An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity

by Wes Jackson, Robert Jensen

Confronting harsh ecological realities and the multiple cascading crises facing our world today, An Inconvenient Apocalypse argues that humanity’s future will be defined not by expansion but by contraction. For decades, our world has understood that we are on the brink of an apocalypse―and yet the only implemented solutions have been small and convenient, feel-good initiatives that avoid unpleasant truths about the root causes of our impending disaster. Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen argue that we must reconsider the origins of the consumption crisis and the challenges we face in creating a survivable future. Longstanding assumptions about economic growth and technological progress―the dream of a future of endless bounty―are no longer tenable. The climate crisis has already progressed beyond simple or nondisruptive solutions. The end result will be apocalyptic; the only question now is how bad it will be. Jackson and Jensen examine how geographic determinism shaped our past and led to today’s social injustice, consumerist culture, and high-energy/high-technology dystopias. The solution requires addressing today’s systemic failures and confronting human nature by recognizing the limits of our ability to predict how those failures will play out over time. Though these massive challenges can feel overwhelming, Jackson and Jensen weave a secular reading of theological concepts―the prophetic, the apocalyptic, a saving remnant, and grace―to chart a collective, realistic path for humanity not only to survive our apocalypse but also to emerge on the other side with a renewed appreciation of the larger living world.

Genres: Nonfiction, Environment, Climate Change, Science, Politics, History, Nature

184 pages, Paperback

Published September 1, 2022

Reviews

[Manda Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading: Clear, succinct and absolutely honest

This is the book we need for this moment: we need to stop telling ourselves that we can fix one or two minor issues (the source of our power, the structure of our culture/civilisation) and take on board the central thesis that we’re a species out of context and we’re in imminent danger of annihilating our ecosystem, and so ourselves. There is still time to power down, but it will take all of us working on it - with the understanding that we have no idea how we’re going to reconfigure our culture, but we need to work it out.
And those of us who write fiction, need to get on with writing the narratives of how that future might look and how we get there. ASAFP.

[Shawn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Seriously disappointing. I understand the authors' desire to avoid too much prediction and guessing at future events, but about the only thing they do is to state what anyone sensible already knows: that we are too many who consume too much and that this is almost certain to lead to catastrophe in the not distant future. And they state it over and over at mind-numbing length, and pad it out with scriptural quotes and musings, in spite of the fact that they claim to be entirely secular.

[Philemon - · Rating 2 out of 5]

Preachy, verbose, and very thin on content supporting why collapse will happen and what it will look like. Naively assumes that people choose to work together constructively during and after collapse; that consumption levels can be slashed by 50% or more without wars and social disorder; and that the wealthy and powerful will be open to social and economic leveling in the common interest. Amateurish, casually and sloppily written. Needs both content and extensive editing.

[Ellen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is brilliant. I wish it weren't necessary, but it is, and these authors present the facts with the kindest approach possible, under the dire circumstances we face.

[Russell Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great little book, one that is told with a very deep sense of the precariousness of the position of the authors. That precariousness, as relates to questions of social justice, is a product of the fact that the authors are two old white lefties, both living comfortable lives in retirement, neither of whom are living radically minimalist or survivalist or negative-carbon-use lives (though both of them have written thoughtfully and with great praise of people they have known who do), and yet both of whom are utterly convinced--and have a lot of science to back them up--that in the coming decades, ecological crises (climate change, species extinction, water depletion, etc.) are going to force upon the whole human species massive changes at the cost of probably billions of lives, and that there is no way in which any part of our species, no matter how rich or how poor, no matter how oppressed or how tyrannical, is going to escape. So a good part of the book--maybe too much--is spent carefully and compassionately spelling out this very discomforting thought: that the problem of over-consumption and resource exploitation is truly general; it will affect every human being, because every human being--or at least every human being that has been part of the world agriculture built starting 10,000 years ago--is part of it, and so while thinking in terms of redistributing goods and making the rich Western nations (filled with rich old white guys like Jackson and Jensen) pay for developing carbon sinks or whatnot may make you feel properly righteous, it's all irrelevant in the end (which will probably be sooner than you might think).

The hard truths Jackson and Jensen want to communicate are very hard indeed: that we need to stop thinking in terms of solutions, because there won't be any, and rather start thinking in terms of how to save remnants of human civilization when the collapse comes. Do I agree with ever catastrophic prediction they make? No, not really. But was I moved and inspired by the good humor (as opposed to "hope") and the practicalness by which they made their case for the apocalypse. Mixing religious concepts (though both are very much secular materialists) and environmental science and sharp retorts to the techno-utopian promises out there, this is a bracing book, one worth reading and thinking about, if only get one's thoughts and priorities straight.

[Jaclyn Finger · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book for my class Psychology of the Anthropocene and learned a lot from it. Basically, we are f***ed as a society. Is there hope? Maybe. It's unclear. Read this book and then read more of the books I'm reading for this class which I will continue to log here. I think it is important for everyone to understand the " inconvenient apocalypse" that our world has come to. I especially liked the last line in the book (don't read further if you're planning on reading it):
"At our moment in history... love is bound to be harsh and dreadful. But it is still love."

[Lottee Houghton · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The end result will be apocalyptic; the only question now is how bad it will be." - I find statements like this, and books of this type very motivating, and it proves that I am in the right career, because I truly believe we all need to do as much as we can within our power to make the result of climate change is minimal as possible. We cannot stop it now, we are far to late, but we can mitigate the effects (marginally) if we all make change.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity (2022) by Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen

I give the book five stars for acknowledging the grim facts about our environmental predicament that the vast majority of sleepwalking humans steadfastly ignore. Most people just want to keep flying on airplanes, driving cars, living in large comfortable homes, keeping meat eating pets for companionship, and popping out just as many babies as they feel like - exactly as if science is one giant hoax. Anyone who has read much about climate change and the global environmental crisis over the past 20+ years understands this cannot continue indefinitely. Since almost everyone is determined to ignore these hard facts for as long as they can, I consistently upvote books like this to give the recommender algorithms my negligible individual push. A book like this one will never rival Harry Potter for readership, and that's further evidence supporting the book's main premise: that we are well and truly [NSFW verb deleted].

That being said, of all the books on climate change I have read, and I've read a few, this one might be the most peculiar, to put it as kindly as possible. Science and numbers are largely an afterthought for the authors; instead we get lots of adjectives and glittering generalities. No mention of the Keeling Curve, carbon footprints, carbon allowances, global warming potentials, paleoclimate, or even some actual monetary figures. For example the authors repeatedly call for global economic equality, even while acknowledging that almost nobody on the favored side of inequality is volunteering to be made equal. The hand-waving description, while correct, lacks the force of actual numbers. So here are some. The average annual per capita global GDP is considerably less than $20,000, apparently, while the average annual per capita GDP (nominal) in the USA is over $85,000 in 2024. Thus if we are serious about equality, the average American is taking over a four-fold pay cut, and with it such niceties as any sort of expensive medical care. It gets much worse if we factor in the amount of that GDP currently produced by fossil fuels, which might be 80% of it (going by the energy share of fossil fuels in the global economy). To achieve equality and sustainability at the same time, and soon enough to make a difference to the climate, we might have to slash the average American's income by an unimaginable factor. But Nature doesn't care about the political impossibiity of doing this; we'll get the butcher's bill on Nature's schedule, not ours. The authors make that point, but they could have made it in terms more people can understand - dollars.

The book isn't terribly long, but it squanders much of its limited space on head-scratching irrelevancies. Such as the authors' deep confusion on the issue of race. Even if the authors' near science denial on the issue of human differences were true (i.e. if the last 50 years of relevant science had not occurred), how are these social justice issues relevant to climate change at all? It wouldn't make any difference to the climate if we still had legalized slavery, to pick a far more extreme example of past injustice. The climate only cares about how much greenhouse gas we emit, not whether we emit it justly or cruelly. Humans have had racism for all of human history in which recognizably distinct human populations have come into contact, and at no point did that ever threaten the survival of civilization as a whole. As bad as racism is, it was never and is not now an existential problem for the entire human species. I can't see how trying to saddle the climate problem with another unrelated problem increases our chances for survival one bit. Humans have lived with racism for thousands of years and would have thousands more years to finally solve it, but only if we solve the climate problem in the next few decades. By analogy, if your house in on fire, you need to solve that problem first, and then worry about weeding the garden.

For a partial introduction to the science the authors omit, read the following books:

* A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation
* Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are
* Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality
* Genes: A Very Short Introduction
* Genomics: A Very Short Introduction
* Hive Mind: How Your Nation's IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own
* In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence
* Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction (newer 2020 edition)
* Intelligence: All That Matters
* Science Wars: Politics, Gender, and Race
* The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution
* The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
* The Neuroscience of Intelligence
* The New Know-Nothings: The Political Foes of the Scientific Study of Human Nature

You may not agree with everything in all those books (I certainly don't, and they don't all agree with each other) but they should make clear what would actually constitute evidence for the authors' claims about human differences. Which the authors make no attempt to present.

The authors could have included any other serious but equally irrelevant problem, such as cancer or crime or drug addiction. But for some reason they pick this one, and never explain why, nor how doing so gets us one centimeter closer to solving climate change, the problem that if left unsolved will obliterate any hope at all for social justice or curing cancer or eradicating crime. Because while the authors naively pine for the bygone era of Stone Age egalitarianism, they don't seem to understand what primitive life was actually like. For that I direct the reader to Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011) and his TED talk. In particular note the evidence for the staggeringly high rate of prehistoric homicide, which dwarfs even the 20th century with all its industrial-scale wars. Also note the stil monumental rate of homicide and gratuitous cruelty in the Middle Ages just before the modern scourge of industrialization kicked in. Yes, the Industrial Revolution likely dooms us, but it correlated with a vast amount of social progress. Will the "remnant" who might survive the coming collapse of civilization preserve civilized values? No one can know until it happens but I wouldn't bet on it.

The authors correctly observe that humans have a nature (actually, it's a diversity of natures since we are far from alike) and that this nature (or diversity of natures) is fundamentally the problem. Climate change is not so much a technological problem as a psychological problem. To survive as a species we must somehow make the average person as pro-social and pro-environmental as the most extreme existing exemplars of those rare virtues. But the authors leave that mostly unexplored. If you're dedicating your life to a psychological problem, might it make sense to read some psychology?

Another large head-scratcher is the authors' extensive mention of religion, specifically some of the Christianities (not so much a religion as a collection of 40,000+ conflicting religions, a point the authors neglect to make). And just to be more perplexing, they claim they don't believe a word of it even while quoting from it as if authoritative. And never mentioning that religion has as much to answer for as agriculture and industry when it comes to promoting patriarchy and superstition and anti-Enlightenment values. I'm guessing the authors have never attended a Trump rally, where they might discover what Christianity (as practiced and believed by tens of millions of Americans) means for their climate and social justice concerns.

I can understand why the authors might believe that genuflecting to superstition may be necessary to get the superstitious on side - but can they really think that people who believe in Noah's Ark and Gay Conversion Therapy and souls in a petri dish are cognitively prepared to understand climate science? Well, that question quickly answers itself if you go to a Trump rally and ask people for their opinions on climate change. We might be able to solve climate change without first solving racism, but we might not be able to solve climate change without first solving religion. That's because religion relies on destroying critical thinking, our only possible tool for solving climate change. Yes, I know that a tiny percentage of Christians, even some Evangelical conservative Christians, understand the seriousness of climate change - but the exceptions don't make the rule. There's probably a reason why the climate movement has disproportionately many people who share the authors' skeptical views on the doctrinal claims of religion, even if, like the authors, they may ignore the harms of religion.

This review has gotten too long but I could list many more head-scratchers from the book. Such as the zero mention of AI, ephemeralization, Moore's law, and the fundamental difference between information vs. energy and material. (The authors seem to lump in the Digital Revolution as just another aspect of the Industrial Revolution, without understanding for example how computers could get rid of automobiles and airplanes, and how AI-enabled self-repairing master-gardener robots could make subsistence farming practical for everybody, not just those willing to labor 8 hours per day to grow enough food to feed themselves.) But as Miguel de Unamuno said, in paraphrase, the more books you read, the less harm they do.

[Curtis Anthony Bozif · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not a good book. Poorly written. Go to the source material on this one. More than likely, if you're reading this, you're already familiar with many of the other authors, scientists, observations, and arguments the two authors site and, honestly, regurgitate in this book.

[Andrew Figueiredo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, I expected a lot better from Wes Jackson, who I have an enormous amount of respect for. There are a few decent points in here about the need to respect limits and how our obsession with consumerism damages the planet, but the notion of having to move towards a future with one quarter of the world’s current population betrays the disturbing anti-humanism underpinning this book. It’s wrapped up in social justice language, but such a view, rejecting faith and even hope for one of the authors, has always and will always lead to dark places. In addition, their calls for “humility” are paired with a strange half-adoption half-rejection of Christianity and a semi-pagan view of the “ecosphere.” Weird all around, rather unrealistic, and too gloomy for its own good. You’re far better off reading something like Laudato Si.

[carmen kettrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

lol we’re doomed 😂😂😂

[Book Shark · Rating 4 out of 5]

An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity by Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen

“An Inconvenient Apocalypse” is a rather honest assessment of an imminent environmental collapse in which the best we can do is minimize suffering and destruction. Authors Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen make the compelling claim that if we don’t start living within limits, we will not be able to hold onto any sense of our humanity under the stress of collapse. This candid 184-page book includes the following five chapters: 1. Who Is “We”?, 2. Four Hard Questions: Size, Scale, Scope, Speed, 3. We Are All Apocalyptic Now, 4. A Saving Remnant, and 5. Ecospheric Grace.

Positives:
1. A well-written, well-researched book.
2. The fascinating topic of global environmental collapse and what we can do about it.
3. The book reads well. It’s infused with provocative questions and existential philosophy. The authors are reasonable and highly sensitive to social justice.
4. It discusses contemporary crises. “First, within the human family, we face a struggle for social justice in societies that currently do not operate in a manner consistent with widely held values concerning dignity, solidarity, and equality.” “Second, we face a struggle for an ecologically sustainable relationship between humans and the larger living world, the ecosphere.”
5. Discusses the heart at the ecological crises. “At the material level, we face a crisis of consumption. In aggregate terms, the human population has too much stuff. That stuff is not equally or equitably distributed among the population, of course. But no matter the level of fairness and justice in societies, the ecological costs of the extraction, processing, and waste disposal required to produce all that stuff is at the core of our ecological crises.”
6. Provides a list of the main societal threats. “The decline of key natural resources and an emerging global resource crisis, especially in water.”
7. There is no sugar coating the threats, they are real and forthcoming. “We conclude that there are no workable solutions to the most pressing problems of our historical moment. The best we can do is minimize the suffering and destruction.”
8. The problem of inequities in the world. “But Phillips’s quip is a reminder of the point we will continue to emphasize: wealth and power, along with the responsibility for ecosystem degradation, are not distributed uniformly in the world. Some people take more and therefore should be more accountable for the effects of their taking.”
9. The problems with capitalism. “If system change should come tomorrow—if capitalism were replaced by an egalitarian economic system focused not on endless growth and profit but on people’s needs—how easy would it be for everyone to give up most of the comforts to which we have grown accustomed, comforts that are directly implicated in ecosphere degradation?” “That starts with recognizing the need to transcend capitalism and the current politics designed to serve capitalists, in pursuit of an equitable distribution of wealth within planetary boundaries.”
10. Thesis discussed. “Our thesis is that while not every individual or culture is equally culpable, the human failure over the past ten thousand years is the result of the imperative of all life to seek out energy-rich carbon.”
11. The task before us. “But the task before us today is far more daunting: a down-powering on a global level with the goal of fewer people living on less energy, achieved by means of democratically managed planning to minimize suffering. Daunting, indeed.”
12. The unsustainable reality discussed. “At the heart of the unsustainable nature of human economic activity is the carbon imperative, the drive to obtain the benefits that come from using dense energy. The dominant vehicle for that destructive extraction today is a rapacious transnational corporate capitalism and that system’s requirement of unlimited growth in the pursuit of profit.”
13. Provocative ideas backed by science. “It should be uncontroversial to assert the antiracist principle that we are one species, which is anchored in basic biology. There are some observable differences in such things as skin color and hair texture, as well as some patterns in predisposition to disease based on ancestors’ geographic origins, but the idea of separate races was created by humans and is not found in nature. There are no known biologically based differences in intellectual, psychological, or moral attributes between human populations from different regions of the world.”
14. Discusses the four hard questions that are essential to confront now. “What is the sustainable size of the human population?”
15. The potential impact of climate change. “Climate change poses a major risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system and to its ability to sustain the American economy. Climate change is already impacting or is anticipated to impact nearly every facet of the economy, including infrastructure, agriculture, residential and commercial property, as well as human health and labor productivity.”
16. Describes what it means to be apocalyptic now. “First, while the end of the world is likely not at hand (at least not until the sun burns out in several billion years), some things will end, such as the unsustainable and unjust economic, political, and cultural systems that currently dominate human societies.”
17. List the characteristics of a collapsing society. “In short: “A society has collapsed when it displays a rapid, significant loss of an established level of sociopolitical complexity.””
18. Describes the concept of the saving remnant. “The term is used in various ways, but at the core is a faith that even in the face of an overwhelming catastrophe, a saving remnant will survive and become the basis for renewed community life.”
19. Describes echospheric grace in a secular way. “We like the idea of ecospheric grace because it doesn’t depend on the ecosphere loving us or bestowing on us special favor or giving us dominion over anything else. That’s important because, as far as we can tell, the ecosphere does not love us. The ecosphere does not care that we exist. We are, in ecospheric terms, just another species in a long list of species that usually end up going extinct at some point.”
20. A chapter of conclusions. “We recognize that we will all face a belt-tightening future whether we like it or not, but that is not an endorsement of the cruel austerity policies in contemporary policy making.”
20. Notes and links provided.

Negatives:
1. The book had some editing issues.
2. If you are looking to know what causes climate change, there are far better books out there. This book has a more philosophical bend.
3. The book is repetitive.
4. An unwillingness to make predictions, though they provide reasons for that.
5. Some of the suggestions and/or conclusions will be very difficult to impossible to implement. “But it’s safe to say that if our goal is long-term sustainability, the number is well below eight billion people. A lot fewer people, consuming a lot less.”
6. Awkward use of the Bible to explain the use of the word apocalypse.
7. No formal bibliography provided.

In summary, I enjoyed this book more than I think the general population will. This book focuses on the urgency needed to address our current environmental crises and what our best options are for the future. I like how socially aware these authors are and that element is present throughout the book. The authors provide a compelling case for an impending environmental collapse and stress an overhaul of our consumption and the need for political and economical systems that serve humans, not profits. Not the most technical book and some minor issues aside, I agree with the overall conclusions of the book. I recommend it.

Further recommendations: “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need” by Bill Gates, “An Inconvenient Sequel” by Al Gore, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate” by Naomi Klein, “Changing Planet, Changing Health” by Paul R. Epstein, MD, and Dan Feber, “The Crash Course” by Chris Marteson, “Storms of My Grandchildren” by James Hansen, “Warnings” by Mike Smith, “The Weather of the New Future” by Heidi Cullen, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” by Michael E. Mann, “Clean Break” by Osha Gray Davidson, “Fool Me Twice” by Lawrence Otto, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Science” by Sherry Seethaler, “Reality Check” by Donald R. Prothero, and “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

[Michael Rynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Biological and biophysical worldview says goodbye to homo heirarchicalus

Since the adoption of settlement agriculture and human population we have been on a growth path that leads to the biosphere threatening predicaments and crises of today. Our only systems choice now is a rapid down-powering. The authors identify the manifestations of our intrinsic biological carbon hunger, and face the reality of our global situations and their lives with a rigorous courage that we all need. A life affirming book.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well written, thought provoking, & it suggests a path forward to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Ultimately, incredibly depressing because there is no way the current crop of world leaders will be able to implement any of the actions required.

[Betsy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors, two highly regarded authors from different fields, have been brave enough to identify and address the overarching crisis of the moment. With humility and forthrightness they describe the apocalypse bearing down on humanity and attempt to frame it in terms to which we can relate. I wish they could have explored The who and how of our path to the soft landing. Who will lead us? It won’t be politicians or corporations, the two dominant current forces. Also helpful would have been a brief description of how we might proceed down that path, even if only to point us towards a starting point.
That said, it was fulfilling to look at our situation from such a overall perspective. Climate change, loss of biodiversity and resource depletion are only symptoms and we need to address the existential threat.

[Keith Akers · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up this book because of the subject and Jackson’s interest in perennial grains. I wondered how that contributed to his ideas about the environment and about collapse. The book is interesting, but perennial grains don’t really figure in the Jackson and Jensen’s book. Rather, it is a rambling, philosophical meditation on collapse.

In the Introduction, Jackson and Jensen quote from the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” issued in 1992 and then again as “A Second Notice” in 2017. This unanswered statement is the premise from which they start. So there’s no real discussion of the environmental crisis; rather, the crisis is assumed. Given how late in the day it is in terms of dealing with the environmental crisis (we’re probably 50 years behind schedule), this seems about right.

So what is in the book? They discuss the importance of environmental and geographic factors in history, the need for anticapitalist perspectives and for social justice. Then the overall problems of “size, scale, scope, and speed.” One useful concept was the “Overton window,” which postulates that political leaders only consider policies which already have wide public support — which explains much of the environmental crisis.

In chapter 3, they discuss the seemingly general assumption that at some point in the near future, precise date unknown, society will collapse — “we are all apocalyptic now.” This seemed striking given the opposite, seemingly also generally accepted assumption, that economic growth will continue. People are uneasy and it’s difficult to say what public opinion is at any given moment. But climate change is not a big political issue, which it seems it would be if we were truly all apocalyptic now.

In chapter 4, “A Saving Remnant,” they discuss the need to make the coming collapse as “soft” as possible. They do this in the context of the biblical idea of a “saving remnant.” They return to this semi-biblical theme in chapter 5, “Ecospheric Grace,” noting that for two non-religious people, they use a lot of religious language. In conclusion, there is a crisis of consumption — too much of it.

So, there’s not a lot of specifics here, though it is a useful starting point for discussion. It would be interesting to have people read the book and talk about it, to see where people are on the subject.

The book I would write (and will write) on the subject will have more specifics about what sorts of environmental threats we face, and more specifics on policies which could address the problem of limits. We need to look squarely at the biological dimensions of the crisis—specifically at getting rid of livestock and moving rapidly towards a plant-based diet, worldwide, coupled with a dramatic expansion of wilderness areas. This will not solve all of our problems, but it is the “low-hanging fruit” of our efforts.

“Peak oil,” which the authors mention but don’t really discuss, is the “real deal” of environmental collapse. The authors note that oil production continues to increase, and seem to join the millions who have assumed that “unconventional oil” means that we have blown past limits on oil. We have been able to delay the onset of peak oil end-game with unconventional oil, but this simply postpones and intensifies the day of reckoning. The price of oil continues to rise, and as long as it does, someone is paying. The “price of oil” is not just an economic item. It is a political and environmental reality as well. We’ve kept the economic cost of oil (though still historically high) down, but only by doubling down on environmental destruction (fracking? the Alberta tar sands?) and on debt, gambling that future growth will pay it all back (not going to happen). We’ve kept the political cost high, as well, as we cut corners to avoid uncomfortable topics, which obscures the approaching collapse.

But we shouldn’t give up just as things are beginning to get interesting! We need positive assertions of what the problems are, and a few more specifics about the general direction in which we should be headed. “An Inconvenient Apocalypse” starts down the road of such a discussion, and offers us a few meditations on how to approach the problem, but we have a long way to go.

[Max Blair · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was expecting a concrete exposition of the 'multiple cascading crises' that the authors believe will lead to a collapse in the near term but no such clear presentation came. Instead, it is assumed the reader knows about the massive problems facing the biosphere and humanity and I think this is a mistake. Without laying out at least the basics of the case for collapse, the ideas about how to think about an apocalyptic future will be hard to access, let alone accept, for the average reader.

I appreciated very much the early part of the book wherein the authors speak openly about their privilege and perspective and ask the reader to hear them out first with the intention of understanding before proceeding to make a judgement. This attitude was perhaps a bit over baked throughout. Much of the book felt woo-woo and was overly reliant on religious comparison for my taste.

Jackson and Jensen are straightforward about their belief in the need for a drastically smaller human population that consumes far less than those in rich countries are used to today. Perhaps the most important idea of the book was framing human nature as carbon-seeking and using that as a way to understand how and why we've collectively arrived at this predicament. The distinction of each individual as partially responsible but not necessarily blameworthy is also deft.

Other important ideas were seeing humans as animals rather than animals+ and the repeated warning that standing on the moral high ground is a dangerous thing to do, even if it's deserved.

I find the total dismissal of technology somewhat off-putting in these kinds of discussions around the topic of collapse. It's of course true that they've come at an unimaginably high price to non-human animals and the natural world in general, but the technologies themselves- communications, travel, artistic developments, computing, etc- have offered much good. It may well be the case that we, as a species, need to undergo a contraction to let the biosphere recover but totally rejecting that we may be able to figure out at some point how to have technology in a way that maintains balance with the natural world throws the baby out with the bathwater. It's fully possible this is just my own cognitive dissonance struggling to accept a contracted future.

It feels almost like the authors are guilty of an appeal to nature fallacy; everything that humans have created since the agricultural revolution is 'bad' and the more we can live closer to nature is 'good'. Nature is a violent, unforgiving thing and I don't think it's wrong for us to try to overcome it, though of course there's a balance to be had in that we rely on it (for the time being) for our continued existence.

As dire as the state of the world is, I think we must frame the ecological problems facing us as obstacles to an even better human future rather than annoying impediments to the maintenance of the current status quo. The deteriorating natural world is only one of many ways in which the world is not currently functioning optimally for the flourishing of humans and non-human animals. Instead of trying to convince people to reluctantly retreat to subsistence existences, we should paint the picture of a future, perhaps quite distant and only arriving after another dark age of sorts, of a humanity that flourishes in myriad ways, including in its balance with our planet.

[Martin McDonald · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a worthy-seeming addition to the debate on climate change but is ultimately gloomy and frustratingly unhelpful. The authors' main message is that the world is inevitably headed for wholesale collapse in terms of both human systems and ecosystems (I don't think I've ever read anything so unhopeful about humanity's and the planet's future)... unless... we make radical change now by overturning power structures in general and specifically capitalism and imperialism, instituting a global system of egalitarian justice, dramatically cutting the human population to a quarter of current levels, dramatically cutting human consumption by reverting to a pre-technological or even pre-industrial lifestyle, replacing pandering to people's unnecessary wants with attending to their actual needs and radically reforming and reducing the whole geo-political system with village sized self-regulating communities. That's a lot and goes against huge tendencies in admittedly unhelpful human desires and behaviours. They're asking for fundamental root and branch transformations in thinking, feeling and acting that haven't happened since human beings first appeared hundreds of thousands of years ago and, presumably, those changes need to happen soon and quickly. Here's the frustrating bit - the authors don't offer anything in the way of a discussion on how that change may be even started nor any kind of idea of how post-change humanity and societies would look. You can only read repetitions of "Everything's going to collapse... unless..." so many times before you start wishing they would get on with it and at least suggest practical steps to take, or even think about. That's what's really needed here and is sadly lacking.

[Ascoyne · Rating 2 out of 5]

In the early 1970's I'd started reading about sustainability and population problems specifically in the writings of Paul Ehrlich. At the time the perceived problem was global cooling but never the less the key problem of over population and limited supplies of fuel and ores was seen as an urgent problem.

The current problem is seen as global warming or climate change. It saddens me deeply to see many people just ignoring this as a problem or taking the views of a minority of science literature that the problem does not exist against the vast majority of climate science experts that we are approaching a pivot point where problems will escalate.

It seems obvious to me that even if climate change didn't exist we have to get off our reliance on fossil fuels. However it concerns me that in order to do so we are raiding the world for other minerals such as the rare earths which are equally as finite.

The book outlines why the authors think there is no solution. The planet has to drastically reduce in population and man has to stop reliance on high energy resources to survive. However there is no description how this change would be managed or any idea at all on mitigation for the problems. You're left to assume that various disasters will devastate the planet and the survivors will get by as best they can.

The only help they offer is a paen to Hope that somehow mankind will survive.

[Jim Folger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jackson and Jensen as self-described two old white guys who live comfortably with good retirement plans have provided some thoughtful and controversial academic insights into the future of the human race. Their professed intent is to raise the uncomfortable questions that will address a predictable apocalypse in the world. They provide some instructive insights into the foundations of societies beginning with the agricultural revolution and culminating in a consumer-driven economy that is exhausting the globe’s natural resources while polluting the planet with carbon-driven consumption.
The future they predict will be one of contraction instead of expansion, as we try to find a more humane and democratic path to lowering our population, eliminating fossil fuels, and adopting a more socially driven society. Their main point is that the apocalypse is going to happen, driven by the unending pursuit of economic growth. How we come out on the “other side” remains to be seen.

The authors make an excellent point that as humans we need to be removed from the center of the story, understanding that the ecosphere does not care about us. We are more closely related to the animal world than we think we are.

The issues raised in this book are most worthy of discussion, and a valuable contribution to constructive debate about the future.

[Rachel Bhattacharyya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jackson and Jensen's book An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity was a relief to read. I have long suspected and believed the assertions made in this book but had not previously participated in conversations nor read books that presented the timeline of man's destructive impact on Earth. Climate change is usually presented in relatively immediate terms that require specific actions - actions that might, or might not, be successful in solving our environmental issues.
In contrast An Inconvenient Apocalypse presents our tenuous situation on earth from historical, sociological and scientific points of view. This clarifies the complexity of the issue and indicates how each of these aspects of our culture have created, and will continue to create significant repercussions for our future. Jackson and Jensen systematically put forth the evidence; the notes and references at the completion of the book are compelling and comprehensive. The conversational, non-dogmatic, unassuming style is very readable and requires the reader to do their own thinking and imagining as they put the facts together.
One might think this is a depressing topic, but it is not. This is a thought-provoking book that requests people acknowledge what has transpired over eons, since mankind became an agricultural society. Once humans fully recognize and accept our role in Earth's current questionable state, it becomes imperative - and much easier - to recognize the future cannot, and will not, be a continuation of the past.

[emma_1359 · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agreed with a lot of this, and I think the authors bring up some very important points about energy de-growth and human nature (mainly, that we're "animals out of context"). I was stumped when they talked about population de-growth, though, because they kind of said that it's something that needs to happen but didn't offer solutions. They were basically like "yeah, every time someone has tried to implement population reduction it's resulted in some kind of eugenics", and then they don't offer a way to do it without coercion. I'd like a little more detail on that argument. We need to stabilize our population, but we need to do it in a non-coercive way that doesn't harm anyone's rights or dignity. Unfortunately, there weren't any solutions they offered, even though it was a central talking point of the book.

I do think a lot of people could get a lot out of this read, though, and I'll definitely be recommending it to others in my life.

[David Garnett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book from two academics in their 80s. The title reminds me of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth." The change from Truth to Apocalypse reveals how serious the environmental collapse will be since we have put off dealing with it for so long. Now we have, in the authors' words, "multiple cascading crises" to deal with. The authors try to be very truthful about what we face and it is not pretty. Our love affair with "dense energy" (carbon) is at the root of our troubles. They argue that a sustainable future for the planet will involve a lot less people, a lot less stuff, and a lot less energy usage. Like a number of other books from other fields, the authors argue that one age is ending and another is beginning soon. For them, the age that is ending is the one based on unlimited growth,and the new age will be marked by much less. This book is worth your time.

[A.J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Humans need to reduce their numbers, live more simply, and work together in smaller groups in order to navigate the coming collapse of our existing ways of living. The authors recommend a human population of two billion (a number we last saw in 1927), but don't go as far as making proposals for how that number might be achieved.

Indigenous ways of living were not explicitly referenced in this book, but I felt that many of the non-European ways of living with the natural world rather than trying to beat it into submission align well with the authors' call for a more harmonious relationship with our fellow beings on this planet. A lot of the book resonated with my feelings and views on our current path. Loved it.

[Mike Cross · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's very hard to rate this book, as it's really only a third of a book, but includes another book as well. The author's (whom I would love to sit down and have a beer or two with every week) only address the approaching apocalypse that started 10,000 years ago with the invention of agriculture. They make a case for it, warn us about it, but don't address how it will materialize nor what to do after that. That's the two-thirds of the book that is missing. While warning us about the upcoming apocalypse, they go to great length to explain their own overall philosophies, which are quite interesting, insanely well thought out, and wonderfully presented; this is the other "included" book. The book makes me scratch my head, but then I'm done.

[Ian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sums up many facts and straightforward (to me) assessment of earths ability to sustain current level of consumption by us. Too academic imo. They spend a lot of time justifying their particular position on say, quoting bible, but they have several good insights into our situation, ie our ideas of the future for our kids/grandkids is changing from what we currently hope for, role of prophets today, imagining a world after a collapse, idea that our generation consuming resources from our future generations is a ponzus scheme, start of agriculture was comparable to adam eve leaving garden of eden. But climate messaging too caveated imo, Greta is at same observation point but clearer coms.

[Mary E Blakeley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Subject for Everyone

Lays out the likely future of the ecosphere--as well as our likely future--without the usual list of things we can do right this minute to save the planet. This book is right up there with David Wallace-Wells' The Uninhabitable Earth in being honest about what's coming, like it or not, ready or not. And no, the planet is not at risk, we are, at least the vast majority of us. Jackson and Jensen put the choices we need to make in stark terms, choices both difficult and harsh. If you can read this book without looking at our civilization in new and disturbing ways, you weren't paying attention. Read the book and consider your future.

[Anneli · Rating 2 out of 5]

A peculiar book. Having read through the seemingly endless introduction I suddenly arrived at the summary. Maybe this is how one has to approach an average US reader: first thoroughly excusing for being there, then saying some quick truths and exiting quickly. It's not that I don't agree with what these guys are saying, the book is probably intended for audience who does not know much. Maybe I was just hoping for more answers than questions based on what I had read about the book before. Too much religious comments for my taste.
Humans as "a species out of context" was a good one.

[Becca Anne · Rating 2 out of 5]

A lot of talk that could have been compressed into a short paper. Spoiler we have to consume less and reduce the population and even with that they think we are screwed as a species. They didn't have much in the way of solutions to offer. Depressing and repetitive over all but hardly surprising as the authors are both professors so they likely don't know how to write anything short. I'll keep planting my garden and trees and buying pre-loved items and working from home to do my part. Let's hope they're wrong.

[Scott Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a good, interesting premise for this work. However, the work tends to jump around in definitions and themes. It is a broad-brush overview of the concepts of humanity, what it is to be human and what will lead to the downfall of our current civilization. Not really covering any new ground in this work, unless it is the first book you will read on the subject of the human downfall. There are better works out there. Not a bad work, but not a great one.