served as the Catalog’s editor — brought together openended possibilities: In a single place one could learn about abandoned railroads, barn building, integrated circuits, the illusion of money and several thousand other things one had never heard of. It was subtitled Access to Tools. It would not be a stretch to say it laid the groundwork for the internet.
In his new book, Whole Earth Discipline, Brand intends to serve, if not the same smorgasbord, then at least a little something in the same style. He is quick to throw ideas around: don’t worry about polar bears, let them interbreed with grizzlies; slums empower women and slow population growth; no agricultural product has been “natural” for 10,000 years; coal has killed more people than radiation. Like Al Gore, he’s certain that if we don’t do anything, we’re toast. There’s plenty of counterintuitive things actually worth trying. He introduces the reader to dozens of scientists who support, and sometimes oppose, his ideas.
What’s his prescription? Embrace nuclear power, genetic modification and geoengineering and stop trying to solve the imaginary problem of what might happen. (Anyone remember Y2K? He admits he was wrong about that.) Brand considers Yucca Mountain to be the “classic example of the folly of long-term planning” — why should we expect that nuclear waste disposal must remain intact for 10,000 years? It’s more likely that we will dig up buried waste to use as fuel long before it leaks out; or it’s just as likely we’ll be reduced to a new stone age, and then radiation will be the least of our problems.
As for genetic modification, he quotes Bertolt Brecht: “Grub first, then ethics.” Brand makes the unsettling accusation that Greenpeace’s opposition to genetically modified food has condemned millions to death by starvation. From an African point of view, a European ban on genetic modification gives Europe an economic advantage at Africa’s peril.
With this approach, it is difficult to say Brand is wrong about any one thing, since he often changes the subject from one paragraph to the next. His cavalier suggestion that no state would risk handing nuclear weapons over to stateless terrorists for fear of retaliation doesn’t sound like a safe bet to me, imaginary problem or not. Despite Brand’s attempts at persuasion, making the leap from (to paraphrase Brand) “lots of what we worry about has already been solved” to “technology can fix any problem” is not a compromise I am always willing to make.
On the other hand: mirrors in space? Why not? A 1991 volcano sent enough sulphur into the upper atmosphere to cool the planet by half a degree; enough to account, maybe, for a slightly higher birthrate of polar bears in 1992. Is it crazy to send more sulphur up there? Not as crazy as burning a few thousand gallons of jet fuel, well-proven to have the opposite effect, on your next summer vacation.
On balance, Whole Earth Discipline is essential reading—Brand refuses to give us easy answers, but positions himself, correctly, I believe, at the core of the scientific method: restless, optimistic and never fully resolved.
2 Responses to “All Things Considered: Climate Change from Different Angles”
February 4th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
As the author of the review, I have to say, wow. I had little
interest in presenting the standard progressive stance on the issues
in Brand’s book, as I believe they ought to be well understood by Indy
readers, and as Reader has glossed them.
What I did try to do was present Brand as a valid contributor to a
debate that is much larger than any of us could do justice to in 700
words or less. That I failed to do so, I guess I can take credit for
and apologize for.
That Amory Lovins tears Brand a new one is no truer than Brand doing
the same to Lovins - that’s what a debate is. Reader seems to think he
has a stranglehold on the truth that is strong enough to choke off
such a debate. I tried to point out that Brand isn’t interested in
that kind of truth. I have to apologize for failing at that as well.
All this time, I had an idea that the scientific method is never
satisfied with doctrine, only with unanswered questions. Will Reader
enlighten me?
































January 13th, 2010 at 4:10 am
This article seems to endorse Brand’s ideas. At the minimum, it’s completely uncritical.
Why not point out Brand’s contention that “Greenpeace’s opposition to genetically modified food has condemned millions to death by starvation” is Monsanto’s line, and it is one giant fallacy. Hunger and starvation in Africa have nothing to do with GMOs. They have to do with a history of Western-based slavery, resource exploitation, theft and territorial conquest (which was often abetted by a comprador class).
It’s also absolutely fallacious to make arguments in favor of geoengineering such as, “Is it crazy to send more sulphur up there [in the atmosphere]? Not as crazy as burning a few thousand gallons of jet fuel…”
This is known as the two wrongs fallacy: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html
The argument in favor of nuclear power is similarly specious. Hey, just because we don’t have any idea what will happen in tens of thousands of years, means we can do whatever we want now. Amory Lovins picks apart Brand’s specious reasoning on nuclear energy here: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths
And then there’s the argument “no agricultural produce is ‘natural’ anymore. Presumably this also justifies GMOs. Really ?! This is the fallacy of equivocation AND redefinition. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html
For one, what is natural? Humans adapted their environment and plants and animals far before settling down. This is the nature of evolution. Every part of the animal kingdom influences, adapts, selects, creates pressures on all of its ecological surroundings.
What is different about GMOs is that we are creating new life forms through methods that are completely artificial. This is not a slow selection of breeding, but a capital and technological intensive method of rearranging the base genetic makeup of animals. Thus to conclude that the first settled farming justifies every form of bizarre, destructive and exploitative agriculture that is or could be is completely absurd.
Maybe there’s more to the book, but judging by the review, Brand is a drooling moron.