As a result of accumulating issues, a shortage of effective solutions, and the evidence presented by the works of these esteemed authors and modern society, there is significant indication that civilization is on a road to self destruction. Aside from Bradbury’s utter annihilation of the city and Doctorow’s none too subtle insinuation of the threat of a government’s authority to the stability of a nation’s liberties, modern society also displays the gradual shift into a dead end culture. Having a cause to fight for is only half of the battle. Despite identifying their own potential to cause change, people lack the power to make progress that will last. There is a distinct difference between coming to terms with the potential of society to change for the better and making those changes, and though society has taken a step towards accomplishing both, there is still the matter of the conflict regarding what it means to reach perfection. The individual is the basic element of change, but because it takes many individuals to make a complete change, there is often a corruption or misalignment of values due to variations of opinion and intention, as this excerpt from the New York Times explains, ““Now, as then, the inevitable danger is that they will confuse their own self-interest with the common good. The irony of the political rise of the plutocrats is that, like Venice’s oligarchs, they threaten the system that created them” (Freeland). The article alerts the reader to the role of authority in destroying itself. This is a warning that can apply to any spike or shift in a central power. In the U.S. today, power is a privilege that verges on a right, yet it is a sanction with limitations and an abundance of gray areas. In the past as well as now, there was no guarantee that a government or even an individual would use their power for the benefit of the whole. In other words, the article claims that authority and power is not synonymous with progress or acting for success because it is beyond the capability of mankind to make a change that will lead to mutual satisfaction throughout a society. It is only setting up an outcome of disappointment to believe that society can reach an ideal state of existence, because for all of the people who work for the greater good and as many lives as there are which have been improved, there are always those who are not satisfied with what they have or can not accept the society they live in. The core of society’s imperfection is its pursuit of perfection, and because it is founded on a platform of reaching an ideal balance, it will degrade at its roots as people realize they are unable to reach, let alone sustain, a faultless image. In relation to this destructive path is the debate over nuclear energy. The threat of nuclear warfare that has loomed over society since Einstein’s discovery of E=MC2, and with time the concerns have only spread. The debate over nuclear power shifts between its use as a resource and its application as a weapon of mass destruction. The successes, some would argue, are greatly outweighed by the negative effects because despite its benefits as an efficient energy producer, nuclear power may also lead to mass destruction of the world and the society within it as is expressed by Winston Churchill in his Maiden Speech at the House of Commons, “They, too, become highly vulnerable: not yet equally perhaps, but, still, highly and increasingly vulnerable. Here again we see the value of deterrents, immune against surprise and well understood by all persons on both sides I repeat ‘on both sides’ who have the power to control events” (Churchill). Here he speaks of the impending threat of nuclear warfare and the pressure it can place on a society. With such great power comes the responsibility to act with good judgement, but the problem society faced then and now is that it acts on a basis of personal belief, a system that can lead to impulsive or unsound decisions, which then proceed to unfold into undesirable outcomes. No consequence is minor with nuclear warfare and a sacrifice is made for every bomb dropped and each life damaged, “If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce” (Churchill). Hearing these words aloud, an audience would be given the impression of a man expressing fear of a nuclear future. An image would form of smoldering ruins and charred corpses; nothing would remain but a radioactive wasteland. By emphasizing the expanding nuclear culture, Churchill expresses that this is the future of society if people take advantage of their power and act only for their own gain. He played to their sense of personal security and their need for stability. The youth culture has felt the impact of this need to reach societal satisfaction in the form of banned books. The banned books list is the result of parents and other authority figures taking action to protect young minds from corruption or exposure to damaging material, but in the process of molding the youth perspective, authority has compromised access to information, therefore restricting access to knowledge. By aiming to defend against impurity, the youth culture is deprived of a deeper comprehension of the world around them. Banned books, though under the pretense of preventing access to harmful material, may also be used to prevent access to information that could lead to disloyalty to the system. This abuse of power is only effective in restraining the success of the future. Complacency becomes a norm as society struggles to defend the individual beliefs while maintaining harmony throughout the whole. Eventually good enough becomes a state of having nowhere to go but down until society hits rock bottom. Even at that point society may be too damaged to recover. In the end it isn’t about the power that people have to cause change. What matters is their ability to accept the flaws that make their society eternally imperfect. Unless this realization is made, people will only continue on a destructive path of change without progress.