Convergence: A Novel of a Catastrophic Future

Well thought out, systematically executed science fiction (or fact), this novel is humanity's frantic response to the effects of its own ignorance. Of the catastrophe, climate change is only one of the effects. What becomes clear is that when an "effect" arises, it then can and does "affect" other systems. It is kind of an anti-symbiosis wherein the damage caused by ever increasingly interdepending disasters fuels the fire for their own destruction.

This is not a spoiler. The narrative of Convergence ends with a note from an anthrohistorian in 2721, 700 years after the collapse. "A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero." In addition to the controversial partisanship stalemating problems such as climate change, economic inequality and unceasing warfare, overpopulation has become equally destructive. By the narrative's end, the author states the uncomfortable question bluntly. As much as we've done (or propose to do) about those economic, social and climate issues, should we also consider regulating human breeding? And if so, how can we prevent a Big Brother scenario if such considerations are made and implemented?

Paul Boerger's novel "Convergence" addresses this very issue by presenting a stark, dystopic future resulting from multiple problems all converging at a certain time: 2020. The novel makes the case that we are able to prevent our own destruction, genetically determined or not, but this requires keen awareness of ecology, evolution, conscience, economic equality and the relative morality in terms of the social and the individual good. Perhaps the most shocking or thought-provoking elements of the book is the warning about overpopulation. Although not outright liberal, this novel differs from works such as 1984, Brave New World, and Anthem in that it proposes that a lack of government reform on social and industrial practices (rather than an overabundance of state interference) are to blame for the impending catastrophe.

"Convergence" shifts back and forth between three essential time periods: pre-convergence (2020), post-convergence (2220) and the convergence itself (2021). The perhaps intentional irony is that pre-sight (not hindsight) is 2020, the very year global problems are beginning to converge. As each scientist reiterates, at any point in time during the novel, these problems were preventable. A virus breaks out, many small wars are being fought around the world (so many, that the total far exceeds the fighting in either of the World Wars), and the gap between the rich and poor has never been greater. Each problem leads to others and exacerbates them all. Thus, the convergence is not just a coalescence of world changing events, but an exponential chain reaction making each event more catastrophic.

The omniscient narrative shifts back and forth between the three years (2020, 2021 and 2220) with a series of updates or news reports, making the novel read like a non-linear (yet cogent) series of articles, damage control documents and journal entries. As the novel jumps from year to year, it also follows separate lives, some of whom also converge on each other, reinforcing one of the novel's central themes which is that "everything affects everything." And despite the constant shifting in perspective and time, the narrative flows quite smoothly, the complex convergence of catastrophic events coalesces like the analogous, yet paradoxical, perfect storm.

The novel ends with a short note from Boerger and an inclusion of the essay "Tragedy of the Commons," by Garret Hardin, which proposes regulation on human breeding. The article makes a very methodical argument on the ecological and evolutionary impacts of legislating such regulation. Without legislative regulations on breeding, only those who are selfless and intelligent enough to restrain from breeding will do so voluntarily. Ergo, by the rules of evolution, in time, those thoughtful restrainers will be weeded out, leaving only those who do not consider the social good. In other words, conscience will be weeded out evolutionarily. This is an even more stark outcome of the typical post-apocalyptic scenario because we not only would have lost a sense of humanity; we would also have lost the awareness of its value.