The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Darío Adanti: "We should debate the limits of opinion, not those of humor"


The Argentine author warns in 'The meteorite is us' of the risks of not acting now against global warming

Darío Adanti, on January 18 at the Café Comercial in Madrid. Jaime Villanueva

Darío Adanti (Buenos Aires, 51 years old) subscribes to magazines such as





readings that, in addition to illustrating him, have been warning him about the consequences of climate change and global warming for some time.

“I saw that scientists were increasingly concerned about the issue, although that was not the subject of the article.

So I started reading things directly related to climate change and I discovered that the issue was getting more and more serious”, warns this illustrator and comic book author.

Adanti could have stayed there, but as he already did in 2017 when he got fully involved in the controversy of the limits of humor, with the publication of the comic-essay

Shoot the comedian

, now he has preferred to get serious and share his concerns with his readers.

The result,

The meteorite is us



Can a comic-essay about the imminence of the apocalypse be considered intelligent humor?


I am a bit against the term intelligent humor, because all humor is a brain process that has to do with intelligence.

Without a developed intelligence, humor does not work.

In the case of the book, it is more about giving bad news wrapped in the catharsis that produces laughter.

The problem of the climate emergency is so


so big, so complex and so decisive in the history of humanity that if you tell it directly without any kind of humor we can be tempted to give up the battle for lost.

It's a bit like funerals, isn't it?

That humor serves a bit to relax.


Are you trying to tell me that we are facing the funeral of humanity?


Well, I believe that human beings are resilient as a species, but if we don't do something by 2050, we are facing the end of civilizations as we know them because all the technologies we use are based on fossil fuels and these they are mortgaging the climate.

Today the problem with mortgaging is no longer that there are one or two heat waves, it is that it leaves us without water and without food resources.

And the responsibility for global warming is directly related to per

capita income.

Those who have more consume more and pollute more, average incomes consume less, but we also consume and we are still part of the problem and the lowest incomes do not even reach the level of carbon footprint

per capita.

So, how do you manage from a majority so that a wealthy minority lowers its standard of living?

It is a very difficult and complicated subject, but it is better to stop it before 2050 than not to do it, because that is where the apocalypse could be.


Who do you intend to convince with your book?


What happens with humor is that it is a bit only for the parish.

On the one hand, I can give a lot of easily remembered data —because they are not in graphics, but drawn and with jokes— to all those who know that this happens, but have no arguments to fight against denialism, although I also see it as an outreach work for the new generations, who still do not have all the information but have not yet turned to denialism.

I trust the new generations more than ours.

Faced with climate change, the most important thing is to think about who you vote for and demand that your government comply with the treaties."


Among the actions that the book proposes to solve the matter, it indicates that it would be important for the countries to comply with the agreements.

Isn't this obviously terrifying?


It is terrifying.

For this reason, in addition to advice such as using the car less and riding a bicycle more, I say that the most important thing is to think about who you vote for and demand that your government comply with the treaties, because, even if they are not perfect, they at least somewhat mitigate the Global warming effects.

No country has complied with them and that is desperate.

Above all, if you think that Spain and the Mediterranean are an area that is highly vulnerable to climate change.


How did we get to this point where opinion is equated with scientific truth?


This is very dangerous.

When discussing the limits of humor a couple of years ago, what we really should have discussed are the limits of opinion.

In the opinion market, the one that is worth the most is not because of the data or information it contains, but because it is the most salable.

And in the case of denialism it is terrible.

We all want to believe that we don't live in uncontrollable chaos, but that there are one or two bad guys who control everything.

It gives us some security to believe that we understand complex things in a simple way, when it is a lie.

Darío Adanti, at the Café Comercial in Madrid.

jaime villanueva


Do you think that this space race that Elon Musk and other millionaires have started has to do with the fact that they are looking for an escape?


I think that this is the fantasy that we all have, but I think that in reality they are much more brainless and much more frivolous.

Terrifiing Mars would cost much more than stopping CO2 from being released into Earth's atmosphere.

The story is that presenting yourself as one of those who can travel to space places you in the elite, it's like going to see a play in New York with a big star, like George Clooney, and it costs you 5,000 euros... Just the same You don't care about Shakespeare, but you're one of those who have the money to see the play.

I understand that NASA sends missions to look for resources that we are depleting on Earth, which then has an impact on advances for all of humanity, but in the case of billionaires it is nonsense.

Do you know what one of those trips in which four get on can consume?

It is the luxury of the elites,

Freedom of expression should equally protect what sectors of the left hate and what sectors of the right hate.


In 2017, with

Shoot the comedian

he got fully involved in the controversy over the limits of humor.

But, wasn't entering that debate already admitting defeat?


I think so, what happens is that since I am a cynic... With that book it happened a bit like with this one, I needed to divulge, although in the end it was useless.

Globalization has led to political corrections, because there are left and right, have invaded the subject of humor.

I wrote the book to try to spread the word that humor is not the problem, that it has simply been included in the culture war, but freedom of expression should equally protect what sectors of the left hate and what sectors of the right hate.

But it is true that having to explain it is a defeat of humor.

But it is that I think that in general I write about defeats, because also look at this climate change thing.

We all want to believe that we don't live in uncontrollable chaos, that there are one or two bad guys who control everything.


Has humor become a risky profession?


It is true that the culture of cancellation, which is closely associated with the left, can be a problem for freedom of expression, although the real problem continues to be the radical fanatical sectors, which are usually linked to the right, because they are religious sectors or those related to the extreme right.

Left-wing political correctness is very heavy on Twitter, but the fanatic shoots you, threatens you, sues you... The cultural battle is very unbalanced in that sense.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber

Source: elparis

All life articles on 2023-02-02

You may like

News/Politics 2023-02-24T19:20:37.471Z
News/Politics 2023-03-11T04:17:13.931Z

Trends 24h

Life/Entertain 2023-03-24T19:53:21.276Z


© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.