Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it PME Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM
Customer Review

87 of 105 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Peering back to the present, and finding it wanting, June 25, 2014
This review is from: The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future (Paperback)
This short book is a report by a future Chinese academic on the collapse of civilization in the 21st century, caused by global warming and pollution. It purports to recount the disaster with perspective that usually only time can provide. We today are too closely involved to see the forest for the trees. That is usually the case. Yet most of us can see the forest, burning, and that is a different issue the book delves into with gusto. Science has been shunted aside in favor of "freedom" and the dollar.

The basic premise of a historian looking back to see what happened is valid, but the authors don't go nearly far enough. The rank stupidity of the politicians of the 20th century is no different from the rank stupidity of the church in the thousand years before, when it burned scientists at the stake for uttering facts it did not want to hear, regardless of provability. Basically, it was always this way. There have always been entrenched interests to defend, empires to defend, wealth to defend, and of course power to expand. Our author from the future missed that.

It is instructive to see how a future Chinese academic might view the economic history of the west, citing capitalism vs communism and neoliberalism and market fundamentalism (in the religious fervor sense). But that academic would surely have also discovered and reported the simple truism that separates all of it for the purposes of his report: Communism failed because it did not tell the economic truth about prices. Capitalism failed because it did not tell the ecological truth about prices. That in a nutshell has driven the greed machine to the heights we see today. (It is touched on in the glossary.) The greater good is a concept discredited in the USA, and the result is a planet swamped for example, in 88,000 new chemical compounds since WWII, only three of which have been tested. (This is touched on in the Q&A, where they compare the lack of chemical testing to exhaustive testing in pharmaceuticals.) Government went from being the solution in the trustbuster age, to the problem in the Reagan era. The results were predictable and were predicted. The market fundamentalists just told everyone where they could go. And we are. Faster than we thought.

The "report" is only about 60 pages. More of a pamphlet than a book. There follows a lexicon of terms we in the present currently use and abuse. This also helps give perspective, as does the Q&A with the authors that follows. The combination of those three nonstandard components makes this an unusual book that would be refreshing if it weren't so hurtful.

David Wineberg
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 11 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 15, 2014 10:39:20 AM PDT
"Communism failed because it did not tell the economic truth about prices. Capitalism failed because it did not tell the ecological truth about prices." EXCELLENT SUMMARY

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2014 12:20:58 PM PDT
Isn't it just. I wish it was mine. I saw it in an excellent book by a British banker I reviewed last year,The Locust and the Bee: Predators and Creators in Capitalism's Future

Posted on Jul 17, 2014 7:25:20 PM PDT
SqueakyRat says:
I hold no brief for the dogmatism of the Church on scientific matters, or it's intolerance on religious doctrine, but I can't think of any scientists it burned at the stake for their science. Galileo was punished, but he died in his bed, not at the stake. Bruno was burned, but he was not a scientist -- and he really was a heretic.

Posted on Jul 26, 2014 11:43:50 AM PDT
ebad says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2014 12:53:00 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 27, 2014 12:54:06 PM PDT
M. Medeiros says:
I have not read the book but I do understand how unemcumbered capitalism can give rise to market failure, AGW is the greatest market failure in history. You "think" you have freedom, but if Western civilization falls, the masses will be free to fight over what little remains. Enjoy it while it lasts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2014 8:34:05 PM PDT
Another skreed from a scientifically uneducated worshipper of the creed of consumerism. God help us! There are so many of them!

Posted on Jul 29, 2014 8:58:20 AM PDT
A rightist who disses Al Gore
Is someone you ought to abhor.
"Obama derangement"
Should lead to estrangement;
His diatribe's one to ignore.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2015 8:50:13 AM PDT
Clever verse, but I don't think we should ignore him. I think we should read his point of view and consider how many other people might be laboring under similar ideas, try to understand why they hold this viewpoint and what they might be capable of in efforts to defend it. It's not enough for the people who "get it" to just talk amongst ourselves. A change will come and it probably won't be pretty; we need to understand the various factions as well as possible in advance of the real difficulty.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2015 3:27:36 PM PDT
I respect your admonition, but I've done a fair amount of interacting with people who hold to such views and the exchange of ideas in media like this one seldom seems to make an impression on them. (Onlookers, however, may derive some benefit.)

How am I to have a reasonable discussion with someone who asks rhetorically, "Do you think the government should use force to make us all bow to the insane fanatic Al Gore, who lives like a king?" It would take several sentences to refute the dense disinformation in that single sentence of his, and if I took the trouble he would probably come back with some other bogus claim.

I once lodged great hope in online communication because it gives time for well-constructed arguments that can be read and re-read, hence are more difficult to misconstrue than ordinary conversation. Alas, that hope has proven unfounded. I now tend to the view that, if converting "skeptics" is the goal, face-to-face interaction has a better chance. But it would have to be a sustained conversation; debates are (generally) worse than useless.

If that was your point, I agree. Was that your point?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2015 8:27:51 AM PDT
James Walker says:
Oustanding politicolimerick, Mr. Winter. (And, by the way, Al Gore DID have a major role in the development of the I-net.)
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›