The World Without Us: Author Interview

Ear­li­er this week I spoke on the phone with Alan Weis­man, the author of The World With­out Us. (See our ini­tial piece on his book.) Alan was gra­cious enough to take some time out of his pub­lic­i­ty sched­ule to share his thoughts on the book, the world, his writ­ing process, and more. What fol­lows is an edit­ed tran­script of our con­ver­sa­tion.

Ed: This book address­es what on the sur­face seems to be a pret­ty far-fetched hypo­thet­i­cal: that human­i­ty might sud­den­ly dis­ap­pear. What drew you to this premise in the first place?

Alan: Well, pre­cise­ly that. Most great envi­ron­men­tal writ­ing does not get read by a lot of the peo­ple who ought to be learn­ing about it because the near­er-term pos­si­bil­i­ties just seem some­times so fright­en­ing, or so depress­ing, that nobody real­ly wants to pick up a book to read it.

By struc­tur­ing the book the way that I did, I dis­arm the auto­mat­ic fear that repels a lot of peo­ple from read­ing about the envi­ron­ment. Peo­ple don’t want to read some­thing that seems too threat­en­ing. On a sub­con­scious or even a con­scious lev­el, they don’t want to be wor­ried we’re all going to die. In my book, killing us off in the first cou­ple of pages means peo­ple don’t have to wor­ry about dying because we’re already dead, and that’s a relief in a sense. The idea of glimps­ing the future is irre­sistible to all of us and I estab­lish pret­ty quick­ly that is not going to just be me spec­u­lat­ing, it’s going to be some hard sci­ence writ­ing based on a lot of report­ing, of talk­ing to experts or eye­wit­ness­es whose guess­es will be far more inter­est­ing than most peo­ples’.

The fact that it is far-fetched is real­ly use­ful because on the one hand real­ly it’s a remote pos­si­bil­i­ty that we would leave, that we would dis­ap­pear tomor­row. So peo­ple don’t go into a pan­ic over this book, and it real­ly gives peo­ple enough time to think about these things with­out pan­ick­ing about it. So that’s how this device works, and I think it’s been proven to be very effec­tive. I’m get­ting a lot more peo­ple to read it than just peo­ple who are hung up on the envi­ron­ment.

(more…)

Kasparov, The Chess Master, Takes on Putin: A New Yorker Podcast

kasparov2.jpgDavid Rem­nick, the edi­tor of the New York­er and author of the Pulitzer Prize-win­ning book, Lenin’s Tomb, has recent­ly revis­it­ed the coun­try he knows so well. And what he has to show for it is an exten­sive piece on Gar­ry Kas­parov, arguably the best chess play­er in his­to­ry, and his dan­ger­ous move into the polit­i­cal are­na. In Vladimir Putin’s Rus­sia, nei­ther polit­i­cal dis­sent nor polit­i­cal oppo­si­tion goes over ter­ri­bly well. Since he took the reins of pow­er in 2000, more than a dozen jour­nal­ists crit­i­cal of Putin have turned up dead. So have some politi­cians. Then there was the dra­mat­ic case of Alexan­der Litvi­nenko, the for­mer KGB agent turned Putin crit­ic, who died of radi­a­tion poi­son­ing in Lon­don last fall. All of the cas­es remain “unre­solved.”

At great per­son­al and finan­cial cost, Kas­parov is try­ing to lay the foun­da­tion for a legit­i­mate polit­i­cal oppo­si­tion. Get­ting there, how­ev­er, won’t be easy. For one, Putin, hav­ing shored up Rus­si­a’s econ­o­my and nation­al psy­che, is immense­ly pop­u­lar, hav­ing upwards to an 80% pop­u­lar­i­ty rat­ing. Even the old dis­si­dent Alek­san­dr Solzhen­it­syn likes him. Then, there’s the fact that Putin has almost a tsarist, “L’État, c’est moi” kind of grip on pow­er. In a pod­cast­ed inter­view (iTunes — Feed — Web Site) that grew out of Rem­nick­’s arti­cle, Kas­parov talks about his expec­ta­tions for the next pres­i­den­tial elec­tion in Rus­sia, when Putin is con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly required to cede pres­i­den­tial pow­ers to anoth­er politi­cian. Here, he tells Rem­nick that Putin will con­tin­ue call­ing the shots because, as he puts it, Rus­si­a’s polit­i­cal elite is so feck­less that they would “vote to make Putin’s dog the prime min­is­ter.” This strikes the lis­ten­er as a strange but time­ly com­ment, espe­cial­ly in light of Putin’s announce­ment yes­ter­day that he may seek to become Rus­si­a’s prime min­is­ter, which would essen­tial­ly give him the chance to con­tin­ue exer­cis­ing pow­er from what one diplo­mat has called “a par­al­lel struc­ture.” That’s a move that should prove hard for Kas­parov or any oth­er Putin oppo­nent to par­ry.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Sub­scribe to our feed

Support Monks’ Protest in Burma on Facebook

burmamonk.jpgSocial net­work­ing is doing some good. In a mat­ter of days, over 110,000 users have joined the Sup­port the Monks’ Protest in Bur­ma group on Face­book, with the larg­er goal of mobi­liz­ing sup­port for the Bud­dhist monks who have launched a peace­ful, “saf­fron” protest against the mil­i­tary regime that seized pow­er in 1962 and has held on ever since. As expect­ed, the gov­ern­ment is crack­ing down on the peace­ful pro­test­ers, break­ing into monas­ter­ies at night, tor­tur­ing monks and throw­ing them in jail. The Face­book Group offers a spe­cif­ic action plan, and it’s effec­tive­ly bring­ing vis­i­bil­i­ty to this human rights issue. Log into Face­book (or cre­ate an account), join the group here and sup­port democ­ra­cy in Bur­ma.

For a more gen­er­al account of the human rights abus­es in Bur­ma, click here; for dai­ly accounts of what’s cur­rent­ly hap­pen­ing in Bur­ma right now, click here.

Also please note: Inter­na­tion­al blog­gers are prepar­ing an action to sup­port the peace­ful rev­o­lu­tion in Bur­ma. On Octo­ber 4, blog­gers will refrain from post­ing to their blogs and just put up one Ban­ner under­lined with the words “Free Bur­ma!” Get more infor­ma­tion at www.free-burma.org, and if you’re a blog­ger par­tic­i­pate and help turn up the pres­sure.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 3 ) |

Newly Minted Genius: 2007 MacArthur Fellows

The MacArthur Foun­da­tion recent­ly announced its lat­est crop of “genius grant” recip­i­ents. Each win­ner receives $500,000 “with no strings attached” and they can use the mon­ey to live, to fund research, or to buy a very mod­est con­do in the Bay Area. As usu­al, the recip­i­ents come from a wide range of fields and back­grounds. Review­ing the bios and mul­ti­me­dia clips of these incred­i­bly gift­ed peo­ple, I can’t help but be remind­ed of a great Tom Lehrer quote: “When Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years.”

Beyond Free Speech: Ahmadinejad at Columbia (on Video)

ahmadinejad2.jpgThere was a lot of hand-wring­ing lead­ing up to Mah­moud Ahmadine­jad’s appear­ance at Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty on Mon­day. But, as it turns out, free­dom of speech seem­ing­ly worked as it was intend­ed. Ahmadine­jad entered the mar­ket­place of ideas and quick­ly came out the wrong side of the exchange. (You can watch the full video of his appear­ance here or read the tran­script here.) The decid­ing fac­tor was­n’t so much the unbe­com­ing intro­duc­tion offered by Lee Bollinger, Columbi­a’s pres­i­dent. It was more just a mat­ter of giv­ing Ahmadine­jad enough rope to hang him­self (i.e., let­ting him doubt the exis­tence of the Holo­caust and also gays in Iran) and then sit­ting back and watch­ing it hap­pen.

Of course, the “mar­ket­place of ideas” metaphor only goes so far when you’re deal­ing with inter­na­tion­al pol­i­tics. Ahmadine­jad’s speech was­n’t about win­ning a com­pe­ti­tion at Colum­bia. It was most­ly about play­ing to an audi­ence at home, one for whom his rhetor­i­cal strate­gies score points. But then there are the unin­tend­ed con­se­quences to con­sid­er. Far bet­ter than a dis­cred­it­ed Bush admin­is­tra­tion ever could, Ahmadine­jad real­is­ti­cal­ly soft­ened up the Amer­i­can pub­lic to any mil­i­tary plans that the US gov­ern­ment has on the table. At the very least, this has to qual­i­fy for a Dar­win Award. I’ll save fur­ther analy­sis for the pun­dits and talk­ing heads since I know that pol­i­tics and polit­i­cal opin­ions only go so far on this blog.

Relat­ed Note:

Last week, KQED’s Forum here in San Fran­cis­co had a good con­ver­sa­tion about free speech in the uni­ver­si­ty. It touched on Ahmadine­jad’s appear­ance at Colum­bia, but also Don Rums­feld’s invi­ta­tion to Stan­ford’s Hoover’s Insti­tu­tion and Lar­ry Sum­mers can­celed invi­ta­tion to speak before the UC Board of Regents. Lis­ten here: iTunes — Feed — Mp3 — Web site.

The End of History Revisited

fukuy3.jpgStew­art Brand, the cre­ator of the icon­ic Whole Earth Cat­a­log, heads up the The Long Now Foun­da­tion, an orga­ni­za­tion com­mit­ted to cul­ti­vat­ing “slower/better” think­ing and fos­ter­ing greater respon­si­bil­i­ty over “the next 10,000 years.” (Yes, they’re ambi­tious.) To help bring this about, Brand hosts a month­ly speak­ing series that you can down­load as a pod­cast (iTunes — Feed — MP3s), and, in late June, he brought in Fran­cis Fukuya­ma to speak. Fukuya­ma, a pro­fes­sor of inter­na­tion­al polit­i­cal econ­o­my at Johns Hop­kins, first made a name for him­self in 1989 when, dur­ing the wan­ing days of the Cold War, he pub­lished an essay called “The End of His­to­ry?” (Lat­er, he would turn it into a best­selling book, The End of His­to­ry and the Last Man.) Steal­ing a page from Karl Marx, Fukuya­ma main­tained that his­to­ry had a direc­tion to it. It flowed with pur­pose, always bring­ing progress. But the end point was­n’t com­mu­nist utopia. It was lib­er­al democ­ra­cy mixed with free mar­ket eco­nom­ics. That’s where human­i­ty was col­lec­tive­ly head­ing, with a vic­to­ri­ous Amer­i­ca lead­ing the way. (In his orig­i­nal essay, he wrote, “What we may be wit­ness­ing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the pass­ing of a par­tic­u­lar peri­od of post-war his­to­ry, but the end of his­to­ry as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ide­o­log­i­cal evo­lu­tion and the uni­ver­sal­iza­tion of West­ern lib­er­al democ­ra­cy as the final form of human gov­ern­ment.”)

In the inter­ven­ing years, the world’s move­ment toward west­ern democ­ra­cy has­n’t exact­ly fol­lowed a straight line, and the 9/11 attacks and the ensu­ing “War on Ter­ror” have seem­ing­ly lent cre­dence to a dim­mer world­view, one out­lined by Samuel Hunt­ing­ton in the con­tro­ver­sial book, The Clash of Civ­i­liza­tions and the Remak­ing of World Order. Speak­ing 18 years after the pub­li­ca­tion of his orig­i­nal essay (iTunes — Feed — MP3 — Blog), Fukuya­ma revis­its, clar­i­fies and large­ly defends his the­sis that lib­er­al democ­ra­cy is still on track to pre­vail. And that’s because, in his mind, there are deep eco­nom­ic, sci­en­tif­ic and tech­no­log­i­cal trends in motion that dri­ve almost inex­orably toward these polit­i­cal ends. Whether he is right or wrong, it’s impos­si­ble to say. Regard­less, his talk is smart, hard­ly dog­mat­ic, and worth your time.

The Return of Dr. Strangelove?

strangelove2.jpgThe Stan­ley Kubrick clas­sic Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Wor­ry­ing and Love the Bomb cen­ters around a Sovi­et dooms­day device. If Rus­sia is attacked by nuclear weapons, the device will set off count­less nuclear bombs auto­mat­i­cal­ly, there­by ren­der­ing the Earth unin­hab­it­able. It was dark humor when Peter Sell­ers brought it to life on the sil­ver screen…but what if it’s real?

That’s just what a new book from the U.K. is argu­ing. Dooms­day Men by P. D. Smith pro­vides evi­dence that a Russ­ian dooms­day sys­tem called “Perimetr” went oper­a­tional in the mid-1980s, and still is. As Ron Rosen­baum points out in Slate, this is par­tic­u­lar­ly upset­ting news since Vladimir Putin recent­ly announced that Russ­ian nuclear bombers would recom­mence “strate­gic flights”–potentially armed with nukes. The prospect of war between the U.S. and Rus­sia might seem remote, but the return to nuclear pos­tur­ing is not a good sign for human­i­ty. Rosen­baum once inter­viewed some of the Min­ute­man com­man­ders who con­trol our own nuclear arse­nal and his arti­cle makes a great read:

“This dooms­day appa­ra­tus, which became oper­a­tional in 1984, dur­ing the height of the Rea­gan-era nuclear ten­sions, is an amaz­ing feat of cre­ative engi­neer­ing.” Accord­ing to Blair, if Perimetr sens­es a nuclear explo­sion in Russ­ian ter­ri­to­ry and then receives no com­mu­ni­ca­tion from Moscow, it will assume the inca­pac­i­ty of human lead­er­ship in Moscow or else­where, and will then grant a sin­gle human being deep with­in the Kosvin­sky moun­tains the author­i­ty and capa­bil­i­ty to launch the entire Sovi­et nuclear arse­nal.

Oth­er con­tent worth explor­ing:

15 Ways to Avert a Climate Crisis

gore2.JPGAnd now we bring you a pub­lic ser­vice announce­ment.…

Below, you can watch Al Gore talk about tan­gi­ble ways that you can be a good envi­ron­men­tal cit­i­zen. The first 5 min­utes start with some wit and ban­ter that would have served him well in 2000; the next 10 min­utes get down to some busi­ness.

A few, quick relat­ed items: Google offers a free online copy of Gore’s major book on the envi­ron­ment, Earth in the Bal­ance. Pub­lished first in 1992, the book demon­strates, among oth­er things, Gore’s sus­tained com­mit­ment to this issue. Next, if you’ve nev­er seen An Incon­ve­nient Truth, then you may want to give a lis­ten to Gore’s speech at Stan­ford’s Grad­u­ate School of Busi­ness (lis­ten on iTunes here). It cov­ers much of the same ground. Final­ly, this all reminds me of a tele­vi­sion exposé that Bill Moy­ers aired a few months back. It’s called “Is God Green?,” and it takes a lengthy look at how con­ser­v­a­tive evan­gel­i­cal move­ments in the US are increas­ing­ly tak­ing glob­al warm­ing seri­ous­ly as an issue. (You can watch it here.) And if you know Amer­i­ca, you know that’s essen­tial for chang­ing the nation’s envi­ron­men­tal poli­cies.

Sub­scribe to our feed in a read­er

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast