In a recent conversation with podcast host Zuby, Elon Musk shared his somewhat detached perspective on climate change, stating: “There have been numerous extinction events, yet life persisted…even if catastrophic climate change occurs on Earth, life will go on, albeit not necessarily in the form we recognize, possibly not with humans but with other forms of life. What we’re discussing is not a danger to all life on Earth, but rather a risk to human beings or a significant disruption…” This apparent disregard towards the looming threats of climate change underscores the significance of acknowledging the gap between specific scientific findings and speculative forecasts, presenting a narrative we encounter daily about our current and future state. Musk opts for his unique stance, as have others. Journalist and “Apocalypse Never” author Michael Shellenberger labels climate change as “the narrative of a despondent individual,” criticizing its fundamental message as a disdain for humanity.

Like numerous topics in today’s world, the prevalent narrative on climate change often conveys a series of is/ought assertions regarding our interpretation of science. The actions we ought to take are inferred from predictions about potential outcomes, as though the reaction is inherently justified by the data, reminiscent of how an increase in COVID-19 cases was presented as justifying government mandates on outdoor exercise frequency.

We are frequently exposed to impartial facts, a narrative replete with moral presumptions, motifs derived from religious contexts, and an attempt at crafting an eschatology for the secular realm. However, as we delve into it, this narrative mirrors “the story of a despondent individual,” constructing a deity that judges without offering redemption and depicting nature as wrathful and apathetic. This arises because it is founded on a disjointed narrative, with climate change representing the unraveling conclusion of an unfulfilled enlightenment promise.

Enlightenment and Progress

In 2018, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker published “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress,” advocating that the global condition is improving, evidenced by advancements across every societal metric, attributed to the “enlightenment principles” of reason, science, and humanism.

This account precedes the climate change narrative, rooted in the West’s post-war economic growth and technological innovation era. And understandably so, as the quality of life has markedly improved for more people than at any previous time.

However, upon closer inspection, Pinker’s overarching narrative raises questions. His reference to “enlightenment values” is somewhat contentious. Labeling the era’s scientific endeavors as “science” is anachronistic; such activities were undertaken long before the Enlightenment, even during the so-called Dark Ages, and the term “science” as we understand it today was not coined until the late nineteenth century. Similarly, “reason” did indeed experience a revival during the Enlightenment through a resurgence in philosophy and debate, yet Enlightenment thinkers did not uniformly hold reason in supreme regard. Kant authored a critique of pure reason, and Hume believed that reason should be subordinate to passions.

Then there’s the concept of “humanism.” The misconception that humanism originates purely from secular thought, rather than what historian Tom Holland terms a “mild form of Protestantism,” is one of its most apparent traits. It is, by no means, exclusively an “enlightenment value.” The era of EnlightenmentEnlightenment overlapped with the zenith of the slave trade, clearly not embodying ideals such as equality or human rights:

• Hume considered African Americans inferior.
• Jefferson labeled Native Americans as savages.
• Gibbon frequently depicted various groups as barbaric.

Aside from Rousseau, the Enlightenment’s narrative of advancement rarely envisioned inevitable equality, often portraying those outside the modern world’s emerging light as uncivilized.

However, the attempt to mimic Christianity in a secular guise paradoxically reflects enlightenment ideals. The establishment of Robespierre’s Cult of the Supreme Being and efforts to reset the calendar to year zero allowed historian Ernst Bloch to characterize the French Revolution as “the quintessential Christian event.”

Crucially, for this discussion, “progress” is undeniably a belief rooted in enlightenment thinking. Pinker narrates a tale birthed from the EnlightenmentEnlightenment, reinforced by diverse perspectives ranging from Hegel and Marx to Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, gaining almost unconscious acceptance in the West until the recent challenges posed by COVID-19 and the intensifying climate change discourse. While many have embraced Pinker’s narrative, its foundation appears increasingly unstable.

Judgment and Eschatology

Greta Thunberg’s speeches exude moral outrage. She denounces greed, the pursuit of economic advancement, and the politicians she accuses of leading us toward apocalyptic ruin, thereby dooming future generations to catastrophe.

The fact that economic development has lifted a billion people out of poverty since 1990, that most climate policies tend to be regressive—imposing costs disproportionately on society’s less affluent—or the notable absence of solutions in such discourses seems irrelevant. This narrative preaches that we have sinned, and judgment will ensue. Anger is the only acceptable response; indifference is complicity.

A critical issue with the underlying metaphor of this message is its utter lack of hope. Virtually all achievements leading to our current state are vilified; progress is driven by greed and morally reprehensible, with society portrayed as fundamentally opposed to its survival.

This narrative, steeped in eschatology, is a stark reversal of Pinker’s enlightenment idealism. Instead of noble aspirations guiding us from darkness to light, progress is depicted as a hubristic challenge to the heavens, reminiscent of Old Testament prophecies. Yet, unlike the Old Testament, where prophetic calls to judgment and redemption punctuate cycles of prosperity and decadence, the narrative championed by Thunberg offers condemnation without the prospect of moral redemption. The modern myth of climate change presents no viable alternative, transcendent beliefs, or any appreciation for the society we’ve constructed. It is, as Michael Shellenberger critiques, emblematic of a narrative mired in despair.

And this narrative is increasingly undermining trust in the myth of societal advancement. We are transitioning from a narrative of progress to one of impending doom, an odd shift as if a moment of self-praise suddenly necessitates an equal measure of self-critique. Most news outlets now cover climate change firmly within this storyline, portraying an impending judgment hovering over an unfathomable future.

The narrative of the apocalypse extends beyond climate issues. In a conversation with Piers Morgan, Noam Chomsky remarked that we had decades to address climate change before reaching “irreversible tipping points leading to an unimaginable disaster.” However, when questioned about the potential of AI to end humanity, he dismissed it as “science fiction.” Contrarily, Google’s DeepMind and OpenAI leaders have warned that AI could threaten human extinction. Mo Gawdat, former Chief Business Officer at Google X, has even suggested refraining from having children due to the existential risk posed by AI. This is as much a narrative for our era as a prediction based on facts.

The Individual’s Role

This story leaves little space for personal virtue. You might switch to an electric vehicle and adopt a vegan lifestyle, but these actions are seen as insufficient to prevent what is perceived as an unavoidable catastrophe. Identification may arise through the collective dynamics of social media outrage and public demonstrations, yet the lack of faith in these communal expressions renders them fragile. Unlike the American billboards predicting the rapture, there’s no congregation to join, no promise of individual redemption amidst the calls for judgment.

For those who are secular, it might suffice to recognize the religious fervor in such narratives and the inevitable deficiencies that arise from their excess. It’s important to note that hope and belief in the darkest times have been hallmarks of humanity’s finest achievements and that joining a movement of critique without accompanying forgiveness, redemption, or appreciation mirrors the pitfalls of extreme religious zealotry. It would be more beneficial to revisit the original stories from which these semi-religious narratives and worldviews are adapted, paying attention to their reminders of the past.