In the reading “The Great Derangement” the author Amitav Ghosh argues that literature has failed to address climate change in a meaningful way. Ghosh believes that modern novels which focus on personal and individual experiences which struggle to capture the global and collective nature of the climate crisis. Ghosh argues that this failure is not just a problem for the writers but a part of a larger cultural issue. And our inability to fully grasp the scale and urgency of the issue of climate change.

Ghosh points out that most novels are based on everyday events and predictable plots but climate change is unpredictable and overwhelming. He calls climate change “unthinkable” because it is so far from the reality of the normal. (Ghosh) Storms, floods, and droughts caused by climate change seem unreal and making it hard to fit them into the conventional plots of novels. As a result climate change is often left out of literature even though it’s one of the biggest challenges of our time.

Ghosh also connects this problem to history. He says the novel became popular during the time of European colonialism. When western countries were taking control of land and resources in other parts of the world. Because of this novels have focused a lot on individual characters and their personal choices, reflecting the values of that time. Ghosh writes “similarly, at exactly the time when it became clear that global warming is in every sense a collective predicament, humanity finds itself in the thrall of a dominant cultural in which the idea of the collective has been exiled from politics, economics and literature alike” (Ghosh). Ghosh argues that this way of storytelling isn’t for the issue of climate change which involves large scale collective experiences and systems effecting everyone. He also highlights that most novels come from western perspective that often neglect the voices of people in the global couch who are most affected by climate change.

Despite these problems, Ghosh is hopeful that literature can a change. He believes that new kinds of stories can be written stories that deal with the global scale of climate change in literature, we might better understand the crisis and take action to solve it. In “The Great Derangement” Ghosh challenges writers and readers to rethink how we tell stories about the world. By finding new ways to talk about climate changed in literature we might better understand the crisis and take action to solve it.

In this world, a lot of things happen that are out of our control that we can’t change or redo. We often ignore the things we do have control over, and then act surprised when it is too late, as if the inevitable point of no return came out of nowhere.  Humans are contributing to ecological destruction through inaction and ignorance paralleling how Republicans often ignore the red flags of their chosen candidate just as many turn a blind eye to societal decay or political missteps. A lot of things in the world are changing and they are changing rapidly not for the better but for the worse we are facing a lot of climate changes, catastrophes, Wars, dangerous chemicals, deforestation, and industrialization all of which were caused by humans. This era of ecological devastation, often labeled as the Anthropocene, has been questioned by scholars like Donna Haraway, who argues that it’s not just humans, but specific systems and histories that are driving these changes. In Donna Haraway’s “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin she questions all living things (organisms), and their contribution to our ecological developmental historical events that have happened, and influenced our current situation. 

       Haraway analyzes how our species and every other living organism have played a role in the conditions we live in today. She writes “No species, not even our arrogant one pretending to be good individuals in so-called modern Western scripts, acts alone, assemblages of organic species and abiotic make history, the evolutionary kind and the other kinds too” (DH article) showing that our era is not only dominated by humans but also other living organisms which forces together with humans impact the Anthropocene. Anna Tsing argues that it doesn’t matter how much money, and technology we use to try and fix the problem by delaying it we are only putting off the inhabitable, and we will be doomed by our actions. Our actions have caused significant problems also on animals forcing them out of their habitats, but how would they look for refuge in a world that is ceasing to exist by the day? 

           DH thinks that instead of calling this era the Anthropocene it should be “Antgripocene, Platationocene, and Capitalocene” because now not only humans are causing the effects but also other causes such as the role of the capitalist system of production, consumption, and extraction s causing the degradation of our planet. Industrialization has had a major role in polluting our air, and prioritizing profits such as cheaper ways to obtain oil or airplane emotions instead of finding better ways that would benefit the planet. Beyond pollution, capitalism also perpetuates inequality and resource exploitation, where the most vulnerable populations often bear the brunt of environmental degradation. This is why Haraway highlights capitalism as a central force in the degradation of our planet. Also, our history of colonialism, plantation-based agriculture, and slavery were contributors to the ecological devastation we see nowadays. Haraway emphasizes how plantation economies created hierarchies between humans and other living, beings separating nature from culture and contributing to the environmental crisis. The exploitation of land and people in plantation-based economies continues today, with global agriculture and monoculture practices depleting biodiversity and damaging ecosystems. DH introduces the idea of looking forward to “Chthulucene” envisioning how we can learn to live with other species and emphasizing the need for mutual survival and collaboration. The Chthulucene asks us to embrace our entanglement with other species, recognizing that our survival depends on theirs. Haraway suggests that we need to rethink our relationships not just with the planet but with all living beings, moving away from domination toward collaboration, and it demonstrates what the Anthropocene failed to do. Understanding Haraway’s alternative frameworks forces us to rethink human relationships with the earth. If we are to move beyond the Anthropocene, we must prioritize mutual survival, collaboration, and sustainable living practices. The future depends on whether we can adapt to these principles before it is too late.

In Octavia Butler’s novel “Parable of the Sower”, we as readers get to dive into Lauren’s world, where she lives, how she feels and thinks as well as getting to know her hometown, Robledo and the way her family and other families live in the town. As we get to chapter 2 of the novel, Lauren explains that she “…Three years ago, my fathers god stopped being my god. His church stopped being my church….My god has another name.” Lauren is very bright, she’s intelligent but she is a realist as well. Although, she may cherish her father and what his beliefs are, she doesn’t see it that way.

In her hometown Robledo, it is full of people who are on the edge of survival, who make just enough to have food and a shelter over their heads. These people live in a constant edge of life, where they have to be aware of thieves, threats to their homes and a threat to their garden which is where they also get their nourishment. In such an environment, parents, or all household tenants have to have weapons on them in case anything may happen. Even in this town, it’s dangerous to travel alone, it’s insisted that people go together in a pack to survive and to make sure no one gets hurt. Octavia Butler, intended for the reader to feel all the emotions with Lauren, to experience her life and the way her and her people have to live day by day. However, Lauren doesn’t seemed determined to stay, she strives for survival. In the text it states “I’m trying to learn whatever I can that might help me survive out there…I think we should make emergency packs-grab and run packs…I intend to survive.” Lauren proves that she won’t let her situation get the best of her, she emphasizes it throughout the first few chapters. She wants to live better, and she will find ways in which she can not only help herself but also alert others on what goes on in the world that they live in. Although, she may be a teenager, she knows what the world consists of, the hardships of life, and she wants to make sure she can strive past these obstacles to reach a better living.

Lauren’s belief system is that “God is change”, in the novel it states “The particular God-is-Change belief system that seems right to me will be called Earthseed…where plants seeded themselves and grew along before any humans arrived…we’ll have to seed ourselves farther and farther from this dying place.” This demonstrates how her belief is their is consistent change, and it’s the form that the way we are shaped, god is shaped as well. To put it in better terms, the way we change, god changes as well. Lauren has a strong belief that the way life was perceived 20 to 30 years ago is no longer the same in the present time, everything is changing, there will always be a constant change. In this sense, if we think about this now in present times, in our reality, the way we live is also changing. One of our important factors in our lives is Climate change, we as humans we can predict how bad climate change can get,  but we truly won’t know the actual horrifying effects climate change will leave on our planet. In the same way, that’s how Lauren feels about the way they live in their hometown. Her thought process is if they don’t create change, if they don’t help themselves out more by being ready in case of an attack or by being prepared in any way, there won’t be a change in their lives.

In the context of where Parable of the Sower takes place, Lauren’s hyper-empathy becomes her fatal flaw and is more than just a personal vulnerability. Lauren’s condition represents the unsustainable interconnectedness of humanity in a broken world where showing feeling/compassion becomes a liability. Lauren resorts to working to hide and lessen her reactions to those suffering, which seems selfish because our morals expect us to help others when they need help. Lauren has to train herself to act narcissistic in a not selfish way but to protect herself from the cruelties of society. In a time of need, when everyone around her and the neighborhood she resides in can’t trust anyone other than her father or brother. In Chapter 4, she trains to use a gun for self-defense. By law, it is illegal to bear arms, but breaking a minor rule is the last of their worries when death is at bay at all times. Lauren’s sense of empathy makes it hard for her to protect herself, yet she doesn’t realize that and tells herself,  “Besides, just because I can shoot a bird or a squirrel doesn’t mean I could shoot a person—a thief like the ones who robbed Mrs. Sims. I don’t know whether I could do that” (Butler 38.) Being able to kill a small animal is different from killing someone of the same species, but Lauren cannot falter; she is defenseless if she treasures every living being in this world. If her father, stepmother Corey, and her brothers aren’t home, what will she do for herself to survive? Lauren knows that she lives in a dangerous neighborhood, neighbors get killed, and people get robbed. Still, at the same time, her family is not wealthy enough to run away to another state or country – and even if their family could relocate, what if danger spreads there? There is no guarantee that any place or anywhere, is safe because the world is too chaotic for anyone to ensure their own/other people’s safety. 

The law still applies in chaotic times, but anyone can become a criminal – it’s just a matter of time -. When people grow desperate, their only means is to try and survive. The world has grown to become so disorganized that there are fees to call the police, the police aren’t going to do anything, and there are murders, people getting raped, and robberies happening everywhere; it has become such a norm that crime is no longer shocking anymore. Lauren still thinks of crime as “something wrong” and tries not to become a criminal; her entire family works not to break the rules, steal materials, or kill people as long as they are not being attacked first. Self-defense goes as far as behavior; sometimes, even friendly small talk or reminders of their current reality can drive chaos among others. When Lauren gets yelled at by her dad for talking to Joanne about wanting to leave and run away, she is reminded of why you cannot easily trust anyone. You can know someone for ages, but you don’t know anything about them at all. Lauren’s dad tells her, “Don’t warn Joanne or any of your other friends,” he said. “Not now. I know you think you’re right, but you’re not doing anyone any good. You’re just panicking people.” (Butler 63) For Lauren, it’s wiser to keep her words to herself because friendship becomes a delicate bond when the world has grown into an apocalyptic state. If Joanne could tell her family what she and Lauren talked about, she would no longer be worthy of keeping secrets. In the face of life’s most trying moments, everyone wants survival: to live, have enough food and water, and save shelter for themselves and their families. Some might even abandon their families when things get worse because there is no guarantee that their situation will improve. Supplies are still being depleted, and no one will survive unless you are filthy rich. What truly draws the line between being heartless and protecting yourself and your family? When the government and all safety personnel are no longer trustworthy, do morals still matter in times of life and death?