Note: see About the Project for an explanation
regarding the updated, non-meta-Web-novel context for this site.
PostApocology, the study of post-catastrophic likelihoods,
is a nascent field of study, but one certain to grow in importance.
The Institute for PostApocology is the first formally constituted
thinktank to use advanced Confuturism in its work.
The Institute is continuously at work in a number of areas:
in addition to its curriculum of intended
courses, it prepares Yellow Papers (authoritative analytic works on specific topics),
identifies and publishes trends via PostApoc Signals associated with
every Scenario,
gathers wide-ranging Population Readiness data points,
provides free syllabi and training materials for educational use,
produces PostApocatainments™ for online laughter,
and educates via the PASAT™, its online Survival Aptitude test.
A note on the Institute's methodology:
In order
to spin out the possible scenarios, we have posited that each of the Seven
PostApoc
Scenarios arrives independent of any compounding scenarios; that is, the
Species Collapse scenario is considered as if Climate Warming
is not an ongoing avalanche;
a Biome Breach is presumed to occur
independent of the military crises that a Peak Resources meltdown
would likely engender.
Some have criticized this approach to the science of PostApocology,
arguing that the multiple PostApoc scenarios must be
confronted as a composite apocalypse. The Directors of the Institute
for PostApocology Studies, Michael and Jim, believe that since
current computer-modeling nightmare scenario generators were unable to
accurately predict that the Northwest Passage would be
open in the fall of 2007, the ability to analyze such compound crises
must wait for further development in modeling.
We therefore restrict ourselves to six isolated horrors (and one
hopeful scenario), and
must rely on human engagement to
understand even those independent PostApocalypse scenarios.
Others have criticized the Institute's selection of Humor Vectors
(described more fully in "On Confuturism")
as our analytic framework. Why not include Silliness? Why exclude
Geek? Doesn't the darkness of the scenarios require Slapstick?
The directors stand by their decision to restrict their Humor Vectors to
Irony, Sarcasm, Metonymy, Pun, Satire, Metaphor, and Deadpan. Limits
must be set.
Of course, more study is needed to
appropriately understand the likelihood and constructive responses
regarding the Seven Scenarios, and the appropriate models for analysis.
However, absent a galvanized
governmental, societal, and scientific response,
the discipline of PostApocology Studies, and the Institute for PostApocology,
will likely thrive.
Historical Note:
The seminal Wind Horse
Alliance predated the Institute; it had seven co-directors. In 2007,
the Alliance was dissolved. Michael and Jim formed the Institute; three
other Alliance directors chose to to form
The Center for PostApocalypse Studies.
While we support their continued attention to this important field of study, we
disagree methodologically. Nonetheless, we wish them the best.
Sadly, at the same time, another member of the originating group had
what we consider to be a breakdown of both rationality and humor, throwing
up his hands in apparently gleeful despair. He left to construct
KissMyA$$pocalypse, a site intended, in his own
words, to "make me rich and get me laid." His choice of humor includes
Ridicule, Slapstick, DoubleEntendre, and even Creepy, forms of humor
we at the Institute find nonproductive.
We hope he finds his way back to the fold.
