Farewell to an imperfect genius

Before I turn my attention to the aftermath of the elections and the environmental policy road ahead, I need to say a few words in the wake of the passing of sci-fi author Michael Crichton. Dr. Crichton's books are some of my favorite works of contemporary fiction. He wrote a type of science fiction that was distinct from the Star Wars/Trek mode of robots and aliens and spaceships and lasers. Crichton's sci-fi takes place in the here and now, and is built upon current scientific knowledge. His work is in the tradition of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, and reading Crichton made me go back and re-discover those earlier sci-fi masters. He studied an area of science, understood the state of the game, and then made some leap or tweak to what we know or what is possible in order to craft a tale beyond the realm of the possible (or at least beyond the realm of the probable). His books are each about some scientific discipline: Jurassic Park is not about dinosaurs, it's about genetic engineering and cloning. The Lost World is also not about dinosaurs either, it's about community ecology. Unfortunately, the movie adaptations of his books rarely did justice to them (JP is a notable exception). That his main characters are generally ordinary scientists who become heroes by finding themselves in extraordinary circumstances is an element that certainly resonates with me: It fed my longstanding dream of being Indiana Jones!



Of course, Dr. Crichton's last years were defined less by his creative work and more by the role he adopted as a critic of global climate change. State of Fear, his second to last book, tells a tale of a plot hatched by environmentalists desperate to prove the veracity of human-induced climate change in order to reap the financial and political gains that come with a crisis connected to their issue. As a work of fiction, this is an intriguing and potentially interesting concept, and one I might have even picked up despite the implicit indictment of people in my line of work. After all, it's a story, and I can stomach being made into a villain for storytelling purposes. The problem, however, was that Crichton didn't stop there. He accompanied the novel with a manifesto of sorts decrying the predominate theory of anthropogenic climate change. And he then began a speaking crusade that included a series of lectures on the topic and, most significantly, testimony before the U.S. Congress. Given that manifesto and his activism, it became clear that the book was not simply a story, perhaps with a message or perhaps simply a test to see how seriously environmentalists take themselves and whether they can cope with being fictional villains. Rather, the book was part of, indeed the launch of, a propaganda campaign.



Now, I am not opposed to famous people using their celebrity to speak on public policy issues. After all, in a democracy, we all have the right to express our views, and we should all take advantage of any opportunity afforded us to voice our ideas and opinions. The fact that those opportunities are presented disproportionately to the famous is not their fault (in fact, it is the fault of the rest of us), and they should not willingly avoid the platform presented. In a nation of 300 million people with a complex chorus of perspectives, anyone should seize any chance to be heard.



Nor is my grievance with Dr. Crichton's climate change campaign his use of his art to convey his message. This is what artists have done throughout time. For example, Bob Dylan, on the left, and Charlie Daniels, on the right, have sung songs that convey their critiques of American politics. At the moment, I am working my way through the Genesis of Shannara trilogy of novels by fantasy writer Terry Brooks. Terry and his wife Judine have become friends of mine, and I know that he is an avowed environmentalist. The Genesis books are set in a post-apocalyptic world brought about by war, disease and rampant environmental degradation. There is an unmistakable political message in the books, and if asked in front of a camera or microphone I have no doubt that Terry would very clearly make his views known on what we need to do differently.



The difference, however, is that Terry speaks directly and through his work as an advocate, but not as a specialist. He speaks as a citizen with a point of view that is worth hearing. Crichton, on the other hand, crossed a line from advocacy to technical advisor. He used his fame and credentials to speak as a technical expert. The problem is that he is not a technical expert. His background is in medicine and genetics, not in meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, oceanography, ecosystem ecology, or any of the other disciplines at the core of understanding global climate change and its consequences. Dr. Crichton had a remarkable ability to learn the state-of-the-game in a scientific discipline, to a point where he could craft mesmerizing tales of adventure with a believability stemming from his homework on the core subjects. But learning a discipline well enough to write a plausible sci-fi novel does not make one an expert on the subject. That requires years of study and research, of probing the inner workings of a system (the global climate, a coral reef, the human body...whatever), understanding as much as possible how it works, identifying where the key uncertainties lie, and working to answer those questions, all the while continuing to revisit and challenge the working paradigm. When it came to climate change, Dr. Crichton did not have those bona fides. But somewhere along the line, Dr. Crichton either willingly adopted the guise of climate change specialist or fooled himself into thinking he was an expert, and subsequently set out into the policy arena as an expert in sheep's clothing.



I have now written one paragraph celebrating Dr. Crichton's craft and the joy it brought me, and several more criticizing his work against action on climate change. I feel somewhat badly about that, and do not want to belabor the point. But I feel it is an important illustration of the difference between being a citizen with a view and a voice versus acting as an uncredentialed technical expert, and a caution against others trying to blur that line. Ultimately, however, I want to thank Dr. Crichton for (most of) the body of work he left behind and the hours of joy his tales have brought me.

Three things

It's been just shy of 5 months since my "Happy Oceans Day!" post. I believe that's a new record for a gap in posting by the staff at Running On. But I have to say it feels good to see the old Blogger window again, and to have words flowing from my finger tips, through the keyboard, across cyberspace, and into all of your hearts and minds.

What finally precipitated my logging back into the control center of everyone's favorite blog and (once again) trying to build some momentum? Well, there are three things:

Firstly, while walking through Boston's Public Gardens this past Saturday, I had the pleasure of watching two red-tailed hawks perched amidst the autumn foliage, flying from tree to tree, and occasionally eyeing with intent squirrels foraging out on the open lawns. They seemed relatively unconcerned with the human passersby, and would perch and fly fairly low, affording fantastic views of these beautiful birds. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see them catch any of the smaller park residents, but they were a joy to watch nonetheless. Of course, my *&%#$@ camera died earlier this summer after a horribly misnamed "dry bag" allowed it to be inundated with seawater while kayaking in Santa Barbara (the final shot, of my colleague Scott on the tail end of nicely ridden wave, taken by that fine camera is situated above). But it was still a nice treat.

Secondly, later that same day, I picked up a copy of Boston's Weekly Dig and came across a little article therein, the contents of which I had to share. It seems that a company called Holistic Wisdom is producing - how to put this? - adult paraphernalia that is environmentally sustainable. As someone who has made his life's work the pursuit of greater balance between our species and the rest of the natural world (for the benefit of both, as discussed in the first ever RO post), I for one am thrilled to see the greening of the sex toy industry. Moreover, I am pleased to see that the emergence of a company like Holistic Wisdom is due in part to the work and advocacy of a non-profit organization, the Coalition Against Toxic Toys, or CATT. You may recall that in my February 1 post announcing the official Running On endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President, I cited as an important reason for my support of Senator Obama his call to arms for greater civic engagement by all of us, to not simply rely on the government to change the world but to get out and do it ourselves. I then went on to discuss how non-profit organizations are the ultimate embodiment of civic engagement, making it a full-time endeavor for their staff (regardless of whether an organization's aims are noble or nefarious). To see an organization like CATT bring about the sort of social change seen in a company like Holistic Wisdom is truly inspiring.

Speaking of the RO endorsement, the third thing bringing me back to the blogosphere is a little thing happening tomorrow in which the good people of the U.S. of A. head out to select a new leader. I'll have some thoughts on the winner of the Presidential election to be sure, but I also want to address a backlog of links I've been compiling on the environmental record of George W. Bush, and perhaps more importantly looking ahead at what might await us in his final months in office. Stay tuned...