Stewart Brand and Ian McEwan in Dublin

Just got back from a short trip to Dublin to see controversial environmentalist Stewart Brand and Booker-prize winning British author Ian McEwan speak at the speak at the Dublin Writers Festival.

They were discussing their respective books “Whole Earth Discipline” and “Solar”.

Apparently the two writers have known each other for some time. Their recent books have a certain amount in common and are indeed quite complimentary, hence the double-bill for this event.

McEwan’s novel takes climate change as its theme. McKewan is obviously very interested in science and actually joined an scientific expedition to the Arctic before writing the book, and based scenes in the book on the trip.

McEwan said he felt we have been fortunate to have lived through a Golden Age of science writing since the 1970 that this body of work from the likes of Dawkins, E.O Wilson, should be considered as of great literary merit as well as scienctific.

Solar is hilarious, had me nearly rolling around laughing. One of the themes he deals with is the huge conceptual gap in academia between science and humanities subjects, something I relate to from experience of a sociology degree (graffiti above the toilet-roll holder in the university toilets: “Get your sociology degree here.”)

In the novel, McEwan has his lead character the brilliant but dysfunctional Michael Beard, a physicist, fall in love with his first wife, a literature undergraduate. It seems he is able, in just a couple of weekends reading, to gain enough superficial knowledge of the girl’s favorite classical authors to impress her enough to win her heart. Compared to the enormously hard-won truths of science, as far as literature goes, it seems easy to fake it.

He also takes a few well-aimed potshots at “cultural relativists” who seem to think everything is just a matter of opinion, also to hilarious effect.

This theme- the gulf between those who understand things like climate science and those who are deeply suspicious of science in general, is directly relevant to Brand’s book, which takes on the four Holy Cows of the environmental movement: urbanization, population, nuclear power and GM crops. “I had learned to distrust the opinions of my environmental colleagues” Brand ruefully comments. Environmentalists are more in the “romantic” (=humanities) camp than the scientific/engineering camp that Brand represents.

One of the omissions in his book however is the subject of Peak Oil. He only makes one reference to it I think, stating that he does not believe it willl have the significant impact the like of Kunstler, Heinberg and Campbell believe it will.

I had partly traveled to the talk to get in a question on this, which I did: why did he not deal with this issue, which could be nearly considered to have become the fifth Holy Cow: the impending peak and decline in the world’s life-blood of liquid fossil energy.

Brand answered that he feels it will not be the main event that others claim. He feels we are on a plateau and this will probably be a long, uneven one rather than a sudden abrupt drop; that other technologies may yet come on stream to make up the shortfall; that market controls have already shown themselves extremely successful in rapidly changing behavior, viz. the demand destruction in the US of a couple of years ago when prices spiked above $150 a barrel.

I was not entirely convinced, particularly when he included shale oil gas as amongst new technologies, a climate disaster I would have thought. However, it is true that while many leading pundits think we are now past peak, and the presumably related financial collapse is still getting worse, we may not be staring over the abyss of total collapse and reversion to warlord-ism just yet.

Another theme I would have liked to have discuss with Brand had there been more time (he declined an interview) would have been his view of the prevalence amongst romantic environmentalists of the tragedy of life, and how there is therefore a resistance to engineers coming along trying to fix things. So strongly embedded are we in the idea that humans have gone horribly wrong and we are doomed, we prefer to wallow in the tragedy. If it were possible to fix the world with geo-engineering for example- another of Brand’s themes- that would imply that our excesses, our consumerist habits and inability to stop, and most of all, our presumed separation from “nature” might not be such tragic flaws after all.

These are fascinating ideas, and the bringing together of these two writers, particularly the embracing of science- with all its warts as embodied in the horrible character of Michael Beard- perhaps suggests the great divide between the sciences and the humanities can after all be bridged.

This entry was posted in book review, climate change, Peak Oil, Science and Rationaltiy. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Stewart Brand and Ian McEwan in Dublin

  1. John Gibbons says:

    Interesting session on Tuesday, Graham, and good to catch up again. My big question: have you been convinced to abandon your rural idyll and head for the bright lights (peak oil notwithstanding) of the big city as being the only practical way towards a sustainably lighter “footprint”?

    I thought McEwan was terrific, but I too found Brand’s response to your question about peak oil unconvincing (he was much, much clearer on where nukes might fit in to our energy future).

    Cheers, John G.

  2. Graham says:

    Hi John Good to see you also in Dublin- yes I was very taken by the idea of putting up a yurt in Stephens green and living off Mahonia berries, but to be honest with you,I doubt that city life woulf suit me- I just dont think Id be able to keep up with your drinking :) I think it would be possible though to live in the country with a low impact- its taken me 10 years nearly and there is still a way to go but in principle if i didnt have debts to pay off or need more expensive infrastructure like more PV panels etcI could probably survive off the land, find work and all the food I need within a cycle ride of where i live. Brand’s other point was more of an issue: most people wouldnt want to stay in the country if they were brought up here- they want to escape the parochial values and closed communities. And for most people i know who have gone back to the land for the good life, we are still quite heavily subsidized and many take foreign holidays etc- I suspect many of us would also choose the city over real subsistence peasantry.

  3. Robert says:

    Hi Graham

    Humanities and social sciences are two totally different worlds. The humanities are all about developing the whole human being, or should be. Unfortunately, this approach simply doesn’t fit into the compartmentalised modern university. Very few successful writers or artists work within the university system, compared with the vast majority of top scientists. Social science is merely a (normally unsuccessful) attempt to apply scientific methodology to systems that are really too complex for this approach.

    There’s no reason why being science-literate should be inconsistent with developing the whole person – except that the education system tends to militate against it. Read Mary Midgley’s “Science and Poetry” – nobody else I have read has put it better.

    Another highly science-literate author I’d recommend is Kim Stanley Robinson – especially “Antarctica”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>