I know, I know. Who wants to read about the world coming to an end or people wiped off the earth? There’s enough tragedy, misery, and pain in the world, why read about a future unknown and the possibility of doomsday knocking at our door? In recently released works from two astute authors, delving into a grim hypothesis – the end of the world – is exactly their ploy. By encouraging us to examine possible future scenarios, they trust that we might consider the repercussion of our actions, today.
In Alan Weisman’s New York Times bestseller, ‘The World Without Us,’ he asks the question: What if something, say a virus, wiped out all people, yet the world remained the same? What would the world look like without us? What would happen to the streets and houses? Infrastructure, such as sewer and underground subway systems; how long would it take for them to fall apart? In his exhaustive research, Weisman traveled to many parts of the world speaking to engineers and scientists in a variety of fields to find out the answers. Once he learned their conclusions, he then confronted our current practices in light of their environmental and humankind impact.
Cormac McCarthy in ‘The Road’ offers a fictional approach to the doomsday possibility. A father and son walk laboriously on a road in a post-apocalyptic setting, exhausted and worn, attempting each day to simply survive. The setting itself is harsh enough to make one eager to look towards time and consider what can be done to avoid such a frightening world. In addition, like Weisman’s book, we also imagine a world without people, or very few such as in McCarthy’s novel, which makes us acutely aware of the ramifications of a lonely existence.
Why read such books? Perhaps because language offers us a new way to read the future. Perhaps because we might look at today a bit differently and perhaps because we do indeed care about the environment and our grandchildren’s children. As one character points out in McCarthy’s novel: ‘People were always getting ready for tomorrow. I didn’t believe in that. Tomorrow wasn’t getting ready for them. It didn’t even know they were there.’
Interview with Alan Weisman
July 25, 2007
The Passage Bookstore, Corte Madera, CA
Eve Quesnel: Alan, it’s great to finally meet you and attend your reading. How are you?
Alan Weisman: Tired. This project has been all-consuming. I’ve been traveling the world, seeing how it all connects. Now I’m busy with the book tour; I just found out ‘The World Without Us’ has been added to the New York Times bestseller list.
EQ: Congratulations! Tell me a little about the premise of this book.
AW: It was an experiment, to see what the world would look like without us, if humans were wiped out, humans, not any other species. What if everything in the world remained: houses, art, architecture, infrastructure, cities, soil, but humans were extracted? I wondered, ‘How would the rest of nature respond? How would climate restore? And would the world miss us?’
EQ: I found it intriguing that in order to answer these questions you began by looking in the past, to how we evolved and how some civilizations proved more resilient than others.
AW: Yes, I wanted to start with places familiar to readers, such as the half million acres of old growth wilderness in Poland (if you haven’t lived in such a place, Weisman claims in his book that you’ve imagined such primeval forests in fairy tales). People left this area because of political unrest, then nature took over.
EQ: You chose New York as the city to examine the most intimately. Why?
AW: Well, it’s one of the biggest and most renowned. And I think its history, physically, is interesting. New York was once hilly with streams and lakes. When Henry Hudson first arrived, he saw forests with indigenous people living on the edge. I wondered if man were extracted, would New York revert to natural forest?
Sidenote: In Weisman’s book, he describes the New York Botanical Garden’s 40-acre tract of original, old-growth, virgin New York forest, which has never been logged, to account for what was there before.
EQ: Do you believe nature would return if we were gone?
AW: Nature invades. Even when we try to keep it out, insects, mold, mammals and water creep in. Think about our houses and how to try to keep these things at bay, but they return, especially water.
EQ: You reveal, graphically, on ‘The World Without Us’ website and through descriptions in your book, the stages of decay.
AW: Yes, it would take two to three days for subways to flood, if no pumps were working, and then streets would cave and there’d be a river. With freezing and thawing, cracks would occur and then seeds would find their way into the cracks, and germinate. Fire helps change the soil chemistry and within a few centuries a forest would pervade the area.
EQ: Plastic seems to be one of the main focuses in your book. Certainly, we all use plastic, every day. Is getting rid of plastic one of your messages?
AW: Plastic was invented at the beginning of the century and was made so that nothing can break it down. The problem with plastic is that it goes right to the sea and it not only affects the sea birds but plankton too. Plastic, in its smallest form, has been detected in the smallest of sea life. And some women may not like to hear this, but many cosmetics have polyethylene in them, which is plastic. Even the most ‘natural’ face scrubs have this ingredient. And as for answering the plastic or paper question at the grocery cash register, I say, ‘Neither.’ It’s criminal that stores give out plastic bags for free. Ask your grandmother what she used to use.
EQ: In your talk tonight, you mentioned some of the most polluted places on earth like Chernobyl and the Korean DMZ (Korean Demilitarized Zone-strip of land that serves as a buffer zone between North and South Korea). What do these places reveal to us?
AW: That life is resilient. That nature responds. That in Korea the Red-Crowned Crane flies in between rice paddies. With peace, the area can either be developed or the wildlife area can be protected.
EQ: As one solution to what we can do in the future, as a positive change, you mention population control. Do you really believe that having one child will make a difference?
AW: First of all, let me say that I love my sister so it’s hard to suggest this solution, but I believe in it. It’s not just what we do, but how many of us are doing it. If we continue as projected, the human population will reach 9 billion by the end of the century. If we change to one child, the population would drop by 1 billion by the end of the century. I believe there will be a population crash and so we have to either manage it ourselves or have nature decide our demise. I love this planet. I love being a Homo Sapien. I love family. But we can downsize. Italy has the lowest birthrate and they are one of the most family-oriented countries.
EQ: What other solutions do you envision?
AW: I don’t necessarily like to be with politicians, but I had an interesting afternoon with Al Gore. He has brought global warming to the forefront and people are listening. Many authors bring environmental situations to our attention and propose sound solutions: Bill McKibben addresses deep economy and Jordan Fisher Smith restoration ecology, to recognize what’s being rejected and to support it and restore it to its original numbers. Gary Nabhan, Janisse Ray, Michael Polan, and Barbara Kingsolver all have their pulse on food issues. Certainly, we need to stop importing food and start eating more local foods.
EQ: What gives you hope and what do you hope ‘A World Without Us’ accomplishes?
AW: I’m hopeful in smart people who will increase attention where problems lie. I’m hopeful in other books. I hope this book presents a fresh way at looking at things more closely. I hope to take advantage of people’s subconscious and get them to think, ‘How did it get to be this way?’ In good writing, the truth is in the details. Through most of my book, the facts speak for themselves. I also believe we’re starved of history, that we believe it’s not relevant. But by ignoring history we make more mistakes.
EQ: You are a prolific journalist. Are there other genres you might consider, like fiction?
AW: I present a cast of characters in ‘A World Without Us’: biologists, botanists, ecologists, anthropologists, engineers, paleontologists, etc., They are the real storytellers. Characters get readers to ‘feel.’ I think one must write in whatever form is appropriate for the subject matter. I have considered fiction, but we’ll see.
EQ: On a more personal level, what do you believe in? How do you live your life?
AW: The golden rule. A sense of others. To be a voice that can be heard. To enable the spirit of beauty.
EQ: Since our conversation in February 2006, concerning the sustainable Columbian community of Gaviotas (see Moonshine Ink article in Feb/March 2006 issue), what’s new?
AW: Because of civil war, it’s dangerous, so Gaviotas hasn’t advanced too far. Their biodiesel program has grown 20 percent, however. The Columbian government is contracting with Gaviotas for large-scale biodiesel means.
EQ: Again, it’s been a pleasure. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy book tour schedule to speak with me.
AW: I’m glad we could work it out.
Worldwithoutus.com:
Check out this dramatic website depicting the demise of the world as we know it, per Alan Weisman’s ‘The World Without Us.’ Also includes video clips of interviews with Weisman.
