cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27088982
This book is creating quite a buzz. See the basics and one review among many.
People being what they are, there’s no doubt that this is an election-winning agenda for the Democrats. And the authors are both very serious people. I’m reluctant to write off Ezra Klein, who IMO is not just very smart but also circumspect and fair-minded.
But all this also looks to me like an advanced case of deluded wishful thinking. Or of “cornucopian economics”, as EO Wilson called it.
What to conclude?
I think Malcolm Harris had a very good review of it. I have not read it, but I listen to Ezra Klein enough that I think I know his pitch. I think the book is about 10 years behind the times. I’m glad it was published because it offers an opportunity for examination.
I think Klein is scared of the idea of degrowth, but might come around. I noted that he casually used the term “solarpunk” in an interview about a month ago in a mention of Lina Khan’s belief that we don’t need big tech to advance AI.
I’m more curious about the responses to this book than the book itself.
Interesting. I share your general take so it’s good to know I’m not missing something obvious.
TBH I’m finding it very hard not to psychoanalyze. EK is a super conscientious intellectual with two young children. He’s therefore super invested in making his moral choices add up correctly. This insidious thought first occurred to me a couple of years back when he began emphasizing that the most recent climate forecasts are - surprise! - better than than the previous ones. (That said, I like to use this factoid when talking to complete pessimists, because mindless pessimism is a danger in itself IMO.)
he casually used the term “solarpunk” in an interview
Pretty sure I remember that and it pricked my ears up too.
I have thought quite a bit about this.
I remember a week last year where Ezra Klein interviewed Hannah Richie, author of “Not the End of the World”, and Adam Conover interviewed a guest whose name escapes me, but basically was arguing an opposite opinion to Richie. Conover had interviewed Richie only a week or two earlier, and so the podcasts created this fascinating split-screen.
Conover and his guest explored the thesis that we’re in a cataclysmic crisis, and in such a situation we should be ready to shake things up. Call things as they are. Recent climate wins are nowhere near enough and demand MORE.
Meanwhile, Klein and Richie explored the thesis that we’re in a cataclysmic crisis, and in such a situation we need to be very constructive in our guidance. Call things as they are, but don’t create panic. Recent climate wins are evidence that change is possible even if they’re nowhere near enough, so we should celebrate these as we keep negotiating for more.
These four basically agreed on all the basic facts. But whereas Conover and his guest were ready to rumble, Klein and Richie both quietly admitted to one another that they’d largely gone vegan out of recognition that this kind of change was necessary, but neither liked to talk too much about it for fear for being derided as radical or preachy. I have since joked that Adam Conover seems to be who Ezra Klein would turn into if he drank Dr. Jeckel’s disinhibiting transformation potion.
That’s where I think Klein is. I think he sees the logic in many things, but he’s fundamentally an anxious, data-driving cynic who – perhaps rightly – recognizes that most revolutions fail, and those that succeed have plenty of case studies of producing terribly disappointing outcomes. So he tries to do what he thinks is reasonable.
I think he’s an interesting bellwether for mainstream thought, and could be persuaded further to the left.
Interesting insight, thanks!
I do remember the interview with Hannah Richie and thinking something similar. After all this careful hedging about how we need to keep things in perspective and perhaps it’s not so bad, she suddenly admits to personal behavior that suggests otherwise! But I definitely took her more seriously because of that.
I’d say EK is cautious rather than a cynic (tho perhaps the meaning of this powerful word is migrating). And honestly, I share his general temperament.
What really bothers me about EK is his apparent ecological illiteracy. Yes, we know that voters like economic growth. To the point that it might even be a prerequisite for democracy and individual rights (I suspect this fear is what is driving EK). But we also know that economic growth is closely correlated with ecological destruction, and that the dream of absolute decoupling is nowhere in sight. And that there will be no social progress left to protect with a biosphere in full breakdown. At this point these observations are pretty close to anodyne scientific truth. I expect doctrinaire orthodox economists to wave them away or ignore them - but so does this thoughtful vegan. I don’t get it. Am I really smarter than Ezra Klein? For me it’s an ongoing mystery.
