7.6 /10 1 Votes7.6
Publisher Knopf Pages 244 pages ISBN 0394525590 | 3.8/5 Goodreads Publication date 1982 Originally published 1982 Genre Non-fiction OCLC 8280571 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject consequences of nuclear war Nominations Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Award for General Nonfiction (Hardcover) Similar Jonathan Schell books, Non-fiction books | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill mckibben on the fate of the earth the new school
The Fate of the Earth is a 1982 book by Jonathan Schell. This "seminal" description of the consequences of nuclear war "forces even the most reluctant person to confront the unthinkable: the destruction of humanity and possibly most life on Earth". The book is regarded as a key document in the nuclear disarmament movement.
Contents
The book is composed of three essays. The third and final, “The Choice,” is an argument that the source of the nuclear threat is the nation-state system, and that the choice is between survival and national sovereignty.
Criticism
In his review of The Fate of the Earth, Brian Martin demonstrated that the argument that “most people” would die in the nuclear war is highly exaggerated, especially for the Global South. He explains the discrepancy:
“The perplexity is explained by Shell’s process of continually taking worst interpretations and bending the evidence to give the worst impression … And usually when he spells out a worst case as a possibility—for example… a 10,000 Mt attack on the United States—this becomes implicitly a certainty for later discussion, with qualifications dropped”
Brian Martin offers explanation for the constant tendency to exaggerate the effect of nuclear war:
“’Pushing’ of an argument to support a particular conclusion is a common phenomenon in science, and Shell, perhaps, should not be blamed overly much for doing this, especially since in many of his arguments he relies heavily on quotes from specialists who do the same thing. What is more important are the political implications of a conclusion about the likelihood of extinction from nuclear war. There are many potential [political] reasons why the effects of nuclear war are exaggerated… Indeed, Shell explicitly advocates use of the fear of extinction as the basis for inspiring the ‘complete rearrangement of world politics.’”