Note that the title of this book is not ‘the history of climate,’ but rather ‘the climate of history.’ It summarises the views of a host of thinkers, who wax both hot and cold on climate change and the role of humanity in it.
It goes beyond a mere summary however, offering a refined synthesis on a host of issues on how we could (or should) view our Earth in a planetary age. The author is Dipesh Chakrabarty, Professor of History at the University of Chicago (Prof C. in this review). In 2009, he expounded four theses which asserted that the writing of history could no longer remain the same at a time when the human species is a geophysical force in its own right. In this book from 2021, the author extends his efforts to rethink history beyond the space-time categories of modern society.
But readers looking for more than a synthesis will be sorely disappointed. As he admits on page 20, “my account of human worlds and their relationship to the planet humans inhabit does not aim to contribute in any immediate and practical sense to possible solutions to climate-related conflicts in the world.” In a world with no easy answers, the author’s admission that he does not provide any answers (even ones that require very difficult choices and decisions) will probably stop most readers in their tracks on page 20. Why read further if, after all this intellectual effort, the reader is left alone in the world without even a sketchy roadmap to the future?
This text was completed in May 2020. What a difference four years makes: there is no mention of artificial intelligence! Many scientists, from a range of disciplines, now regard the potential of AI to be an existential threat to humanity itself. And this on the timescale of decades. Prof C. spills much ink on the concept of timescales: climate scientists now claim that “geological time and the chronology of human histories” has now collapsed. Even if that is true, this time crunch is not something that vast majority of humanity can comprehend. And even if they did acknowledge it, what about the threat of AI wiping out their jobs within 5-10 years, and maybe displacing humans altogether soon after? In the face of this new paradigm, getting anyone to focus on climate change is made even more problematic. So what if a hurricane kills hundreds or thousands in a few days? What are ‘we’ supposed to do about it? Clearly, no human can do anything. Conversely, the wise application of AI might mitigate future catastrophes to the benefit of humanity.
Prof. C. actually seems to signal a form of nihilism on page 67. “The realization that humans come late in the planet’s life and dwell more in the position of passing guests than possessive hosts has to be an integral part of the perspective from which we pursue our quest for justice on issues to do with the iniquitous impact of climate change.” As we all know, guests rarely cleanup after paying a visit. Prof. C.’s statement could certainly be read in this sense: since we are only ‘guests’ of the planet, why bother cleaning up our mess? And what exactly does he mean by justice? If it is the Earth that is seeking justice, it would be well within its rights to drastically reduce the human population. The Earth does not need more humans.
For those who want the philosophical critique, from Aristotle to Kant and beyond, this is indeed a very fine synthesis. Those seeking guidance for the future must look elsewhere.
The Index misses important entries. While James Lovelock is listed on pages 75 and 78, equally important entries on pages 52 and 65 are absent.the climate of history in a planetary age (all lower case, as printed on the book cover), is by The University of Chicago Press. It lists for $103 (hardcover) or $29 (paperback).
Photo: Prof. Chakrabarty.