December 4, 2016 - 23:55
How can individuals in society make change? With conflicting ideals and a constant race for profit, it seems implausible for us to work together for a common goal. Even with the facts laid out for many, some choose to ignore the dire state that the world is in. Throughout literature it becomes a common theme for people to realize how there is a severe lack of cooperation between governments, corporations, and individuals when attempting to create solutions. Namely, it becomes strikingly obvious in both Collapse of Western Civilization and As the World Burns that the world is taking a severe downturn in terms of environmental health. Yet, even with this apocalyptic framing, we see that the future holds an undesirable system where the government takes all control. However, on the other hand we are given a vision of change led by individuals that is far too idealistic to actually take place. While both scenarios provide possible outcomes to the world’s current situation, neither provide a realistic solution. Rather, the focus should be on a shift towards a balance of the two extremities where human society is neither completely broken down nor completely controlled. Changing people’s mindset into a balanced give and take relationship with the earth seems to be a realistic while effective path even with the complications that may arise.
Humans seem to be inherently greedy, focusing on their present gains rather than planning for possible outcomes in the future. Throughout the Collapse of Western Civilization, various groups of people struggle to make do with the tragic outcome of anthropogenic climate change. Although by that point “scientists had recognized that concentrations of Co2 and other greenhouse gases were having discernable effects… threating grave consequences if not rapidly controlled” (Oreskes and Conway 4). However, even with these scientific facts, many critics in the population denied the oncoming change and these thoughts gradually spread throughout some nations, mainly the United States. Although they knew of these incoming changes and the drastic changes they would have on the earth, people continued to invest in fossil fuels while denying the adverse effects to come. Even with the rising sea levels and dry weather, the collapse of Western civilization seemed to lie in the hands of those who “had a strong interest in maintaining the use of fossil fuels” or the industries that were all associated with drilling (Oreskes and Conway 36). The future here provides a clear view that makes it obvious that those who led to the eventual downfall of climate change held a profit driven motive to do so. Governments who were controlled closely by corporations had a difficult time changing their habits, even when the opportunity to do so was right there for them. This dystopian world exemplifies the realities that the current world is facing today: governments who are weak to the fossil fuel industry’s clutch and the lack of power for individuals to change it. However, the future outcome the novel provides is one that is undesirable, if not frightening. While society collapsed due to its mistakes, other governments had taken a stronger hold of their people, regulating and managing resources and output. While this was the only successful solution there was in the novel, it seems to be one that is painful for us to imagine as the individual is removed for the sake of the community.
Although humans are depicted as just as greedy, if not more, in the fictional world in As the World Burns, the solution they provide to the impending doom of the world is far too idealistic to be real. The heavily polluted world is sold off to others for gold, with no care that comes to the future. Both the corporations and the government are labeled as institutions that are unwilling to make any changes so the world has a chance to recuperate. The lobbyist claims that going so far to leave only seventy five fish and trees for the environment is the best that they could do while any reader would realize that leaving just those would create severe environmental issues (Jensen and McMillan 110). Even when the world is in disarray, corporations are willing to destroy the world in order to provide themselves with more material wealth while the government resists making change to stop corporations. The novel makes it clear that even if the readers themselves are not a part of these institutions, they as well are not doing anything to make change. Even with minor actions such as recycling or reaching out on social media, the larger effects from climate change will still continue as long as there is the outpouring of toxic waste. Therefore, in combating these institutions, people living in this world literally break down normal society by going against what they have been doing this whole time and return to nature. While this seems to be an ideal way to combat climate change, the plausibility of it seems too far for most people to comprehend. Besides the fact that humans in the graphic novel talk to animals and wage a war with robots, simply hoping that everyone would make this drastic shift away from modern technology as we know it seems impossible. Not everyone will respect the world as it is as there will always be those who will have the mindset that the world is there for the taking. Without a drastic shift as a whole society, this type of change is only a dream.
Neither of these worldviews seem very livable, or likeable to say the least. Either live within a totalitarian government dictating the people’s every move, or completely destroy current society and live with nature. While both of these provide solutions to the current state of affairs, the two extremes are not the best pathway to take. Rather than moving to such extremes, I would propose that instead of completely restructuring our government or lifestyles, we as people who live on the earth should foster a relationship with the world that serves a healthier balance. Finding a middle ground between the endings provided in the two novels seems to be a better alternative, one that displays an opportunity for people to create change while modifying the current structure of society. With stricter environmental regulation from the government such as repopulating resources that have been used and support from the individuals in making sure that they do not support those who are breaking regulation, this provides a method for gradual yet effective change in the way that we live on this earth. Of course, this does not come without its difficulties as it is still possible that there will be those who are unwilling to distance themselves from the consumerism that much of Western society is built upon. However, this requires that people take at least some part in fostering an environment where we can live in harmony with nature. In doing so, this creates a space in which individuals are not only working within the system, but are able to combat against the overlying assumption that greed rules people’s minds. As commonly seen throughout the Collapse of Western Civilization and As the World Burns, people are often driven by profit to act as they do, whether it be selling off the environment for their own gains or denying the changes that are going on around them. In this new method of thought, where individuals work in partnership with the environment, people are instead an opportunity to combat consumerism by opting out of the capital-driven society we are so focused upon. By placing our beliefs on the environment and in living with the earth, people are given an opportunity to shift away from harmful modes of living.
Although we are given negative outlooks on the future of environmental change, especially given the recent events surrounding climate change denial and the heating of the globe, there is still a positive outlook on what we are still able to accomplish. Neither a totalitarian society nor anarchy provides the answers that the people need in the world today. Instead, society as a whole, on both the individual and institutional level, should be focusing on working towards a mindset shift that would enable us to work together in relation to the earth to create the change that we need. Working in partnership with the government and focusing on guiding institutions as individuals may be the best option for us to make substantial change. Minor changes to our everyday lifestyles as well as major changes to the way society works must go hand in hand to create change as a whole. Instead of focusing on either end, such as total governmental operation of resources or individual levels of rejecting society, people need to focus on taking the beneficial aspects of each extreme and find a balance that in the end, will balance with the earth as well.