So, I have read a paper by Jem Bendall called "Deep Adaptation", not least because it is a core paper for Extinction Rebellion. I was not entirely happy with this paper, and have found some critiques of this. If you want to read the original paper, it is available in many forms online.
It draws on a concept known as Collapsology, which I will also consider later. The core approach is that our society will collapse in the near future, and we need to understand how to deal with this.
As I have argued before, there is a lot of overlap between Quakerism and Anarchism, so you might think I would embrace these ideas wholeheartedly. The problem is that the deliberate introduction of an anarchist society is not the same as a societal collapse - which is (as we have seen in the last years) liable to benefit the wealthy who can use their money initially to remain safe. The society we would have at the end is much more like the nightmare scenario at the end of Atlas Shrugged, not a fair and egalitarian society for all.
So this is the critique of Deep Adaptation. The main problem they have with the original paper is that it is unscientific. This is critical, because Bendall makes leaps of assumption, without evidence, without a justification. He makes claims that are exagerated and not jsutified by the evidence or the science behind this.
A lack of scientific basis does not as such mean that he is wrong. He may be right, the science may be wrong. But the point is that he is making claims based on the science, and that is always dangerous. Right or wrong, there is no actual justification for his claims.
Most importantly, he draws from individual scientists who differ from the consensus argument. These outliers are really important in scientific study - they can sometimes identify issues with the consensus argument, and drive modifications and change to adjust the consensus position. Not to change to the outliers view, but to adjust the core principle to embrace the issues.
Bendall does not do this. He ignores the consensus provided by the IPCC, and focusses on contrasting views. This is worrying, because it is the same approach that the "-deniers" use - climate, vacine, covid: whatever it is, they use the same techniques. They ignore the 99% of scientists and focus on the small number who disagree. It is dangerous in all sorts of ways, not least, because these ideas can then get emphasised and repeated way beyond what they deserve. Because they are then often repeated, they are seen as being authoritive, which they are not.
So, Collapology - an idea based on books like this. The problem with this idea is that it is similarly not really backed by science - not least because there is little science around the collapse of civilisations. Because there are insufficient examples, that are applicable.
Society is changing. In the next decades, we will see some radical changes in the society we live in, because of the challenge of fossil fuels, climate change and who knows what else. We will change, but will we collapse? If - as I can only hope - capitalism is at an end, what would this mean? For some, it would mean something that may appear like collape, but for most people, it would just be a change, a new society, run on different lines. What these lines are we cannot say. But we would still have society.
So Collapology appears to have little real justification either. This doom-mongering is what Roger Hallam of XR is known for. It might help their cause, but for many people it is demotivating. If - as is claimed - our society is inevitably doomed to collapse, why do anything about it? This is a core problem with this approach, and why I struggle with this approach.
I think it is better to argue that we need to change - we need to destroy the capitalist ideaology that destroys everything; we need to change our society to one where all are valued and supported; we need to have a society that exists in harmony with the earth.
