Apocalypticism

As its name implies, the word apocalypticism stems from a belief that the apocalypse is going to occur. Probably soon. Very soon. For those who have not heard of the apocalypse, it is a religious belief described in the biblical book of Revelation of the complete final destruction of the world. The idea of the apocalypse does not occur in the Christian religion alone but can be spotted in other Abrahamic religions as well and even in some secular beliefs. Whatever way you look at it, the apocalypse is mostly considered pretty bad and puts us humans in a bit of a pickle.

So why am I talking about the end of the world and what does it mean for environmental theory? In regards to systematic theory, apocalypticism is in the ontological realm, which mainly answers the questions: What’s out there? and What’s going on? The term is mostly used pejoratively or as a critique. Apocalypticism is a way that critics frequently describe works that predict futures filled with doom and gloom or the end of the world due to environmental issues like climate change or excessive population growth. When authors predict “the end of the world” it is easy for their warnings to be seen as exaggerative and hyperbolic. Additionally, it can make authors appear to be claiming some sort of authority over the reader. It’s like saying, “Trust me, I know more than you,” and, even if that person is right, no one likes to be spoken down to in the way.

Of the classic works in the field of environmetal studies, apocalypticism can be used to describe a bunch of them. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World by David Orr, The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, and The End of Nature by Bill McKibben to name a few. Each of these works predicts a not so bright future for the human race with little to nothing for us to do about it. One of the works that has received many critiques for framing the argument in an apocalyptic way is Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William Behrens. True, this book did explore the possible collapse of the human population and industry due to exploitation of finite resources in a world of exponential growth, but the predictions in the novel were not written in stone and the authors were careful to point out the flaws in the models that they used.

This brings us to my last point about apocalyptacism and its role as a literary critique: its use can sometimes discount an author’s entire argument when a portion of it can be considered legitimate. The authors of Limits to Growth tried to use the book as a warning of what could come if current environmental problems were completely ignored. They were not trying to start mass riots, just get people to think about some of these issues. That’s not to say that they maybe could have framed their argument in a better way, but it should not be completely thrown out the window.

So, what have we learned? Use you literary critiques wisely and don’t go around saying that everyone is predicting the end of the world because even though it may seem like they are, they’re just not.