Deep Adaptation: Navigating the Realities of Climate Chaos

I have only just started reading this book and it is a tough read. Maybe it is because it raised anxiety within me and this anxiety is about the future of our species and the other species that our behaviour is destroying. I will read this book but there are times when I cannot bring myself to pick it up but it is essential reading for anyone who is concerned about what we have done to this garden of eden we live in.

The typeface is small for an older individual. I should have ordered the Kindle version rather than paperback.

Although this book frustrated me, and I disagreed with many of the statements made, I found it intellectually stimulating as a result. Here's my admittedly heavy critique:The primary issue I have regards the persistent underlying hate of our current capitalist system. Indeed, it is flawed, as is any socio-economic system. However, the persistent narrative that now permeates almost all academia (and this book) is that capitalism is responsible for all the problems of the modern world, yet none of the positives. Capitalism has made poor people richer and fueled unbelievable technological developments. In the West we (including the working class) have far and away the greatest standard of living in human history. Yet, as this book suggests, we are 'oppressed'. Globally, people are being lifted above the poverty line at an unprecedented rate. This is thanks to both capitalism and technological developments. Nevertheless, this book calls for a 'Deep Adaptation' to climate change, which presents itself more-so as a euphemism for total revolution.However, as another review has already mentioned, there is very little real discussion of the economy, which is at the foundations of the book's criticisms. The book identifies the need for changes in seemingly every single aspect of our society: industrial agriculture, geoengineering, banking and finance, foreign policy, etc. yet fails to dive into these in any significant detail. Changing all these systems in one fell swoop (which this book appears keen on) would be extremely dangerous. Our current system is best viewed as a complex network of systems, rather than a homogenous system of orchestrated oppression and destruction. If the climate crisis could be resolved over night, it would be. But it simply can't due to the delicate nature of these countless systems, which require continuous alterations and adjustments by EXPERTS in those fields, not by Extinction Rebellion activists.The book predicts a 'societal collapse' in our lifetimes, and suggests that our current system must be revolutionized in an attempt to compensate for this. However, an argument could (and should) be made that attempting to brashly revolutionize the current system is what could CAUSE a societal collapse. We are already seeing this now in the Netherlands where farmers are being forced to make wholly unreasonable cutbacks on nitrogen, with no compromise from the government, which is compounding the food shortages that are just around the corner. These food shortages will affect the poorest countries the most and will cause major famine. Is the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of people a justifiable means-to-an-end to merely SLOW climate change?A further issue arises in the failure to define what societal collapse means and what it would look like. Does this mean no government? Does this mean no police? Or does this simply mean changes to how we work and consume? Furthermore, if true societal collapse is coming, why are we discussing solutions that can only be implemented in a stable and functioning society. A societal collapse is inherently bloody and brutal and should therefore be avoided AT ALL COSTS. It should not be assumed as inevitable. Nevertheless, the authors do so and then attempt to offer vague 'loving' solutions and the cliched 'opening up a healthy discussion' about how we move forward after collapse. A societal collapse will have very little room for loving and peaceful discussions about how we function. It will be a Darwinian dog-eat-dog world filled with violence and far more 'oppression' than any of us have ever lived through. It seems like the authors have virtually no grasp of human history. If they did, they would understand that every attempt should be made to avoid a societal collapse.As a side note. one particular post-modernist line of reasoning in the closing chapter stood out to me: "we have been schooled in a culture that invites us to feel better for knowing the 'right answer' in terms of correct facts, models, values and beliefs. That desire is related to the insecure ego that arises from a world view of separation".This argument, that facts, models, values and beliefs are merely egotistical drives towards division is just wrong and a complete inversion of the truth. Facts, models, values and beliefs are what unite societies and stabilize our subjective experiences into ones that can be shared and turned into objectivity with others. Ultimately, this post-modern argument is pure nihilism. By its very reasoning, a book which offers models and frameworks for dealing with the climate crisis is a manifestation of an "insecure ego" and "separation".Ultimately, societal collapse, if it is to happen, cannot be re-engineered. If we are going to accept that this is inevitable, then the authors' prospects of a peaceful, loving future that is in connection to nature will be made redundant when people need to feed and protect themselves and their families, not to mention the high probability of a truly oppressive right- or left-wing totalitarian regime taking power.Overall, if you are interested in the topic, I would recommend picking up this book anyway as a springboard for developing your own thoughts and opinions. Despite my disagreements, or perhaps because of them, I enjoyed the debate I had between myself and the authors.

I liked this book because it made me think; but not in the way intended. Each chapter has good references for further reading giving an academic air although relatively few are from peer-reviewed Journals. From its own back cover its aim “helps us to prepare for – and live with – a climate-influenced breakdown or collapse of our societies” and “shows how professionals across different sectors … do not assume that our current economic, social and political systems can be made resilient in the face of climate change”. And there you have it: an edited selection of chapters by sociologists, psychologists and philosophers about how to cope with societal collapse, which is their definition of Deep Adaptation. It meets its aim, but it is not enough.The final chapter examines some opposing views including a sixth one (2 pages out of 308) on being more positive, together with a balanced conclusion that we “should not pretend that despair, any more than hope, can guarantee a desirable outcome”. Oh, woe. Perhaps the main problem is that their definition of Deep Adaptation is missing what a future would and could look like, including, but not limited to, social collapse. It needs some future scenarios (e.g. managing without coal, oil and gas by 2030/40/50). It also lacks historical perspective about resilience where current lived experiences embrace age groups that have lived through WWII, the Cold War, the nuclear threat and its balanced response of mutual assured destruction, etc. It does not include an ethicist’s viewpoint nor how AI can find solutions beyond human ingenuity. Critically, it does not address economics. There is the usual underlying anti-capitalist theme common to this genre but it is subdued. The only viable response is to use capitalism not grizzle about it, nor (try to) overthrow it. So energy pricing (tax) with redistribution to the affected ought to be one of the targets for the “professionals across different sectors”. Try $75 per ton of CO2 by 2030 rising thereafter as recommended by the IMF/OECD report “Tax Policy and Climate Change (Sept. 2021, Italy)”. The suitably experienced contributors should spend their time getting people prepared for this, not collapse – and soon.

After all the climate studies and philosophical conversations - comes this moment to ruthlessly examine the future. New thinking, new attitudes... be ready to let go and reconsider. Just got this, so much is new that I know I have to re-read it. Simple chapters, lots of references. Academic but fairly understandable.