First Close Reading

The End of the Future

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278758

“The End of the Future” is a very pessimistic article that uses choice diction, details, and syntax to effectively debunk the idea that Western society is making any progress. Peter Thiel makes use of speculative language to both instill a sense of uncertainty and fear and to shrug off opposing points. He also includes and refutes a lot of counterpoints to discredit optimists, in addition to his hard facts juxtaposing past policies with current ones. Finally, certain syntax elements such as parallelism serve to poke fun at naïve optimism.

            For a variety of reasons, from a foreboding effect to trivializing opposition, speculative diction is abundant in Thiel’s article. The former is seen clearly in the following quote: “In the case of agriculture, at least, technological famine may lead to real old-fashioned famine.” The word may gives this statement a degree of uncertainty which somehow makes the danger seem far more real than a more concrete statement would have. Thiel also uses this suspenseful speculative language when he says, “Without dramatic breakthroughs, the alternative to more-expensive oil may turn out to be not cleaner and much-more-expensive wind, algae, or solar, but rather less-expensive and dirtier coal.” Similarly, he refers to the Green Revolution of the past with the word true, implying that the modern movement is not only less effective but less pure, or even fake. He also uses weak language to address a positive effort, but promptly smacks it down with firm, definite negativity in the following quote: “We may embellish the 2011 Arab Spring as the hopeful by-product of the information age, but we should not downplay the primary role of runaway food prices and of the many desperate people who became more hungry than scared.”

            Thiel also specifically details a number of fronts in which we have recently stopped progressing. Among them are the halting increases in transportation speeds, America’s failure to break its energy dependence, and the slowing gains of the Green Revolution. In addition to these specific details, he also includes a number of counterpoints and immediately refutes them, to not only make his case but also to discredit the other side.

            Specially-crafted syntax is used to mock whatever idea Thiel is addressing. In the quote: “Nixon’s 1974 call for full energy independence by 1980 has given way to Obama’s 2011 call for one-third oil independence by 2020,” Thiel uses parallel structures to show that not only has progress not been made since 1974, but society has actually regressed. Also, by putting quotes around the term Keynesianism, Thiel implies that it isn’t a real philosophy and isn’t to be taken seriously. The essay also contains some snide remarks embedded in sentences, such as the following quote: “The New Deal deficits, however misguided, were easily repaid by the growth of subsequent decades.”

            Thiel set out to essentially stomp on everybody’s hopes and dreams by using specific diction, details and syntax to paint a vivid picture of how society is going to the dogs.