"Existential Threat" - who are Democrats really talking to?

-->

If I hear one more politician utter these words - “climate change represents an existential threat” i’m going to lose it.

Of course, I am truly encouraged to see the issue and peril of climate change taking center stage in the national political discourse.   I felt real dread when Vice recently used an eerie visual of the statue of liberty neck deep in rising waters to talk about an Australian report that concluded  climate change presents  very real “near- to mid-term existential threat to human civilization”.  I get it.  I get "existential." 

"Existentialism" means:

Oxford Dictionaries online says “existential” has these meanings: (1) of or relating to existence, (2) concerning existence as seen through the philosophy of existentialism (more on this later), (3) of a proposition in logic that affirms or implies existence (ditto).

I’m not trained to know if climate change is an “existential” threat or a “catastrophic” one.

(Vox had a good piece on this distinction).

But I've spent decades studying what people understand about the environment and health - what they talk to each other about, the language they use,  and how they decide to care about something. 

The Problem with "existential" 

I question what someone is really accomplishing ( or failing to accomplish) when they use  the word  “existential”.  Those of us who study language and comprehension have every good reason to believe that a vast number of adults in the US, millions of people, don’t know what the heck “existential” or “existential threat” means.

Here’s why

·      The word “existential” like “existentialism” is probably at about an 11^th grade reading      level.

·      50% of US adults are reading at 8^th grade and lower.

·     “Existential” is a very school based, philosophical term.

·     Not everyone, in fact most people, have not read criticism of Bergman’s Through a Glass Darkly  or snuggled up with Ivan Denisovich to indulge in some truly bleak and reflective existentialism. For millions Mailer or Salinger’s ancient child Holden weren’t discussed in lit or philosophy class.

When  politicians and climate change experts pronounce something an “existential threat” it does not cry out to people saying "We're talking about the lives of everybody and everything on this earth.  Listen up."

We are missing the opportunity to communicate that:

                  The threat is like no other we’ve faced before

                  It threatens our very existence – whether we will be     able to go on living on this planet.

                 

 In the second round Democratic debate this week I liked what Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said.  The words he used: 

“Literally the survival of humanity on this planet and civilization as we know it is in the hands of the next president. And we have to have a leader who will do what is necessary to save us. And that includes making this the top priority of the next presidency.” 

--> -->