Subscription Center
January 25, 2013
| 
20
Hannah Waters writes about natural history and the way people think about nature. She lives and works in Washington, DC, but, really, on the internet. Follow on Twitter @hannahjwaters.
Hannah Waters writes about natural history and the way people think about nature. She lives and works in Washington, DC, but, really, on the internet. Follow on Twitter @hannahjwaters.
Sometimes it frustrates me that we feel the effects of climate change so slowly, if at all.
It’s not that I’m an apocalypse-monger, dreaming of mass hysteria induced by floods and droughts, shortages of food and fuel. Rather, I worry about people’s incredible ability to acclimate: to let changes go unnoticed, as long as they’re gradual over time. I worry that people won’t notice that the air is warmer, storms are fiercer, and coral reefs are less brilliant over the course of their lives because these adjustments happen so incrementally. And thus climate change inaction will continue.
For a moment, imagine a world where the whole process were sped up, where the effects were drastic enough for a person to feel and register them over the course of a few months or a year. How would governments react then? People? Society?
This is a question addressed in last year’s widely-acclaimed Age of Miracles, the first novel by Karen Thompson Walker. It’s not climate change that drives the science fiction plot, but rather a gradual slowing of the earth’s rotation, dubbed “the slowing.” And, as is increasingly common in fiction these days, the story is told from the viewpoint of child: an 11-year old girl in southern California named Julia.
The earth's rotation slows, causing extra-long "days" and "nights" in "Age of Miracles." Photo: NASA Goddard
As the earth’s rotation slows, minutes and then hours are added to the length of the day. At first, life goes on as usual: adults go to work, Julia attends middle school, adolescents are cruel. But as the hours pile up and the world experiences 50-hour rotations–split roughly in half into day and night–society splinters. Some people continue on a 24-hour schedule, sometimes spending entire “days” in darkness, while others try to adapt to the longer schedules. The schisms created by uneven, out-of-sync schedules change how these communities, families and people function. As Julia puts it in the novel: “I think we lost something else when we lost that crisp rhythm, some general shared belief that we could count on certain things.”
Of course, the changes induced by the slowing aren’t just societal, but biological. Birds, no longer able to navigate, fall out of the sky. Whales beach themselves. Crops wither in the constant hot sun. Astronauts are trapped in the space station. The earth’s magnetic shield cracks, causing solar superstorms.
Now out in paperback!
Most of the reviews focus on the comparison between the planet’s global changes and Julia’s adolescent “throes of seismic upheaval,” as NPR put it. And much of the book does focus on crushes and coming of age, making the point that life goes on, people keep doing the things people do, even in the face of environmental destruction.
But it’s not Julia and her adolescent struggles that have kept me thinking about this book months later: rather, it’s the feeling of slow, creeping doom that permeates the novel, one that we perhaps don’t feel enough when we think about climate change. Walker says that “[she] didn’t specifically intend for the book to remind readers of climate change.” But I cannot imagine this book being written in any other time than now, in a culture immersed in the apocalyptic predictions made on the news. A few decades ago, a science fiction novel about the slowing of the earth would have involved people floating away without gravity; this one is about the death of crops, the ocean spitting out its emblematic mammals, birds dropping to the earth, and society slowly splintering.
Walker’s stated goal was to address a slow-moving catastrophe: she wanted to explore “how people would react to a catastrophe like the slowing, which is almost too large to comprehend and which unfolds at a relatively slow rate.” The slowing is a good comparison to most environmental disaster movies, in which cities are blown up out of the blue–surely in reaction to another potential catastrophe, nuclear war–and everything they knew was gone. Julia and her family still have their home, their jobs: it’s the world that’s changing around them while they continue to persevere.
However, her global catastrophe still unfolds at a much faster rate than ours: the whole book takes place over the course of a year or so. So while the characters certainly have time to contemplate their doom, science doesn’t have time to catch up. Plans to genetically engineer crops to grow in long days and nights are abandoned. There is no great technological boom to develop new fuels; electricity is shut off. There is not time to find a planetary alternative for relocation, even if the technology existed.
It reminds me that climate change’s slow movement is a blessing. It probably won’t cause the kind of global catastrophe described in Age of Miracles, but things will change. And its slow movement means that we have the time to anticipate problems and develop solutions. But it first takes recognizing that climate change is an issue worth addressing–and, in that case, its slow drag makes it hard to take that action. As David Remnick wrote in The New Yorker:
Inaction on climate change has an insidious ally: time. As the writer and activist Bill McKibben writes in The New York Review of Books, “Global warming happens just slowly enough that political systems have been able to ignore it. The distress signal is emitted at a frequency that scientists can hear quite clearly, but is seemingly just beyond the reach of most politicians.” When the financial system collapsed, the effects were swift and dramatic. People could debate how best to fix the problem, but they could not doubt that there was a problem and it had to be fixed. Yet, as Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, who studied the costs of climate change for the British government, has observed, the risks are vastly greater than those posed by the collapse of the Western financial system.
If one of the goals of art is to help people better understand the world around them, let’s take a message from Age of Miracles. We will adapt to the effects of climate change. Life will go on. But let’s make it easier on ourselves and start preparing now, since we have the time.
Thanks to Rebecca Kreston of Body Horrors for recommending the book!
About the Author: Hannah Waters writes about natural history and the way people think about nature. She lives and works in Washington, DC, but, really, on the internet. Follow on Twitter @hannahjwaters.
Rights & Permissions
20 Comments
Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.
Once Upon A Time, The Catholic Church Decided That Beavers Were Fish
The Art and Science of the Diagram: Communicating the Knowledge of the Heavens, the Earth and the Arcane, Final Part
A Brief History of Mental Illness in Art
Amphibians in U.S. Declining at 'Alarming and Rapid Rate'
Thrifty Thursday: A common dandelion, a common sunset, a common phone camera
Marine Protected Areas and Catalina Island: Conserve, Maintain and Enrich
See what we're tweeting about
FlyingTrilobite Also close to commissioning one of my fave artists to do their rendition of Trilobite Boy. Gift to myself. FlyingTrilobite I need to make a new Twitter avatar.
ferrisjabr .@stevesilberman & @JenLucPiquant inspired me to try making clafoutis. Instantly one of my favorite desserts. http://t.co/Gs8WcwgfXu
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Share
Email
Print
Hi Sisko,
If you had read the whole article, you would have realized that it’s not about fear of the effects of climate change at all.
I know that we will adapt. (I quote myself above: “We will adapt to the effects of climate change. Life will go on.”) If the article is expressing any kind of fear (and that’s a strong word for it), it’s that we’re wasting time that could be spent developing technologies to make that transition easier — whatever that transition will be — because we’re too busy arguing about whether anything is happening at all.
Hannah
Link to this@hanjeanwat, Sicko is a troll who’s only purpose is to advance a far right agenda, i.e. we should do nothing about climate change including researching it but instead maintain the status quo. He doesn’t read anything, just rants about B.S.
I’ll check out the book. I wonder how it compares to “On the Beach”?
Link to this“We will adapt to the effects of climate change. Life will go on. But let’s make it easier on ourselves and start preparing now, since we have the time.”
That is a very optimistic sentiment Hannah. I hope you are right that we can adapt and life will go on. Have you read the article by Lee R Kump published in SA 7/11? It might be happening slowly for the human timescale but it is radically fast on the geologic timescale. I do think some life will adapt but not all life will be able to keep up. Since we are not doing anything to eventually end AGW and since we really aren’t beginning to prepare for it, a reasonable person might feel some apprehension. Please pay no attention to all those biologists who have been talking for years about the increasing extinction rate. Please pay no attention to all those glaciologist talking about the disappearing glaciers. I’m sure the ongoing drought in the US will end soon, never to return. Maybe we will be able get out of this mess in a painless fashion and move from the age of the Anthropocene to the age of miracles.
Link to thisMillions will survive. I wonder what will happen to the ones in the underground bunkers.Will they survive. The solar event will half cook the fish in the sea and the food will be destroyed.
Link to thisWe will adapt of course to whatever occurs, or we will be adapated. Life will go on, in some form or another. Tho frankly one doubts that much useful will be done if the population of the planet is not allowed to be talked about.
Link to this@ rick s:
Link to this1. LOL
2. goto 1.
@priddseren, thanks for making even clearer that your only purpose here is to advance a political agenda. Nothing you post has anything to do with science only your libertarian fanaticism. You have nothing of value to contribute.
Link to this@jabailo, “What I love about Liberals is that they espouse the tenets of Darwin and evolution and the ability of life to adapt through variation”, apparently you have decided to speak about something you know nothing about. What generally happens in times of catastrophic climate change is that we have an extinction event. The size of the event is relative to the size and scale of the change. The Permian extinction event killed off 96% of marine species and 70% terrestrial species. The K-T extinction (dinosaurs) killed off about 60% of all living things. So you are saying that you are comfortable with causing a major extinction event because creatures will evolve and life will continue even if one of the species to go extinct is Homo sapien. Unlike you, scientists don’t think that killing off species and destroying ecosystems is the best way to proceed even though some creatures may survive.
Perhaps before coming here and sharing your ignorance with everyone you should take the time to try and understand what you are talking about then you might not look like a complete idiot.
Link to thisI want to start by thanking @RSchmidt and @parobinson for taking on the trolls for me. I appreciate your hard work and am sorry to spam some of these comments, if only because it removes the context for your courageous replies.
Hello trolls: @sisko @priddseren @rick s @jabailo
Maybe you should consider reading an article before commenting, even if I’ve offered myself up as such cheap bait by putting “climate change” in the title
Sincerely yours,
Hannah
PS: @Dredd your comment was self-promotion without added value so you had to go too
Link to thisHannah, I know the difference between climate change and the expansion of local events, but consider this. When I was five, growing up in the Sacramento Valley of California, one of the things I was used to was being able to see the Coast Range and the Sierra Nevada Mountains every day they were not obscured by weather phenomena. By the time I graduated High School pollution was so bad that the only days that those mountains could be observed was when a strong enough weather system drove the pollution out. Seven years ago I was in the north end of the valley near Chico for three weeks. I never saw the Coast Range and could only make out the barest outline of the Sierras on two days. I know what I lost in the first 20 years of my life and the following 40 have only convinced me that it is gone for good and nothing we will do will bring it back, at least not in whatever remains of my life.
Link to thisHannah,
Link to thisYou are most welcome. When I saw the comment by ‘rick s’, it struck me as so utterly risible that it did only warranted the briefest of dismissals, and I responded in the shortest way I know. (For those coming late to this discussion, the original comment, which has been rightly deleted, was a flat denial of even the basic facts.) Anyone who has given any serious consideration to this topic, on either side of the debate, would not have made such an idiotic comment. I don’t know why such people bother to visit this site – to say that science is not their strong point would be a gross understatement.
Actually, and to correct myself in the comment above, I DO know why such people visit this site, and it is less to do with science and reasoning abilities than with the instinct to make some kind of territorial mark. It is useful here to draw a comparison with other groups in the animal kingdom, and the tendency towards vandalism and other destructive behaviours (especially by the less mature males of the species). In other words, I suppose “troll” is a good description after all.
Link to thisWhile McKibben points out the fact that political systems are ignoring catastrophic climate change, I believe the primary cause for this problem is that crooks have been systematically inserted into high offices through bribery and corruption.
Taking bribes and peddling influence are illegal. All campaign fundraising is a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 201 : Bribery of public officials and witnesses. Yet these crimes take place during and after each election cycle. What blocks prosecution of these crimes is that they are so widespread that the district attorneys, judges, and executives in charge of the various departments are in on the racket. If they were to prosecute these violations of the law then their actions would ignite a firestorm of criminal prosecutions that would remove almost the entire top layers of the federal and state governments.
This would be a good thing. It would spare humanity and enable us to move forward on climate change. But there is only one way such a criminal ruling class will ever be replaced and the educated readers of science know what that is.
Link to this@Martin Wirth, I couldn’t agree more. I don’t want to say much because it is off topic but I have always said that any government that accepts corporate donations is inherently corrupt. That unfortunately applies to most western governments. If you haven’t already, please read “Manufacturing Consent” – Noam Chomsky.
Link to thisI think everyone gets confused thinking there is an answer to climate change. Like more efficient power or cars. Really i beleve we are meant to do what we do. Even though I’m not a writer, I’m in the process of writing. http://www.miracleintheblackhills.com I compare humans to bees, like all living things we are here for a purpose. Bees make honey but in the process of gathering honey, they also pollinate plants, but the bees don’t really know they pollinate plants. They think they are just making honey. Humans believe they are here to provide for themselves and their family by getting good jobs and earning money. Most people don’t understand that just by living our normal lives we change the enviorement.
Link to this@Zintkalazi, “I think everyone gets confused thinking there is an answer to climate change.” I don’t know what you mean by that. Are you suggesting there is no “answer” to climate change or suggesting that the general population is confused about how to deal with it?
“I compare humans to bees, like all living things we are here for a purpose.” I don’t follow. I would agree that many people are unaware of the footprint they leave on the planet, I know I am. But unlike bees humans have other humans to tell us what is going on and help us mitigate the damage we are doing. I don’t think we are mindless drones, incapable of adjusting our behavior. Indeed, the trait that has allowed humans to endure is our ability to pass on “memes” to one another which means we do not have to wait for changes to our genes to help us adapt. I think the challenge that climate change has presented is that we have to make very tangible changes today to prevent very intangible future problems. Very much like having a cookie in your hand. If you eat the cookie now you will feel good and your brain is telling you that loud and clear. But if you eat the cookie you take one tiny step towards potential health problems down the road. That is very intangible and purely cognitive. So unless the population has confidence in the ability of science to warn us about the consequences of our actions then they are just going to keep eating the cookies. The poor quality of both science and critical thought education has allowed a number of bad actors to deceive the population into believing that science is no different from politics. The only solution to the problem is to improve education, so it is no surprise that we find that the only education funding the republicans support is putting armed guards, rather than teachers in our schools.
Link to thisMy comparison to bees is only a metaphore to help us see ouselves in a different way. Although most humans believe we are more important than other species, really we are just another living part of our planet. We think somehow we control nature and the planet. But it’s just the opposite.
Link to this@Zintkalazi, “My comparison to bees is only a metaphor to help us see ourselves in a different way.” I would agree that humans need to see themselves as a part of the ecosystem rather than separate from or masters of. At the same time, bees are a pretty loaded metaphor with implications of authoritarianism and mindless subservience.
People would have to be pretty deluded to imagine that we control nature or the planet, but then again, crazier things have been posted here. I would like to blame monotheism for, “separating man from nature”, but even in cultures that do believe that humans are just another part of nature we see similar patterns of over-consumption and a casual disregard for sustainability. I hold to my opinion that technologically advanced civilization require an educated population in order to willingly go without, in order to preserve the future. We aren’t there by a long shot. If the past is anything to go by, it will take a catastrophe to convince everyone that something needs to be done, and by then it will be too late.
I think you have some good ideas and certainly encourage you to write your book. Best of luck.
Link to thisApologies for being so tardy in engaging yall
@rickofudall – That sounds like a real phenomenon and is great illustration of what I mean about people getting used to gradual change. Someone born twenty years after you would never know that you could see the mountains because, well, they had never seen them. And someone less observant than you may not even remember you could see them at all! It’s a phenomenon called shifting baselines–the loss of what is “normal” or baseline conditions with each passing generation. You are lucky to have seen those mountains and try to imprint that memory on others you encounter.
@Martin Wirth – I didn’t get into the political side in this piece as I really don’t know enough about it to say anything meaningful, but the stagnation of climate change legislation in Washington has multifold causes and corruption is one of them.
@Zintkalazi I do agree that there is no one Answer to climate change. But there are technologies that can make our slow transition into that world easier for our species in all areas and situations, and cause as little pain to other species as possible.
It is important to think about our species as just another species on the planet, only to realize that we’re not some pinnacle of evolution. But some have taken that idea and concluded that it means we don’t have to take responsibility for our actions, like the bee doesn’t take responsibility for its actions. I believe we have an ethical duty to reduce harm. Reducing harm doesn’t always mean defending every last animal, but sometimes it does.
Good luck with your book!
@RSchmidt “I think the challenge that climate change has presented is that we have to make very tangible changes today to prevent very intangible future problems.” Very well said!
And I’m with you on the monotheism dictating how we see the world (man vs. nature). I also think a lot about how it’s influenced the environmental movement, which mirrors its structure in many ways. Nature is the new God, which will ultimately strike us down for our environmental sins (according to many environmentalists). We repent for our sins by small acts like recycling (Hail Mary!) or buying organic. We go to the woods, our modern-day temple, to find ourselves. I wonder if this is the reason so many people have trouble thinking about climate change in any other way than “if we don’t improve, the apocalypse will come!”
Anyway, rambling. Thanks for reading & commenting!
Link to thisI think what i’m saying is that we may be here for a certain purpose that we can’t really understand. Maybe certain species of humans are almost like white blood cells in our body. They keep the infection or disease from taking over too quickly. But at a certain point all living things go in a circle and must complete their cycle. As i said in my writing look at the very smallest life form with a microscope, and think deeply about how all life is designed to carry out a certain purpose. Does it really make sense that this life form we call humans is out of control?
Link to this