The Most Important Book You’ve Never Read

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but my guess is that none of you regular readers of my blog have ever read William R. Catton Jr.’s book Overshoot. I read it for the first time this year (and plan to read it again). I wish I had read it forty years ago; it is, truly, a book of great significance. 

Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change was first published in 1980 and is still in print. (I read the Kindle version of the 1982 paperback.) Eco-theologian Michael Dowd, whom I have referred to repeatedly, says Overshoot is the most important book he has ever read.

All of the first part, “The Unfathomed Predicament of Mankind” can be read on Amazon.com’s webpage (see here). There the author asserts, “Today mankind is locked into stealing ravenously from the future. That is what this book is about.”

Catton (1926~2015) goes on to state that “contemporary well-being is achieved at the expense of our descendants.” He then says,

A major aim of this book is to show that commonly proposed “solutions” for problems confronting mankind are actually going to aggravate those problems (p. 3).

At the end of the first chapter, the author declares, “This is not a book to be read either casually or passively.” Indeed, it is not.**

Catton explains the circumstance and consequence of what he calls “new ecological understandings.” This is summarized in Table 2 (on p. 71) in Overshoot (pasted here), and I encourage you to read it carefully. 

Having watched several videos by Dowd and having read the illuminating books by Ophuls and Catton, I have, reluctantly, adopted the first position, that of realism.

The second of the five “labels” is perhaps the only one that needs some explanation, although the position it designates is widely held. The term “cargoism” is based on the “cargo cults” in the Pacific island societies, especially the pre-literate Melanesian peoples.

Whatever was needed was “miraculously” brought in on European cargo ships. In a similar manner, many contemporary people have “faith in science and technology as infallible solvers of any conceivable problem” (pp. 185-6). Thus, such faith in sure-to-come technological solutions is called cargoism.

Perhaps the most common position for socially aware people is the third one. They realize there is an environmental problem and so they seek to do something (or many things) to address the problem. But such actions don’t solve the deep, underlying predicament; it is merely cosmeticism.

Some people, though, just completely disregard the “circumstance” and the “consequence” as described by author Catton, and this widespread position is called cynicism.

Many other people, and perhaps this is the largest group, don’t just merely disregard but actually deny both circumstance and consequence. This is the position of ostrichism.

So, here are the questions I leave with you. Which of these five terms best describes your present position? If you don’t hold to the first position (realism), are you satisfied with your current stance and would you recommend it to others? Why or why not?

Of course, many of you may think all this is too painful to think about—and I certainly understand why you may feel that way. But refusing to think about the issues is, in effect, “ostrichism.”

As for me, I want to continue advocating realism, believing that that is the best position for promoting both a social conscience and mental health for oneself as well as the optimal future for humankind.

_____

** Three times in the first chapter, Catton makes reference to Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (1977) by William Ophuls, whom I introduced in my March 1 blog post. 

See here for helpful biographical information about Catton.