Apocalyptic Argument

Words: 555
Pages: 3

The article “How Apocalyptic Thinking Prevents Us from Taking Political Action” by Matthew Barrett Gross and Mel Gilles argues that the ever-prevalent reliance on using overdramatic, hyperbolic rhetoric for all dangers that face humanity causes an aversion to preventing avoidable problems. Instead of inspiring extreme action, Gross and Gilles argue, the apocalyptic language causes inaction through dismissal or paralyzing paranoia. People either dismiss threats because the apocalyptic claim seems too unreasonable or do not act because the thought of the tragedy causes too much shock. The key to the argument, though, is that the overuse of apocalyptic language detracts from action that should be taken on dangers that are actually severe and preventable. The arguments presented in this article are deeply flawed. Gross and Gilles contradict their own assumption of the power of fear, ignore possible reactions that people may have, and discount the potential benefits of heightened paranoia. …show more content…
If fear is the most effective way to garner attention, it does not make sense to attribute inaction to fear because the removal of fear would undoubtedly cause inaction by way of preventing any interest in a given topic. They even state that perhaps the “apocalyptic warning” was the only “way to sound the alarm about the devastating threat presented by global climate change…” If hyperbolic rhetoric was the only way to draw attention to the issue, it would be ridiculous to blame that same extreme rhetoric with inaction toward the issue. Surely removing the cause of interest in anything cannot be attributed with causing disinterest toward that same