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.