What do you think?
Rate this book
Pelican Books #20
The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene
A remarkable exploration of the science, history, and politics of the Anthropocene, one of the most important scientific ideas of our time, from two world-renowned experts
“A relentless reckoning of how we, as a species, got ourselves into the mess we’re in today, . . . told with determination and in chiseled, almost literary prose.”—Christoph Irmscher, Wall Street Journal
Meteorites, mega-volcanoes, and plate tectonics—the old forces of nature—have transformed Earth for millions of years. They are now joined by a new geological force—humans. Our actions have driven Earth into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. For the first time in our home planet’s 4.5-billion-year history a single species is increasingly dictating Earth’s future.
To some the Anthropocene symbolizes a future of superlative control of our environment. To others it is the height of hubris, the illusion of our mastery over nature. Whatever your view, just below the surface of this odd-sounding scientific word, the Anthropocene, is a heady mix of science, philosophy, and politics linked to our deepest fears and utopian visions.
Tracing our environmental impacts through time, scientists Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin reveal a new view of human history and a new outlook for the future of humanity in the unstable world we have created.
“A relentless reckoning of how we, as a species, got ourselves into the mess we’re in today, . . . told with determination and in chiseled, almost literary prose.”—Christoph Irmscher, Wall Street Journal
Meteorites, mega-volcanoes, and plate tectonics—the old forces of nature—have transformed Earth for millions of years. They are now joined by a new geological force—humans. Our actions have driven Earth into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. For the first time in our home planet’s 4.5-billion-year history a single species is increasingly dictating Earth’s future.
To some the Anthropocene symbolizes a future of superlative control of our environment. To others it is the height of hubris, the illusion of our mastery over nature. Whatever your view, just below the surface of this odd-sounding scientific word, the Anthropocene, is a heady mix of science, philosophy, and politics linked to our deepest fears and utopian visions.
Tracing our environmental impacts through time, scientists Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin reveal a new view of human history and a new outlook for the future of humanity in the unstable world we have created.
480 pages, Hardcover
First published June 7, 2018
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
July 6, 2018
This book should be required reading in Secondary schools.
January 14, 2019
In 2018, the news media prioritized climate news more so than ever before. Now, every few weeks, major outlets run climate stories on the IPCC, warmer temperatures, pollution, carbon emissions, and natural disasters linked with environmental fluctuations. For the first time in this reader’s admittedly limited experience, climate catastrophe occupies a prominent place in public discourse; many people, it appears, now view the imminent climate crisis as one of the foremost, if not the most important, sociopolitical issue of our times. Nevertheless, while this development is certainly positive, much of current climate discourse is apocalyptic in tone, which impedes discussion of substantive solutions to the crisis, and most of it overlooks how interconnected climate issues are with other injustices prevalent in consumer capitalist society. In short, climate stories tend to discount how capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchy add to our climate woes and hasten the onset of climate catastrophe; they fail to explain how, in the words of one writer, “a political and economic minority inflict the injustices of climate breakdown on a systematically disempowered and dispossessed [worldwide] majority.” Climate injustice is inextricably intersectional, and climate news must account for such intersectionality if we are to upend the systems of oppression that perpetuate climate issues.
Fortunately, Professors Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin, two earth system scientists and the authors of The Human Planet, are keenly aware of how environmental destruction, not just climate catastrophe, intersects with the systemic failures of late capitalist society. Their most recent book, published in 2018, embodies the type of accessible, evidence-based discourse we so desperately need at this critical juncture with respect to imminent environmental calamity. While far from perfect, The Human Planet draws on a vast array of academic disciplines and resources to make an ostensibly simple claim: we now live in a distinctive epoch called the Anthropocene, the human epoch, wherein humans constitute a literal force of nature sufficiently dominant to determine the future of the only planet known to harbor life. Lewis and Maslin aim to defend the view that we live in the Anthropocene, to offer a suitable point in history when the Anthropocene started—known in scientific parlance as a Golden Spike—and to demonstrate why a clear definition of the Anthropocene and its official affirmation by the scientific community matters, both as we reflect on humanity’s impact on the earth system in the past and how we identify viable solutions to address environmental catastrophe not far in our future. Beyond this, however, Lewis and Maslin trace humans’ impact on the earth system across history, an effort wherein they identify four major transitions “that fundamentally altered both human societies and our environmental impacts”; they explore the plausibility of a fifth transition to a new human society in accordance with their view of human societies as complex adaptive systems; and they offer, at the end of the book, some possible policies that will most likely induce a more just, more equitable worldwide human society that, in turn, will prevent the worst consequences of the climate crisis before us. As is probably clear, the scope of their study is massive. Yet despite its extraordinary breadth, The Human Planet successfully makes its case and, perhaps most importantly, helpfully introduces lay readers to the colossal stakes at play in the Anthropocene debate.
Lewis and Maslin embark on their defense of the Anthropocene with some corrections of the common narrative about its inception. Contrary to popular belief, the notion of the Anthropocene, even its very name, dates back at least to the Comte de Buffon (with his “Epoch of Man” in 1778) and the first efforts to systematize distinct time periods in earth’s history. Scientists’ failure to call attention to this extensive intellectual history of the Anthropocene not only does a disservice to those early scientists, it perpetuates a false narrative that humans have, until recently, inadvertently caused environmental harm, unaware that they could exert such power over nature (when in fact early modern scientists knew this quite well). In conjunction with this narrative correction, Lewis and Maslin explain why a clear definition of the Anthropocene matters and is not, as non-specialists may surmise, a petty dispute confined to the ivory towers of academia. Definitions, they repeatedly assert, have consequences: “Once key enabler of modern life is the collective adoption of social conventions called definitions. They allow us to communicate precise information efficiently” and to settle disputes with reference to shared concepts. More specifically, whether and how we define the Anthropocene can and perhaps will exert enormous influence on the narrative we construct about ourselves. If we refuse to accept the existence of a human epoch and its manifold connotations, then it is easier to refuse our responsibility to address environmental crises, self-assured in the notion that such destruction reflects ordinary earth system vicissitudes. Alternatively, if we affirm the Anthropocene yet claim that it started when humans first learned to domesticate plants and animals, then, once more, we may hesitate to accept responsibility for the environmental harm caused by humans, since this has happened since the “dawn of civilization.” At an even more sophisticated level, if we conclude that the Anthropocene started synchronously with the rise of mercantile capitalism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, then we likewise affirm the inextricable relationship between environmental destruction and capitalist values, which consequently indicts our current late capitalist norms and behaviors. Put simply, current debate over the Anthropocene is not just some scientific squabble; it can fundamentally reshape how we view ourselves and our relationship with our home planet, and it may, in part, determine whether we enact policies that promote a more equitable society or lead to societal collapse.
In an attempt to offer readers sufficient evidence to help determine whether the Anthropocene is a viable concept and, if so, when it started, Lewis and Maslin trace the history of homo sapiens across four major transitions: the domestication of plants and animals which started approximately 10,500 years BP (before-present, i.e. 1950), the rise of mercantile capitalism and what the authors call Globalization 1.0 around 1500, the onset of the Industrial Revolution and industrial capitalism around 1800, and the dissemination of consumer capitalism across the world in the post-war era, what they call Globalization 2.0, which commenced around 1950. In each period, indeed, ever since humans left east Africa and colonized the entire planet except Antarctica, it is clear that we have drastically impacted the earth system. Yet in order to qualify for inclusion in the official time scale as a new epoch, sufficient evidence must indicate that the Anthropocene will or has already induced permanent or near-permanent impacts on the earth system. In addition, the new anthropocentric state must also manifest in literal rock, most typically sedimentary deposits or, alternatively, ice-cores or trees.
In view of these criteria, Lewis and Maslin thus demonstrate that, at the bare minimum, the post-Colombian mercantilist commerce that carried potatoes to Ireland and cows to the Americas left a permanent evolutionary mark on life on earth that will be seen, unequivocally, in the future fossil record. Moreover, it is impossible at this point to reverse this massive evolutionary alteration: even if we wanted, we simply cannot restore a pre-Colombian biotic state. Second, of the four transitions Lewis and Maslin describe, they offer two feasible options for the start of the Anthropocene, both more viable than the other two because of synchronous deposition markers that correlate with other shifts across the world that occurred at the same time: the Orbis Spike in 1610, the nadir of a decrease in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide captured in an Antarctic ice-core, and the so-called “Bomb” GSSP, the apex in levels of radioactive fallout “from nuclear bomb tests which rose and fell abruptly in the second half of the twentieth century in response to the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty.” While both spikes are defensible as markers of the Anthropocene based on the evidence, Lewis and Maslin ultimately decide in favor of the Orbis Spike, since it is the earliest synchronous marker that meets the criteria used to establish another official time slice, the Holocene, in fact the epoch that we currently (formally) live in. In addition to this scientific evidence, it makes historical sense to identify the Orbis Spike as the start of the Anthropocene. To cite just one reason, the decrease of atmospheric carbon dioxide it marks is attributable to the deaths of at least fifty million Native Americans exposed to infectious diseases carried by European colonists which, in turn, left countless farms across the Americas susceptible to reforestation. Because this happened on such an enormous scale, the decrease in carbon, captured by plant life on these former farms and thus removed from the atmosphere, literally cooled the planet, as the Antarctic ice-core demonstrates. That the Anthropocene starts at this moment is a reminder that “the human epoch is a story of domination and the resistance to that domination”; those with the power to exploit others created the Anthropocene, propelled by capitalist forces that would then dominate worldwide commerce for the next five-hundred years.
Lewis and Maslin’s analyses therefore approach questions about the Anthropocene from a rich interdisciplinary perspective that considers both quantitative and qualitative evidence. While their claims are, first and foremost, scientific, the implications of their conclusions have scientific, historical, economic, political, and social justice import. They also successfully show how analyses of the environmental harm humans have caused, projections of further harm in the future, and feasible solutions to such harm must draw on a myriad of academic disciplines; no one field is the so-called queen of the sciences. Most critically, Lewis and Maslin use this interdisciplinary approach to explain how environmental destruction, social inequity, economic exploitation, and imminent climate catastrophe are intimately linked. If we aim either to preserve our consumer capitalist culture or to make possible a new, more equitable post-capitalist society (in short, if we seek to avoid societal collapse, a very real, even probable outcome), the solutions we devise to address the climate crisis must take into account this intersectionality. We cannot continue to pretend that twenty-first century capitalism can peaceably coexist with a restored, revitalized earth system wherein all people can flourish.
Unfortunately, typos and minor syntactical errors abound in The Human Planet, which, I fear, may prompt some readers not to take Lewis and Maslin as seriously as they should. At the very least, these errors distract the reader from the nuance of the authors’ discussion and from their meticulous body of evidence. Hopefully, further editions of The Human Planet will correct these errors, of which there are at least two dozen. They somewhat discredit this text in a small, yet persistent manner, and while I tried to set aside my frustration at such typos, I was continuously reminded that Lewis and Maslin needed a more competent editor.
Apart from this relatively minor quibble, The Human Planet is an exceptional tour de force, in many ways necessary literature for all students, scholars, workers, capitalists, politicians, and leaders of all stripes. While it may sound naïve, I believe this book has the power to considerably influence public discourse on the climate crisis were it disseminated widely, especially in the United States. As Lewis and Maslin, IPCC scientists, and countless activists continue to remind us, we stand at a critical juncture in the history of humanity, and the decisions we make over the next decade, even in the next few years, will impact all of our lives for the foreseeable future. As a first step toward consensus, we can immediately affirm that we live in a human epoch, the Anthropocene, and embrace the responsibility to protect our planet and the species that live here from irreparable harm. The rest, as Lewis and Maslin conclude, “will be difficult, but we cannot afford to fail.”
Fortunately, Professors Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin, two earth system scientists and the authors of The Human Planet, are keenly aware of how environmental destruction, not just climate catastrophe, intersects with the systemic failures of late capitalist society. Their most recent book, published in 2018, embodies the type of accessible, evidence-based discourse we so desperately need at this critical juncture with respect to imminent environmental calamity. While far from perfect, The Human Planet draws on a vast array of academic disciplines and resources to make an ostensibly simple claim: we now live in a distinctive epoch called the Anthropocene, the human epoch, wherein humans constitute a literal force of nature sufficiently dominant to determine the future of the only planet known to harbor life. Lewis and Maslin aim to defend the view that we live in the Anthropocene, to offer a suitable point in history when the Anthropocene started—known in scientific parlance as a Golden Spike—and to demonstrate why a clear definition of the Anthropocene and its official affirmation by the scientific community matters, both as we reflect on humanity’s impact on the earth system in the past and how we identify viable solutions to address environmental catastrophe not far in our future. Beyond this, however, Lewis and Maslin trace humans’ impact on the earth system across history, an effort wherein they identify four major transitions “that fundamentally altered both human societies and our environmental impacts”; they explore the plausibility of a fifth transition to a new human society in accordance with their view of human societies as complex adaptive systems; and they offer, at the end of the book, some possible policies that will most likely induce a more just, more equitable worldwide human society that, in turn, will prevent the worst consequences of the climate crisis before us. As is probably clear, the scope of their study is massive. Yet despite its extraordinary breadth, The Human Planet successfully makes its case and, perhaps most importantly, helpfully introduces lay readers to the colossal stakes at play in the Anthropocene debate.
Lewis and Maslin embark on their defense of the Anthropocene with some corrections of the common narrative about its inception. Contrary to popular belief, the notion of the Anthropocene, even its very name, dates back at least to the Comte de Buffon (with his “Epoch of Man” in 1778) and the first efforts to systematize distinct time periods in earth’s history. Scientists’ failure to call attention to this extensive intellectual history of the Anthropocene not only does a disservice to those early scientists, it perpetuates a false narrative that humans have, until recently, inadvertently caused environmental harm, unaware that they could exert such power over nature (when in fact early modern scientists knew this quite well). In conjunction with this narrative correction, Lewis and Maslin explain why a clear definition of the Anthropocene matters and is not, as non-specialists may surmise, a petty dispute confined to the ivory towers of academia. Definitions, they repeatedly assert, have consequences: “Once key enabler of modern life is the collective adoption of social conventions called definitions. They allow us to communicate precise information efficiently” and to settle disputes with reference to shared concepts. More specifically, whether and how we define the Anthropocene can and perhaps will exert enormous influence on the narrative we construct about ourselves. If we refuse to accept the existence of a human epoch and its manifold connotations, then it is easier to refuse our responsibility to address environmental crises, self-assured in the notion that such destruction reflects ordinary earth system vicissitudes. Alternatively, if we affirm the Anthropocene yet claim that it started when humans first learned to domesticate plants and animals, then, once more, we may hesitate to accept responsibility for the environmental harm caused by humans, since this has happened since the “dawn of civilization.” At an even more sophisticated level, if we conclude that the Anthropocene started synchronously with the rise of mercantile capitalism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, then we likewise affirm the inextricable relationship between environmental destruction and capitalist values, which consequently indicts our current late capitalist norms and behaviors. Put simply, current debate over the Anthropocene is not just some scientific squabble; it can fundamentally reshape how we view ourselves and our relationship with our home planet, and it may, in part, determine whether we enact policies that promote a more equitable society or lead to societal collapse.
In an attempt to offer readers sufficient evidence to help determine whether the Anthropocene is a viable concept and, if so, when it started, Lewis and Maslin trace the history of homo sapiens across four major transitions: the domestication of plants and animals which started approximately 10,500 years BP (before-present, i.e. 1950), the rise of mercantile capitalism and what the authors call Globalization 1.0 around 1500, the onset of the Industrial Revolution and industrial capitalism around 1800, and the dissemination of consumer capitalism across the world in the post-war era, what they call Globalization 2.0, which commenced around 1950. In each period, indeed, ever since humans left east Africa and colonized the entire planet except Antarctica, it is clear that we have drastically impacted the earth system. Yet in order to qualify for inclusion in the official time scale as a new epoch, sufficient evidence must indicate that the Anthropocene will or has already induced permanent or near-permanent impacts on the earth system. In addition, the new anthropocentric state must also manifest in literal rock, most typically sedimentary deposits or, alternatively, ice-cores or trees.
In view of these criteria, Lewis and Maslin thus demonstrate that, at the bare minimum, the post-Colombian mercantilist commerce that carried potatoes to Ireland and cows to the Americas left a permanent evolutionary mark on life on earth that will be seen, unequivocally, in the future fossil record. Moreover, it is impossible at this point to reverse this massive evolutionary alteration: even if we wanted, we simply cannot restore a pre-Colombian biotic state. Second, of the four transitions Lewis and Maslin describe, they offer two feasible options for the start of the Anthropocene, both more viable than the other two because of synchronous deposition markers that correlate with other shifts across the world that occurred at the same time: the Orbis Spike in 1610, the nadir of a decrease in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide captured in an Antarctic ice-core, and the so-called “Bomb” GSSP, the apex in levels of radioactive fallout “from nuclear bomb tests which rose and fell abruptly in the second half of the twentieth century in response to the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty.” While both spikes are defensible as markers of the Anthropocene based on the evidence, Lewis and Maslin ultimately decide in favor of the Orbis Spike, since it is the earliest synchronous marker that meets the criteria used to establish another official time slice, the Holocene, in fact the epoch that we currently (formally) live in. In addition to this scientific evidence, it makes historical sense to identify the Orbis Spike as the start of the Anthropocene. To cite just one reason, the decrease of atmospheric carbon dioxide it marks is attributable to the deaths of at least fifty million Native Americans exposed to infectious diseases carried by European colonists which, in turn, left countless farms across the Americas susceptible to reforestation. Because this happened on such an enormous scale, the decrease in carbon, captured by plant life on these former farms and thus removed from the atmosphere, literally cooled the planet, as the Antarctic ice-core demonstrates. That the Anthropocene starts at this moment is a reminder that “the human epoch is a story of domination and the resistance to that domination”; those with the power to exploit others created the Anthropocene, propelled by capitalist forces that would then dominate worldwide commerce for the next five-hundred years.
Lewis and Maslin’s analyses therefore approach questions about the Anthropocene from a rich interdisciplinary perspective that considers both quantitative and qualitative evidence. While their claims are, first and foremost, scientific, the implications of their conclusions have scientific, historical, economic, political, and social justice import. They also successfully show how analyses of the environmental harm humans have caused, projections of further harm in the future, and feasible solutions to such harm must draw on a myriad of academic disciplines; no one field is the so-called queen of the sciences. Most critically, Lewis and Maslin use this interdisciplinary approach to explain how environmental destruction, social inequity, economic exploitation, and imminent climate catastrophe are intimately linked. If we aim either to preserve our consumer capitalist culture or to make possible a new, more equitable post-capitalist society (in short, if we seek to avoid societal collapse, a very real, even probable outcome), the solutions we devise to address the climate crisis must take into account this intersectionality. We cannot continue to pretend that twenty-first century capitalism can peaceably coexist with a restored, revitalized earth system wherein all people can flourish.
Unfortunately, typos and minor syntactical errors abound in The Human Planet, which, I fear, may prompt some readers not to take Lewis and Maslin as seriously as they should. At the very least, these errors distract the reader from the nuance of the authors’ discussion and from their meticulous body of evidence. Hopefully, further editions of The Human Planet will correct these errors, of which there are at least two dozen. They somewhat discredit this text in a small, yet persistent manner, and while I tried to set aside my frustration at such typos, I was continuously reminded that Lewis and Maslin needed a more competent editor.
Apart from this relatively minor quibble, The Human Planet is an exceptional tour de force, in many ways necessary literature for all students, scholars, workers, capitalists, politicians, and leaders of all stripes. While it may sound naïve, I believe this book has the power to considerably influence public discourse on the climate crisis were it disseminated widely, especially in the United States. As Lewis and Maslin, IPCC scientists, and countless activists continue to remind us, we stand at a critical juncture in the history of humanity, and the decisions we make over the next decade, even in the next few years, will impact all of our lives for the foreseeable future. As a first step toward consensus, we can immediately affirm that we live in a human epoch, the Anthropocene, and embrace the responsibility to protect our planet and the species that live here from irreparable harm. The rest, as Lewis and Maslin conclude, “will be difficult, but we cannot afford to fail.”
February 26, 2020
CONSIGLIATISSIMO PER CHIUNQUE SIA INTERESSATO ALLE SEMPRE PIU' ATTUALI TEMATICHE AMBIENTALI, ALLA CRISI CLIMATICA, ALL'ANTROPOCENE (ovvero l'epoca umana nella quale viviamo) E ALLE RELATIVE IMPLICAZIONI IN TERMINI DI PASSATO, PRESENTE E FUTURO DELLA SPECIE UMANA SUL PIANETA TERRA.
DOVREBBE ESSERE CONSIGLIATO A QUALSIASI STUDENTE UNIVERSITARIO, MA ANCHE DEGLI ULTIMI ANNI DELLE SCUOLE SUPERIORI, TANTO E' IMPORTANTE.
Si tratta del migliore e più completo libro che io abbia letto sulla tematica generale "Climate change", e più nello specifico riguardo al ruolo e alle responsabilità dell'uomo sul passato, presente e futuro dell'ambiente terrestre, della società umana e del benessere in generale. Ho letto tanto in merito stessi argomenti, anche per via della mia tesi di laurea Magistrale legata al Climate Change, ma non avevo mai trovato un testo che fosse così completo.
Gli autori, due geologi britannici, affrontano con estrema chiarezza e proprietà di linguaggio tutto ciò che riguarda il concetto Antropocene, dimostrando una conoscenza multidisciplinare estremamente vasta e soddisfacente. Infatti, analizzano il contesto utilizzando chiavi e conoscenze proprie delle seguenti discipline: geologia, scienze ambientali e climatiche, paleontologia, biologia, botanica, storia, antropologia, sociologia; e sono sicura di averne saltate alcune.
Insomma, VA LETTO. Cosa stai aspettando?
DOVREBBE ESSERE CONSIGLIATO A QUALSIASI STUDENTE UNIVERSITARIO, MA ANCHE DEGLI ULTIMI ANNI DELLE SCUOLE SUPERIORI, TANTO E' IMPORTANTE.
Si tratta del migliore e più completo libro che io abbia letto sulla tematica generale "Climate change", e più nello specifico riguardo al ruolo e alle responsabilità dell'uomo sul passato, presente e futuro dell'ambiente terrestre, della società umana e del benessere in generale. Ho letto tanto in merito stessi argomenti, anche per via della mia tesi di laurea Magistrale legata al Climate Change, ma non avevo mai trovato un testo che fosse così completo.
Gli autori, due geologi britannici, affrontano con estrema chiarezza e proprietà di linguaggio tutto ciò che riguarda il concetto Antropocene, dimostrando una conoscenza multidisciplinare estremamente vasta e soddisfacente. Infatti, analizzano il contesto utilizzando chiavi e conoscenze proprie delle seguenti discipline: geologia, scienze ambientali e climatiche, paleontologia, biologia, botanica, storia, antropologia, sociologia; e sono sicura di averne saltate alcune.
Insomma, VA LETTO. Cosa stai aspettando?
April 4, 2020
This is the most comprehensive book on how we robustly define the Anthropocene and identify when it started, using transparent, consistent criteria. It's written so that anyone can read it, scientist or not, and it really does take the reader on a step-by-step journey through understanding geologic time and how epochs are defined - including the political and subjective influences on something most people might have thought was purely evidence-based. I have read nearly every book on the Anthropocene that has been written in writing my own book on the topic, and yet learned so much through this book. The authors draw heavily on history and weave this together with scientific evidence to arrive at a date that is much earlier than most, but their arguments are compelling (and again, based on transparent and robust criteria). My only criticism, if you could call it that, is that the last few chapters read very much like the end of a scientific paper where the scientists step far outside their field of expertise to diagnose the broader problems and prescribe potential solutions. If you read a lot of scientific papers, you will know what I am talking about. But basically it's what I call the "conveyor belt" understanding of science-society interface, where scientists logically break down evidence and deliver the solutions, which isn't how things work. I was a bit put off by the fact that the last two chapters seemed to be very selective with the historical events/markers of progress to support a particular narrative, and it felt a bit like reading a Jarred Diamond or Neal Ferguson book, where they try to create a grand theory of everything, drawing on a carefully curated set of facts. However, that criticism is one that could be levelled at most people, myself included, because that's just how human brains work. I just felt that in this particular book, it wasn't really needed. I think they could have combined the last 2 chapters and had one shorter, more matter of fact chapter about what it all means that was a bit more reflective on the previous material. Chapters 10 and 11 felt, in many ways, out of place. The ideology of the authors seem to represent a fairly interesting mix of Karl Marx, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus, but I do think it would be off-putting to many readers, especially when they get into capital and labour. I think it would be a shame for people to dismiss the ideas in the book because of this evident influence. Also, I love Mark Maslin's take on climate change that brings together science and international politics in one of those handy "short introduction" books, so I can understand why they wanted to delve into that material, but in this book it felt out of place. Perhaps this was something requested by the publisher, as people want solutions, but the work on synthesising the scientific debate and evidence for the Anthropocene to date was so good it can stand on its own. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the Anthropocene, whether you have any kind of science background or not. I would be especially interested to hear a historian's take on it, as it is so heavily historically driven but neither author is a historian.
January 29, 2019
READ THIS BOOK. This book has answered so many questions for me, made so much sense of the world and our place in it, and more importantly given me hope to continue to join in the fight for an alternative mode of living.
March 21, 2022
This was a fascinating, sobering read, in that it takes time to examine human evolution and the ways that we have transformed the Earth from the beginning of human history to the present. What I found most impactful though was how level-headed the analysis was in the face of the present dangers of human-caused climate change. To an extent, this might be because the book's main goal isn't so much to solve the problems we face as to open a window to the public into the current debates about including the anthropocene on the geological timescale. The authors explain the scientific process for adding this new designation, as well as some of implications that however the Anthropocene Working Group chooses to define the term will have for the public's understanding of climate change and our ability as a species to respond to this crisis. It's technical without being inaccessible, eschewing liberal anxiety about climate change for a detailed consideration of where things started, where we are, and what can be done. There are a few chapters on the technicalities that can be a bit tedious, but the authors do a fantastic job of making highly specific disciplinary concepts and concerns legible to the layperson. Only in the final chapters do they begin to extrapolate on potential outcomes and solutions, at which point I felt a lot better prepared to understand their ideas and how their implementation matters. Overall, it's clear that the authors intended this to be not just an intervention into active debates within the scientific community about the anthropocene but also a legible introduction to the term as a public discourse. It's a book that anyone can and should read to be informed about human history and climate change.
October 7, 2020
Questo saggio ha diversi scopi. Dal punto di vista scientifico-geologico, si prefigge lo scopo di individuare dei confini precisi, per quanto arbitrari, dell'Antropocene. Su questa definizione io non concordo con gli autori, pur comprendendo e approvando le loro motivazioni. Questo da biologo e non da geologo, quindi probabilmente ho torto. Il fatto è che loro, pur criticando il limite dell'Olocene, il quale a mio avviso al massimo è un piano temporale del Pleistocene e non un'epoca a parte, non considerano a sufficienza il fatto che in un lontano futuro, ciò che si vedrà non sarà lo scambio colombiano, bensì i residui radioattivi degli esperimenti nucleari in atmosfera degli anni '40, '50 e '60.
Per il resto la loro analisi dei 5 stadi dell'evoluzione sociale e culturale umana non è una novità, ma è la prima volta che li vedo esposti così bene, così esaustivamente bene. Per questo tipo di esposizione meritano già le 5 stelle. L'idea, poi, che con l'interscambio globale massivo iniziato con Cristobal Colon il mondo sia tornato funzionalmente nel periodo della Pangea, è geniale.
L'altro scopo, ossia l'analisi degli scenari futuri, è profondo ed efficace. Forse peccano un poco di ottimismo, ma anche qui probabilmente hanno ragione. Sul crollo della civiltà, ossia sul tornare, come dicono loro, a un livello inferiore di complessità della società (questo il significato effettivo di crollo) rimanendo invariate le basi, beh, a distanza di 2 soli anni dalla stesura del libro, già si può osservare come la crisi del Covid19 stia dano looro ragione. Per quanto tempo sopporteremo cicli di crescita e declino nell'attuale paradigma del capitalismo di tipo consumistico non è dato sapere, ma non credo che, a differenza di quel che pensano loro, si passerà presto a uno stadio diverso della società umana. Anche se in realtà mi piacerebbe e ci spero anche.
Le due idee finali su come cambiare in meglio la situazione le condivido. Il reddito universale garantito, una specie di reddito di cittadinanza ma organizzato in modo diverso, può funzionare, ma solo se applicato a quasi tutto il mondo quasi contemporaneamente. Il piano Edward O. Wilson, descritto dall'autore in Metà della Terra: Salvare il futuro della vita è affascinante, lo condivido ma vedo difficoltosa la sua messa in pratica prima di un crollo deciso della complessità sociale. Il fatto è che probabilmente questo crollo non avverrà prima che questo periodo di estinzione, che non è ancora la sesta grande estinzione vociferata da molti (e con un poco di attenzione non lo sarà) sia diventato estremamente pernicioso. Insomma, in ogni caso il futuro che ci attende sarà diverso da come se lo immaginavano i nostri padri e i nostri nonni, ma non dev'essere per forza un futuro negativo o comunque più brutto del presente. Senza dubbio sarà un futuro diverso.
Per il resto la loro analisi dei 5 stadi dell'evoluzione sociale e culturale umana non è una novità, ma è la prima volta che li vedo esposti così bene, così esaustivamente bene. Per questo tipo di esposizione meritano già le 5 stelle. L'idea, poi, che con l'interscambio globale massivo iniziato con Cristobal Colon il mondo sia tornato funzionalmente nel periodo della Pangea, è geniale.
L'altro scopo, ossia l'analisi degli scenari futuri, è profondo ed efficace. Forse peccano un poco di ottimismo, ma anche qui probabilmente hanno ragione. Sul crollo della civiltà, ossia sul tornare, come dicono loro, a un livello inferiore di complessità della società (questo il significato effettivo di crollo) rimanendo invariate le basi, beh, a distanza di 2 soli anni dalla stesura del libro, già si può osservare come la crisi del Covid19 stia dano looro ragione. Per quanto tempo sopporteremo cicli di crescita e declino nell'attuale paradigma del capitalismo di tipo consumistico non è dato sapere, ma non credo che, a differenza di quel che pensano loro, si passerà presto a uno stadio diverso della società umana. Anche se in realtà mi piacerebbe e ci spero anche.
Le due idee finali su come cambiare in meglio la situazione le condivido. Il reddito universale garantito, una specie di reddito di cittadinanza ma organizzato in modo diverso, può funzionare, ma solo se applicato a quasi tutto il mondo quasi contemporaneamente. Il piano Edward O. Wilson, descritto dall'autore in Metà della Terra: Salvare il futuro della vita è affascinante, lo condivido ma vedo difficoltosa la sua messa in pratica prima di un crollo deciso della complessità sociale. Il fatto è che probabilmente questo crollo non avverrà prima che questo periodo di estinzione, che non è ancora la sesta grande estinzione vociferata da molti (e con un poco di attenzione non lo sarà) sia diventato estremamente pernicioso. Insomma, in ogni caso il futuro che ci attende sarà diverso da come se lo immaginavano i nostri padri e i nostri nonni, ma non dev'essere per forza un futuro negativo o comunque più brutto del presente. Senza dubbio sarà un futuro diverso.
May 11, 2019
Hmm, so, this was good in fits and bursts... and pretty not so great the rest of the time. My main issue is the fact it tries to cover too much, and glosses over most of it – the majority of which has been better dealt with elsewhere. For instance, there is literally an entire section that rehashes (with less nuance and efficiency) a chunk of Harari's 'Sapiens'. Likewise, there is a bit going over stuff covered in 'The Uninhabitable Earth' – which I'm still reading, and is far better expressed there.
That being said, however, I liked the matter-of-fact tone of this book. It makes for a good overview of some things with which I was unfamiliar. It would make for a good first stepping stone to the topic of humanity's gradual domination of the Earth, and the impact of this fact. Personally, it wasn't specific enough, and at least two thirds of it covered familiar ground. I'd probably give this a 3/5, but recognise that it has a place. I've also noticed that it forms part of Pelican's Introduction series, and that makes a lot of sense. It probably deserves better as a result, and I can't ignore the quarter or a third which was informative to me. I would reiterate that the handling of information was effective, and I did appreciate the measured approach. No panic or grandiose moralising compared to some other titles!
That being said, however, I liked the matter-of-fact tone of this book. It makes for a good overview of some things with which I was unfamiliar. It would make for a good first stepping stone to the topic of humanity's gradual domination of the Earth, and the impact of this fact. Personally, it wasn't specific enough, and at least two thirds of it covered familiar ground. I'd probably give this a 3/5, but recognise that it has a place. I've also noticed that it forms part of Pelican's Introduction series, and that makes a lot of sense. It probably deserves better as a result, and I can't ignore the quarter or a third which was informative to me. I would reiterate that the handling of information was effective, and I did appreciate the measured approach. No panic or grandiose moralising compared to some other titles!
April 19, 2020
For the better part of the book, it felt like I was revisiting Homo Sapiens (Harari) but I think that points to the unavoidable links between anthropology and history — to understand our civilisation, we need to understand our history; to understand our history, we need to apply anthropological perspectives. And in The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene, Lewis and Maslin paint a satisfyingly comprehensive picture of our past, dotting our knowledge of history with the more niche ideas from Earth system science. It is this Aufbau element, in which my understanding of history was supplemented with environmental science, that deeply impacted my reading of this book. Needless to say, it was a highly rewarding experience.
The key idea that Lewis and Maslin convey to us is that our species is driven by energy and information. As a species, we have gone through 5 stages of civilisation — hunter-gatherer, agricultural, mercantile capitalism, industrial capitalism, consumer capitalism. With each stage came advances in procurement of energy (be it from the domestication of fire or the exploitation of fossil fuels) and advances in information technology (writing systems and the internet). The reason our species has consistently progressed to a more complex state is because of positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops. While the former seems to drive us endlessly towards greater energy usage and more complex societies, the latter helps us adapt to changes in circumstances, preventing the abject collapse of societies (returning to square one).
It is in this context that we are geared towards projecting into our future. As energy consumption grows exponentially, it is becoming increasingly evident that our current lifestyles cannot be sustained — if everyone on earth consumed as much as the top percentile, it would be equivalent to having 32 billion humans on earth. Unthinkable really.
Yet, it is unlikely that civilisation will collapse utterly, given our incredible resilience and adaptive skill. It is also unlikely that we can continue with business-as-usual. The astonishing number of figures and graphs does concretise the urgency of the climate crisis and the grave extent of the ramifications of human actions on the global environment.
While a few recommendations were given (more drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, more extensive protection of natural habitats, etc.), they were mostly already within conventional wisdom. As for their arguments on UBI and promoting freedom and equality in all aspects of society, they were fresh and novel, and possibly effective solutions, but I wasn’t fully convinced. The call to action was not particularly strong.
But it is clear that the anthropocene is real. And that it started with the Colombian Exchange in 1492, which witnessed the homogenisation of global wildlife and marked the start of a steady increase in carbon emissions which has delayed the next glacial cycle by about 100,000 years. The face of the earth is covered in our fingerprints.
And it is our responsibility, for all living forms on earth, and for the future of humanity, that we try with all our might to achieve climatic and environmental restoration. Stopping the climate crisis in its tracks is not a matter of feasibility or ability, it’s a matter of conviction and enlightenment. The onus is on us, the people, and our politicians, to do what’s right.
The key idea that Lewis and Maslin convey to us is that our species is driven by energy and information. As a species, we have gone through 5 stages of civilisation — hunter-gatherer, agricultural, mercantile capitalism, industrial capitalism, consumer capitalism. With each stage came advances in procurement of energy (be it from the domestication of fire or the exploitation of fossil fuels) and advances in information technology (writing systems and the internet). The reason our species has consistently progressed to a more complex state is because of positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops. While the former seems to drive us endlessly towards greater energy usage and more complex societies, the latter helps us adapt to changes in circumstances, preventing the abject collapse of societies (returning to square one).
It is in this context that we are geared towards projecting into our future. As energy consumption grows exponentially, it is becoming increasingly evident that our current lifestyles cannot be sustained — if everyone on earth consumed as much as the top percentile, it would be equivalent to having 32 billion humans on earth. Unthinkable really.
Yet, it is unlikely that civilisation will collapse utterly, given our incredible resilience and adaptive skill. It is also unlikely that we can continue with business-as-usual. The astonishing number of figures and graphs does concretise the urgency of the climate crisis and the grave extent of the ramifications of human actions on the global environment.
While a few recommendations were given (more drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, more extensive protection of natural habitats, etc.), they were mostly already within conventional wisdom. As for their arguments on UBI and promoting freedom and equality in all aspects of society, they were fresh and novel, and possibly effective solutions, but I wasn’t fully convinced. The call to action was not particularly strong.
But it is clear that the anthropocene is real. And that it started with the Colombian Exchange in 1492, which witnessed the homogenisation of global wildlife and marked the start of a steady increase in carbon emissions which has delayed the next glacial cycle by about 100,000 years. The face of the earth is covered in our fingerprints.
And it is our responsibility, for all living forms on earth, and for the future of humanity, that we try with all our might to achieve climatic and environmental restoration. Stopping the climate crisis in its tracks is not a matter of feasibility or ability, it’s a matter of conviction and enlightenment. The onus is on us, the people, and our politicians, to do what’s right.
May 5, 2019
This book is a desperaty needed overview to the ecological history of our species. By knowing the past we can understand why this anthropocene age is an epoch never before seen in this planet.
'The Human Planet' is an excellent exsample on how to write popular and cross-disciplinary science book without giving up to presenting complex things in shallow way. Instead Lewis and Maslin provide us tour de force through natural sciences, history and critical social sciences. Everyone should read this!
'The Human Planet' is an excellent exsample on how to write popular and cross-disciplinary science book without giving up to presenting complex things in shallow way. Instead Lewis and Maslin provide us tour de force through natural sciences, history and critical social sciences. Everyone should read this!
September 13, 2018
A compelling look at the influence of human beings on our planet. Some excellent data and images... The standout one is of a map of the 18th world created by digitising the data from shipping registers. Much interesting and material which should be a wake up call to us and our politicians. Overall a thought provoking read highly recommended.
July 5, 2021
Wie hat sich der Mensch auf dem blauen Planeten behaupten können? Und ab wann haben wir den Verlauf der Erde massiv geändert und würde alles regenerieren, wenn wir weg wären?
In diesem Buch wird mit Zahlen belegt der menschliche Einfluss klar und deutlich gezeigt. Die anthrophogene Welt und ihr Fußabdruck, dass unwiderruflich ist.
Ein must read.
In diesem Buch wird mit Zahlen belegt der menschliche Einfluss klar und deutlich gezeigt. Die anthrophogene Welt und ihr Fußabdruck, dass unwiderruflich ist.
Ein must read.
May 29, 2020
Lettura agile, persino divertente, capace di rimettere in circolo e ridefinire concetti consolidati spesso a sproposito.
Una rece più estesa qui:
https://pensierosecondario.wordpress....
Una rece più estesa qui:
https://pensierosecondario.wordpress....
April 18, 2021
4 stars for content,
(in the last chapter I got annoyed by the repetition)
(in the last chapter I got annoyed by the repetition)
October 27, 2018
Simply put, this is the most comprehensive and readable summary of the scientific Anthropocene debate as well as a monumentally large analysis of how "we" got to this point on planet earth. It is also, essentially and somewhat explicitly, the scientific case for communism.
Lewis and Maslin have been most well known as the advocates for placing the 'Golden Spike' - the beginning of the Anthropocene - in 1610. This is the approximate date of the Orbis Spike, a hemispheric afforestation after the decimation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas due to European colonialism. In making this argument, Lewis and Maslin have long recognized that the entire utility of the Anthropocene for the stories we tell ourselves about history and inequality. They recognize the necessity that science is a participant in crafting political narratives, and should thus reflect on this responsibility. In itself, this is a radical step.
The Human Planet expands upon this argument in some fashion. But it is also a world-historical argument about capitalism and hierarchy. Without teleology, Lewis and Maslin apply some principles of complex systems theory to understanding the phase changes in the modes of living that have characterized various human social systems over the course of our evolutionary history. Yes, this is the return of the dreaded Master Narrative. But the story here is not abstract humanity's undifferentiated environmental impacts with which the Anthropocene thesis is most often accused. This is "the deeply uncomfortable story of colonialism, slavery and the birth of a profit-driven capitalist mode of living being intrinsically linked to long-term planetary environmental change." To get to this point, Lewis and Maslin also explicitly recognize the genius of Marx, they draw on Murray Bookchin, David Harvey, Ellen Wood, Harry Cleaver, Immanual Wallerstein, Jason Moore, etc. This is thus a radical re-emergence of the dual-sided story of human agency: the Anthropocene is "a story of domination, and the resistance to that domination." Framed in this way, the Anthropocene thesis demonstrates the necessity of *global* reparations and decolonization.
I get it. The Anthropocene has become an academic buzzword, an empty signifier, the phrase attached to every project. "X in the Anthropocene," where X can be something totally unrelated. The concept has been subject to an academic bloodletting, accused of insidious and hubristic thought. This isn't helpful. Instead, as Noel Castree has most forcefully argued, the Anthropocene is still quite open to shifts in meaning and content, and geographers (and others) should take this opportunity. Could it instead signal not just the necessity of interdisciplinarity, but of working together on a common project of anticolonial restitution and redistribution well beyond recognition? That is the possibility this book indicates for me (on this point, see also Zoe Todd and Heather Davis' article Decolonizing the Anthropocene, which references Lewis and Maslin's argument as well).
At the end of the day, Lewis and Maslin are scientists and their analysis of social relations isn't perfect. It is scientific and eurocentric. But what the authors indicate is that they're open to learning from their social scientist peers and from different peoples around the world about living differently and better. This is the kind of intellectual humility and generosity that one wishes was more prevalent in any academic conversation, including the humanities and social sciences. it's one of the things we'll need if communism as a global project is to be achieved.
Lewis and Maslin have been most well known as the advocates for placing the 'Golden Spike' - the beginning of the Anthropocene - in 1610. This is the approximate date of the Orbis Spike, a hemispheric afforestation after the decimation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas due to European colonialism. In making this argument, Lewis and Maslin have long recognized that the entire utility of the Anthropocene for the stories we tell ourselves about history and inequality. They recognize the necessity that science is a participant in crafting political narratives, and should thus reflect on this responsibility. In itself, this is a radical step.
The Human Planet expands upon this argument in some fashion. But it is also a world-historical argument about capitalism and hierarchy. Without teleology, Lewis and Maslin apply some principles of complex systems theory to understanding the phase changes in the modes of living that have characterized various human social systems over the course of our evolutionary history. Yes, this is the return of the dreaded Master Narrative. But the story here is not abstract humanity's undifferentiated environmental impacts with which the Anthropocene thesis is most often accused. This is "the deeply uncomfortable story of colonialism, slavery and the birth of a profit-driven capitalist mode of living being intrinsically linked to long-term planetary environmental change." To get to this point, Lewis and Maslin also explicitly recognize the genius of Marx, they draw on Murray Bookchin, David Harvey, Ellen Wood, Harry Cleaver, Immanual Wallerstein, Jason Moore, etc. This is thus a radical re-emergence of the dual-sided story of human agency: the Anthropocene is "a story of domination, and the resistance to that domination." Framed in this way, the Anthropocene thesis demonstrates the necessity of *global* reparations and decolonization.
I get it. The Anthropocene has become an academic buzzword, an empty signifier, the phrase attached to every project. "X in the Anthropocene," where X can be something totally unrelated. The concept has been subject to an academic bloodletting, accused of insidious and hubristic thought. This isn't helpful. Instead, as Noel Castree has most forcefully argued, the Anthropocene is still quite open to shifts in meaning and content, and geographers (and others) should take this opportunity. Could it instead signal not just the necessity of interdisciplinarity, but of working together on a common project of anticolonial restitution and redistribution well beyond recognition? That is the possibility this book indicates for me (on this point, see also Zoe Todd and Heather Davis' article Decolonizing the Anthropocene, which references Lewis and Maslin's argument as well).
At the end of the day, Lewis and Maslin are scientists and their analysis of social relations isn't perfect. It is scientific and eurocentric. But what the authors indicate is that they're open to learning from their social scientist peers and from different peoples around the world about living differently and better. This is the kind of intellectual humility and generosity that one wishes was more prevalent in any academic conversation, including the humanities and social sciences. it's one of the things we'll need if communism as a global project is to be achieved.
October 13, 2019
Even if I disagree with some of the solutions suggested herein, here's a book that gives a comprehensive outlook on what global warming is, and how humans have changed the face of Earth forever, for better or for worse.
What really enlightened me in this book are the disputes among geologists, and how they are acutely aware of the political implications of their work. Climate change is an immediate and pressing issue, and it is heartening that these concerns are being taken to heart. In any case, I was also utterly shocked by so many things - that agriculture in fact was a downgrade for humans, how we led megafauna to extinction, how colonialism and industrial capitalism scarred the planet in ways we cannot imagine. Racism and imperialism wrought horrible effects on the planet - who would have known? As indigenous and minority communities continue to be disproportionately impacted, these analyses could play a great role in addressing both racial, socio-economic and environmental equality.
A must read for anyone interested in the politics of the Anthropocene, how humans have led to the ruination of flora/fauna, and how global climate change is a threat to the very existence of modern human civilization.
What really enlightened me in this book are the disputes among geologists, and how they are acutely aware of the political implications of their work. Climate change is an immediate and pressing issue, and it is heartening that these concerns are being taken to heart. In any case, I was also utterly shocked by so many things - that agriculture in fact was a downgrade for humans, how we led megafauna to extinction, how colonialism and industrial capitalism scarred the planet in ways we cannot imagine. Racism and imperialism wrought horrible effects on the planet - who would have known? As indigenous and minority communities continue to be disproportionately impacted, these analyses could play a great role in addressing both racial, socio-economic and environmental equality.
A must read for anyone interested in the politics of the Anthropocene, how humans have led to the ruination of flora/fauna, and how global climate change is a threat to the very existence of modern human civilization.
January 3, 2019
A truly great book.
Although the topic is fairly scientific and covers an area I have little knowledge in, Geology, the book gives a fantastic illustration of humanity's time and impact on the earth. The span and depth of the geological and anthropological insight was fascinating and I feel like my knowledge on the important subject of human impact on Earth has been hugely enriched.
Towards the end some of the points do start to grate a little, namely the complaints with geological society process and reiterations on what is needed for the Earth to continue being a home for humanity and the nature we share it with. There is an inkling of politics and what starts to feel like preachiness when compared to the much more scientific explanation towards the start of the book, but I think it is important for opinions to be raised and shared, especially from experts in the relevant field.
Overall a great book, I would highly recommend to anyone wanting to learn more about the state of our planet.
Although the topic is fairly scientific and covers an area I have little knowledge in, Geology, the book gives a fantastic illustration of humanity's time and impact on the earth. The span and depth of the geological and anthropological insight was fascinating and I feel like my knowledge on the important subject of human impact on Earth has been hugely enriched.
Towards the end some of the points do start to grate a little, namely the complaints with geological society process and reiterations on what is needed for the Earth to continue being a home for humanity and the nature we share it with. There is an inkling of politics and what starts to feel like preachiness when compared to the much more scientific explanation towards the start of the book, but I think it is important for opinions to be raised and shared, especially from experts in the relevant field.
Overall a great book, I would highly recommend to anyone wanting to learn more about the state of our planet.
May 22, 2020
This is also sobering, though not in the way that The Uninhabitable Earth is - rather it's a reminder of just how humans have changed - some would say defiled - this planet. It's a look at the concept of the Anthropocene, or a formally designated geological epoch named after us.
First, the authors explore the history of the idea of the Anthropocene - I really enjoyed this! Who knew that nineteenth-century geologists were both more forward-thinking and more willing to acknowledge the human impact on the planet than us today? Rather usefully for those (including myself) who are less well-versed in geology, they give a breakdown of geological time and the means with which these blocks are defined.
They then examine the history of humankind in five chapters - our prehistoric origins, followed by what they identify as two revolutions in social organisation and two revolutions in energy sources. While this occasionally got a little fatuous - do I really want a two-page-long explanation of the causes for the Industrial Revolution beginning in Britain? - it's important in establishing the shifts in (bio)stratigraphy and paleoclimate that serve as possible markers for the beginning of the Anthropocene. Regardless of whether so much history was necessary, the authors do a good job of conscientiously linking back to these concerns - for example, the mass extinctions of megafauna that followed the migrations of modern Homo sapiens. I liked the conceptual division into energy and organisational revolutions, because they offer a very nifty framework for placing human history within the Anthropocene framework. If the Columbian Exchange doesn't sound like as epochal a development as the Industrial Revolution, the authors successfully show later that it is more important geologically.
Following this, the authors argue (justifiably so, in my view) that the evidence is uncontestable - there has been a definite shift. They thus try to elucidate why the Anthropocene remains so contentious today, prosaically (though not incorrectly) positing geological bureaucracy and petty politics as part of the reason. More significant, in my view, are the political, philosophical and ethical consequences of concretising the human impact on the Earth - what does it mean to set out in stone that there was a period Before Humans and one After?
More significantly, to define an Anthropocene would require a specific starting point - another very contentious issue, and something that the authors then turn towards. They argue (rather convincingly, though not in a way that puts the other options entirely out of contention) that it is the Orbis Spike, representing the final fall in carbon dioxide concentrations this interglacial due to the widespread death of natives in the Americas that in turn led to sharp falls in agriculture and related activities leading to carbon emissions (Orbis being the Latin for 'world', with the Columbian Exchange signifying the first time the world had been a single civilisation since the days of Pangaea. The reason for this choice are: the energy revolutions are not a viable choice (their geological impact is diachronous rather than synchronous, a legitimate though ultimately technical quibble) and the Great Acceleration is passed over because it comes after the Orbis Spike. In this way, the Orbis Spike represents the first globally synchronous significant geological impact humans left on the world. Geologically, technically, it's the best choice. Politically? That's a question the authors don't grapple with.
To explain the Anthropocene, they turn to the arc of human development, explaining the five stages we have witnessed (hunter-gatherer, agricultural, mercantile capitalism, industrial capitalism and consumer capitalism) as arising from the intersection of humanity striving for greater advances in energy sources and information and communication technology, and the positive feedback loops that help us elevate our development as well as the negative feedback loops (not continuously negative, but negative as in canceling out - generally like adaptive reflexes) that help us achieve stability once we reach there, and questioning whether this represents genuine progress (pointing out, for example, that while consumer capitalism may represent an obvious improvement over serfdom, it does not prove such a simple comparison with our hunter-gatherer forebears).
Finally, they give their opinion as to our future, pointing out that a complex adaptive system can only progress, regress or remain where it is. They argue that the confluence of shifts in information technology (for the better) and energy (away from fossil fuels) mean that continuation is unlikely; rather, either a collapse or something entirely new will result. They sketch out the frighteningly real prospect of collapse - essentially a rehash of The Uninhabitable Earth, though in a less dramatic manner - and then exhort us to adopt measures to promote the opposite, evidently more desirable outcome. The proposed policies (though non-exhaustive, they argue!) of UBI and Half-Earth are certainly convincingly justified, though one is inclined to be very, very skeptical of their realisation today.
It's certainly a very good book and - if it were up to me - should replace the existing geography syllabus across schools today. The causes of tourism or the difference between convergent and divergent tectonic plates is surely not as fundamental to our survival or to our enrichment than the intimate knowledge of our Earth, and our relationship to it - what they call the chemical, biological and human aspects of the Earth system. A few quibbles - firstly, was it really necessary to sketch out the process of geological decision-making in such detail? The point is that there is inertial resistance due to the bureaucratic structure; there is no need to bore us with specific details about committees, working groups, numbers and technicalities. Secondly, and this is more serious - why do the authors keep lingering on the Holocene selection criteria if the authors believe the Holocene to be a baseless epoch? This is especially pertinent since (and rightfully so, in my view) - the authors suggest that declaring an Anthropocene would necessitate the removal of the Holocene and Quartenary as artificial geological bounds. Since the Holocene is different from most in being defined by paleoclimate rather than stratigraphy, what does this have to do with its legitimacy? Some have made the (valid) argument that the Anthropocene is invalid as a geological concept because it is simply unrecognisable as a stratigraphical feature. The authors are a little unclear on this. Otherwise, it's superb! Probably required reading, for anyone even a mite interested in climate change and our future as a species.
First, the authors explore the history of the idea of the Anthropocene - I really enjoyed this! Who knew that nineteenth-century geologists were both more forward-thinking and more willing to acknowledge the human impact on the planet than us today? Rather usefully for those (including myself) who are less well-versed in geology, they give a breakdown of geological time and the means with which these blocks are defined.
They then examine the history of humankind in five chapters - our prehistoric origins, followed by what they identify as two revolutions in social organisation and two revolutions in energy sources. While this occasionally got a little fatuous - do I really want a two-page-long explanation of the causes for the Industrial Revolution beginning in Britain? - it's important in establishing the shifts in (bio)stratigraphy and paleoclimate that serve as possible markers for the beginning of the Anthropocene. Regardless of whether so much history was necessary, the authors do a good job of conscientiously linking back to these concerns - for example, the mass extinctions of megafauna that followed the migrations of modern Homo sapiens. I liked the conceptual division into energy and organisational revolutions, because they offer a very nifty framework for placing human history within the Anthropocene framework. If the Columbian Exchange doesn't sound like as epochal a development as the Industrial Revolution, the authors successfully show later that it is more important geologically.
Following this, the authors argue (justifiably so, in my view) that the evidence is uncontestable - there has been a definite shift. They thus try to elucidate why the Anthropocene remains so contentious today, prosaically (though not incorrectly) positing geological bureaucracy and petty politics as part of the reason. More significant, in my view, are the political, philosophical and ethical consequences of concretising the human impact on the Earth - what does it mean to set out in stone that there was a period Before Humans and one After?
More significantly, to define an Anthropocene would require a specific starting point - another very contentious issue, and something that the authors then turn towards. They argue (rather convincingly, though not in a way that puts the other options entirely out of contention) that it is the Orbis Spike, representing the final fall in carbon dioxide concentrations this interglacial due to the widespread death of natives in the Americas that in turn led to sharp falls in agriculture and related activities leading to carbon emissions (Orbis being the Latin for 'world', with the Columbian Exchange signifying the first time the world had been a single civilisation since the days of Pangaea. The reason for this choice are: the energy revolutions are not a viable choice (their geological impact is diachronous rather than synchronous, a legitimate though ultimately technical quibble) and the Great Acceleration is passed over because it comes after the Orbis Spike. In this way, the Orbis Spike represents the first globally synchronous significant geological impact humans left on the world. Geologically, technically, it's the best choice. Politically? That's a question the authors don't grapple with.
To explain the Anthropocene, they turn to the arc of human development, explaining the five stages we have witnessed (hunter-gatherer, agricultural, mercantile capitalism, industrial capitalism and consumer capitalism) as arising from the intersection of humanity striving for greater advances in energy sources and information and communication technology, and the positive feedback loops that help us elevate our development as well as the negative feedback loops (not continuously negative, but negative as in canceling out - generally like adaptive reflexes) that help us achieve stability once we reach there, and questioning whether this represents genuine progress (pointing out, for example, that while consumer capitalism may represent an obvious improvement over serfdom, it does not prove such a simple comparison with our hunter-gatherer forebears).
Finally, they give their opinion as to our future, pointing out that a complex adaptive system can only progress, regress or remain where it is. They argue that the confluence of shifts in information technology (for the better) and energy (away from fossil fuels) mean that continuation is unlikely; rather, either a collapse or something entirely new will result. They sketch out the frighteningly real prospect of collapse - essentially a rehash of The Uninhabitable Earth, though in a less dramatic manner - and then exhort us to adopt measures to promote the opposite, evidently more desirable outcome. The proposed policies (though non-exhaustive, they argue!) of UBI and Half-Earth are certainly convincingly justified, though one is inclined to be very, very skeptical of their realisation today.
It's certainly a very good book and - if it were up to me - should replace the existing geography syllabus across schools today. The causes of tourism or the difference between convergent and divergent tectonic plates is surely not as fundamental to our survival or to our enrichment than the intimate knowledge of our Earth, and our relationship to it - what they call the chemical, biological and human aspects of the Earth system. A few quibbles - firstly, was it really necessary to sketch out the process of geological decision-making in such detail? The point is that there is inertial resistance due to the bureaucratic structure; there is no need to bore us with specific details about committees, working groups, numbers and technicalities. Secondly, and this is more serious - why do the authors keep lingering on the Holocene selection criteria if the authors believe the Holocene to be a baseless epoch? This is especially pertinent since (and rightfully so, in my view) - the authors suggest that declaring an Anthropocene would necessitate the removal of the Holocene and Quartenary as artificial geological bounds. Since the Holocene is different from most in being defined by paleoclimate rather than stratigraphy, what does this have to do with its legitimacy? Some have made the (valid) argument that the Anthropocene is invalid as a geological concept because it is simply unrecognisable as a stratigraphical feature. The authors are a little unclear on this. Otherwise, it's superb! Probably required reading, for anyone even a mite interested in climate change and our future as a species.
January 3, 2022
A scattered project that fails valiantly in its ambitions to carve out the grand arc of human planetary influence. The authors do a masterful job of explaining the meaning of geological ages and how they are determined. They also shine a light on the geological politicking that underlies many of these decisions. In this, the book succeeds in documenting the ramshackle means by which scientific ideas are often advanced. I'm not sure that this was their primary intent, but it makes a fascinating read. While trying to make a strong case for their own particular date to mark the start of the geological age of man, Lewis and Maslin wander into territory far from their domains and have to fall back on now familiar popular tropes of human progress and environmental degradation. Perhaps a more nuanced and qualified unfolding of their narrative may have made the book much larger than it currently is and would have lost much of its audience. Eventually, this was a slightly disappointing read.
July 8, 2018
Fascinating breakdown of Earths geological history and how human life will now shape what comes next.
Easily accessible science, but not Sapiens-level writing. Also a couple of thousand words longer than it needed to be - I felt - but enjoyable nonetheless.
Easily accessible science, but not Sapiens-level writing. Also a couple of thousand words longer than it needed to be - I felt - but enjoyable nonetheless.
October 26, 2019
This would have been better had the authors' Marxist politics been kept out of things.
October 8, 2020
The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene by Simon L. Lewis and Mark A. Maslin is a detailed study of the history of the planet. Simon L. Lewis is Professor of Global Change Science at University College London and University of Leeds. An award-winning scientist, he has been described as having “one of the world's most influential scientific minds”. He has written for the Guardian and Foreign Policy magazine. Mark A. Maslin is Professor of Earth System Science at University College London and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Scholar. He is the author of eight books and has written for The Times and New Scientist.
The Human Planet is a book which works to pinpoint the new, or rather current, geologic epoch, the Anthropocene -- the human epoch. With attention to the evolution of life and how life on earth. Different events have changed the earth. The Carboniferous period is named for the carbon sinking plant life expanded across the planet. Ice ages had their effects on life. The rise and fall of flora and fauna are used as markers in the history of the earth.
Following the section on historical geology, the authors concentrate on the rise of man from his beginning to his spread across the world. Man would have continued as hunter-gatherers without much effect on the planet. Man, however, did things to change his environment. Agriculture created societies and, in that, it also selectively bred plants and animals to meet his needs. A long string of events came from settling and developing agriculture. A community developed, a government formed, labor was divided. Efficiency in growing food exceeded hunting and gathering. This allowed new activities to begin -- primitive manufacturing, cultivating the land, and growth in population.
Technology helped man spread his influence on the planet. Something as harmless as the printing press was responsible for expanding information to a greater number of people and preserved knowledge. That information led to education and development of new technology or applications of technology. The power of steam was known to the ancient Greeks, but it wasn't until the 18th century when the steam engine was developed. The coal-fired steam engine replaced water mills to power industry. Coal was also used to heat houses and for cooking. London air was described as a sea of coal dust. From there a domino effect of new technology, population growth, deforesting, and removal of animal species continued. Man started changing the environment to suit his needs.
Since the steam engine, man has accelerated his impact on the planet. It is not only fossil fuels but also agriculture to support a growing population. Human population was one billion in 1804. It took until 1927 to reach two billion. 1960 marked three billion. It took only 13 years, on average, to add a billion more people to get to the six billion in 1999. Higher crop yields, better sanitation, better health care led to a population explosion. While longer and better life is a good thing, there will be a point that a great population will become unsupportable.
Technology is something unique to mankind. We use it to make our lives better. The changes are recognizable -- huge monoculture crops, sprawling cities, domestication of animals, removal of wild animals, not to mention man-made climate change. The Anthropocene is here. When did it start is the question that this book builds up to. A well-written history of the planet and mankind and the effects of man on the planet.
The Human Planet is a book which works to pinpoint the new, or rather current, geologic epoch, the Anthropocene -- the human epoch. With attention to the evolution of life and how life on earth. Different events have changed the earth. The Carboniferous period is named for the carbon sinking plant life expanded across the planet. Ice ages had their effects on life. The rise and fall of flora and fauna are used as markers in the history of the earth.
Following the section on historical geology, the authors concentrate on the rise of man from his beginning to his spread across the world. Man would have continued as hunter-gatherers without much effect on the planet. Man, however, did things to change his environment. Agriculture created societies and, in that, it also selectively bred plants and animals to meet his needs. A long string of events came from settling and developing agriculture. A community developed, a government formed, labor was divided. Efficiency in growing food exceeded hunting and gathering. This allowed new activities to begin -- primitive manufacturing, cultivating the land, and growth in population.
Technology helped man spread his influence on the planet. Something as harmless as the printing press was responsible for expanding information to a greater number of people and preserved knowledge. That information led to education and development of new technology or applications of technology. The power of steam was known to the ancient Greeks, but it wasn't until the 18th century when the steam engine was developed. The coal-fired steam engine replaced water mills to power industry. Coal was also used to heat houses and for cooking. London air was described as a sea of coal dust. From there a domino effect of new technology, population growth, deforesting, and removal of animal species continued. Man started changing the environment to suit his needs.
Since the steam engine, man has accelerated his impact on the planet. It is not only fossil fuels but also agriculture to support a growing population. Human population was one billion in 1804. It took until 1927 to reach two billion. 1960 marked three billion. It took only 13 years, on average, to add a billion more people to get to the six billion in 1999. Higher crop yields, better sanitation, better health care led to a population explosion. While longer and better life is a good thing, there will be a point that a great population will become unsupportable.
Technology is something unique to mankind. We use it to make our lives better. The changes are recognizable -- huge monoculture crops, sprawling cities, domestication of animals, removal of wild animals, not to mention man-made climate change. The Anthropocene is here. When did it start is the question that this book builds up to. A well-written history of the planet and mankind and the effects of man on the planet.
September 30, 2018
What a treat. This book starts by chronicling how life has changed Earth geologically. Humans have been doing so initially unwittingly but then knowingly. If there are reasons to believe that human activities are leading to a long lasting irreversible shift in the Earth system and evolutionary trajectory that can be captured in future geological sediments and strata of rocks, then it is rational to crown the current epoch Anthropocene. The book details how humans, through the acquisition of culminated culture and hence technological advancement, have a pattern of impoverishing preexisting fauna and flora wherever they can reach. Their effective harnessing of energy leads to population expansions which in turn demand ever more energy sources. Intriguingly, agriculture has delayed the next ice age, allowing agriculture itself to perpetuate, and facilitated the emergence of sophisticated civilisations. Then came transatlantic migration, which brought pestilence and famine that decimated populations (witnessed by the Orbis Spike), whose labour power was to be replaced by the misery of imported slavery. With globalisation came the homogenisation of biology. Our geologist authors then trace the birth of capitalism through the availability of addictive crops such as sugar cane, tea and tobacco, and development of its various forms through technologies we call property rights and credit, its exploits, and the associated exploitative inhumanity. Needless to say, plundering of the environment became rampant and global, all in the name of profit. That colonisation unleashed the Industrial Revolution is well explained. The subsequent truly globally coordinated and idolatrous worshipping of materialist consumption has brought upon hitherto unprecedented environmental vandalism, mass extinction, deprivation, and suffering. Climate change and biogeochemical cycling disruption are merely the tip of the iceberg. These human geological footprints abound and are indelible. Several chapters are devoted to the Kafkaesque politics of geological nomenclature, in particular that surrounding the eponymous epoch, which is amusing and indeed the raison d'être of the book. The authors present a cogent case to render the 1610 Orbis Spike the marker of the beginning of the Anthropocene. This narrative has major implication in how we view ourselves, who as societies are complex adaptive systems, like everything else. The unanswered question is: with all the knowledge and organisation, will humans be wise enough to escape positive feedback traps? The reader is left to contemplate upon this. To be progressive is far more important that just making “progress”. Encyclopaedic and humane, and alarming without being alarmist – Five Stars.
January 30, 2019
Geological evidence of human being’s impact on the environment that dated back well before the Industrial Revolution.
Since the existence of Homo Sapiens ~600000 - 700000 years ago, we have undergone 5 modes of living - i) hunter gatherer ii) agricultural iii) mercantile capitalism iv) industrial capitalism v) consumer capitalism. In each stage, there were measurable impact to our environment and some irreversible impacts. As early as hunter gatherer mode of living, human beings’ ability to create tools and coordinate drove extinction of mega fauna. In the transition towards agricultural mode of living, we inadvertently delayed the next ice age by clearing forests for farm land increasing CO2 concentration in the air. As we modernised into mercantile capitalism, globalisation of economy, social and ecosystem happened resulting in a remake of Pangea as species were able to cross otherwise uncrossable natural boundaries. Our impact to the environment started to accelerate through industrial revolution as we cracked the code on to information transfer, energy extraction and human agency sustained our momentum to improve our livelihood and profitability.
Transitions through each stage were driven by positive loops where tangible improvements provided incentive for our ancestors to move from one mode to another e.g. hunter gatherer discovering fire and domestication of animals and plants that provided much higher access to energy.
Our existing lifestyles of consumerism resulting in high energy consumption have obvious impact on our Earth’s ecosystem. Question is, at what cost and what are the long term consequences? What will the incentive be to create a positive feedback loop to drive us toward transition into a new mode of living? Or will we be forced by a negative feedback loop to force us there e.g. collapse of our existing ecosystem?
Since the existence of Homo Sapiens ~600000 - 700000 years ago, we have undergone 5 modes of living - i) hunter gatherer ii) agricultural iii) mercantile capitalism iv) industrial capitalism v) consumer capitalism. In each stage, there were measurable impact to our environment and some irreversible impacts. As early as hunter gatherer mode of living, human beings’ ability to create tools and coordinate drove extinction of mega fauna. In the transition towards agricultural mode of living, we inadvertently delayed the next ice age by clearing forests for farm land increasing CO2 concentration in the air. As we modernised into mercantile capitalism, globalisation of economy, social and ecosystem happened resulting in a remake of Pangea as species were able to cross otherwise uncrossable natural boundaries. Our impact to the environment started to accelerate through industrial revolution as we cracked the code on to information transfer, energy extraction and human agency sustained our momentum to improve our livelihood and profitability.
Transitions through each stage were driven by positive loops where tangible improvements provided incentive for our ancestors to move from one mode to another e.g. hunter gatherer discovering fire and domestication of animals and plants that provided much higher access to energy.
Our existing lifestyles of consumerism resulting in high energy consumption have obvious impact on our Earth’s ecosystem. Question is, at what cost and what are the long term consequences? What will the incentive be to create a positive feedback loop to drive us toward transition into a new mode of living? Or will we be forced by a negative feedback loop to force us there e.g. collapse of our existing ecosystem?
December 6, 2020
[Watch out - spoilers!]
Sometimes interesting but mostly pretty boring.
To be honest, I'm not really sure I got what this book was about. It started well with the question of whether humans have really created their own geological era, called the Anthropocene. But then the first chapter basically answered the question with a resounding yes - it turns out that humans have thought so for hundreds of years (query then why this is a popular debate today...). That was followed by a pretty dull explanation of geological stuff and markers (which, as you can tell, I found very hard to retain anything of in my brain). We then went on a bit of a potted history tour, first of the Earth, next of humanity and finally of modern day farming, industrialisation, war and globalisation.
After that, we made a sudden switch to a geological-political diatribe, none of which resonated with me because I'm not a middle-aged white geologist or part of an exclusive geology clique. It kind of felt like the authors were raging because someone had beaten them to it in setting their stake in the ground and defining the Anthropocene. And then, naturally, we ended with their proposal for a definition. It was like reading a dissertation.
I finished the book feeling both (a) cheated, because it wasn't clear in the marketing, or at the beginning, that I was going to be wading in to some niche politics, and (b) mega-bored. As the authors themselves note: "...geology plus humans equals politics." I'll say.
The best chapters by far were those about the early Earth, the dinosaurs, and the rise and spread of Homo sapiens. I'm thinking I many not have been the target audience for the rest (i.e. the majority) of the book, and that I should probably have read a book focusing more on these bits that did interest me. But I did really enjoy all the graphs and charts. And I did learn some cool new facts:
- Humans have undeniably extended the current interglacial period.
- There were six billion trees on Earth before agriculture became a thing (now we're down to three trillion).
- Marble is pressure-cooked limestone.
- Homo sapiens left Africa more than once and killed the previous iterations of itself.
I also found the narrative of global homogenisation of animals and plants super interesting. Did you know:
- Broccoli, all cabbages, cauliflowers, Brussels sprouts, kale, kohlrabi, and a dozen different Chinese green vegetables all come from one species, Brassica oleracea.
- The same plant and animal species that farming communities domesticated thousands of years ago still sustain today's 7.5 billion people.
- Before the sixteenth century, there were no potatoes or tomatoes in Europe, no wheat or bananas in America, no chili peppers in China or India, and no peanuts in Africa.
- What plate tectonics did over tens of millions of years (i.e. split Pangea into multiple continents and move them away from each other) is being undone by shipping in a few centuries and aviation in a few decades. We are creating a New Pangea.
- Today, wild mammals make up just 3% of the total mammal mass; the other 97% is made up 30% us humans and 67% the domesticated animals that feed us.
Sometimes interesting but mostly pretty boring.
To be honest, I'm not really sure I got what this book was about. It started well with the question of whether humans have really created their own geological era, called the Anthropocene. But then the first chapter basically answered the question with a resounding yes - it turns out that humans have thought so for hundreds of years (query then why this is a popular debate today...). That was followed by a pretty dull explanation of geological stuff and markers (which, as you can tell, I found very hard to retain anything of in my brain). We then went on a bit of a potted history tour, first of the Earth, next of humanity and finally of modern day farming, industrialisation, war and globalisation.
After that, we made a sudden switch to a geological-political diatribe, none of which resonated with me because I'm not a middle-aged white geologist or part of an exclusive geology clique. It kind of felt like the authors were raging because someone had beaten them to it in setting their stake in the ground and defining the Anthropocene. And then, naturally, we ended with their proposal for a definition. It was like reading a dissertation.
I finished the book feeling both (a) cheated, because it wasn't clear in the marketing, or at the beginning, that I was going to be wading in to some niche politics, and (b) mega-bored. As the authors themselves note: "...geology plus humans equals politics." I'll say.
The best chapters by far were those about the early Earth, the dinosaurs, and the rise and spread of Homo sapiens. I'm thinking I many not have been the target audience for the rest (i.e. the majority) of the book, and that I should probably have read a book focusing more on these bits that did interest me. But I did really enjoy all the graphs and charts. And I did learn some cool new facts:
- Humans have undeniably extended the current interglacial period.
- There were six billion trees on Earth before agriculture became a thing (now we're down to three trillion).
- Marble is pressure-cooked limestone.
- Homo sapiens left Africa more than once and killed the previous iterations of itself.
I also found the narrative of global homogenisation of animals and plants super interesting. Did you know:
- Broccoli, all cabbages, cauliflowers, Brussels sprouts, kale, kohlrabi, and a dozen different Chinese green vegetables all come from one species, Brassica oleracea.
- The same plant and animal species that farming communities domesticated thousands of years ago still sustain today's 7.5 billion people.
- Before the sixteenth century, there were no potatoes or tomatoes in Europe, no wheat or bananas in America, no chili peppers in China or India, and no peanuts in Africa.
- What plate tectonics did over tens of millions of years (i.e. split Pangea into multiple continents and move them away from each other) is being undone by shipping in a few centuries and aviation in a few decades. We are creating a New Pangea.
- Today, wild mammals make up just 3% of the total mammal mass; the other 97% is made up 30% us humans and 67% the domesticated animals that feed us.
April 9, 2020
The Human Planet chronicles the progress of mankind and the corresponding impacts on the environments by these innovations. Lewis and Maslin puts forth an argument as to the impacts that human activity have on the Earth system is significant enough to justify its own geological Epoch definition.
I am particularly impressed by how well supported their arguments are, with the multitude of footnotes littering the book with references.
The writers have not shied away from pointing their fingers at the culprits of this climate change we're experiencing — the developed Western world.
How well written this book is can be seen in the reversal of my opinion on the conclusion. Originally, I disagreed with the establishment of the Anthropocene Epoch as I felt it was a politically driven action that had less to do with geology. However, by Chapter 9, I found myself slowly beginning to agree with it. This book contains a wealth of information regarding the human impacts on Earth, not just with respect to climate change, but also other ideas such as the impact of humans on the evolution of other species due to colonisation during the Age of Western Exploration, as well as increasing equality through Universal Basic Income. This information is extremely important in these days as the threat of our own demise via climate change looms larger with each passing day.
I am particularly impressed by how well supported their arguments are, with the multitude of footnotes littering the book with references.
The writers have not shied away from pointing their fingers at the culprits of this climate change we're experiencing — the developed Western world.
How well written this book is can be seen in the reversal of my opinion on the conclusion. Originally, I disagreed with the establishment of the Anthropocene Epoch as I felt it was a politically driven action that had less to do with geology. However, by Chapter 9, I found myself slowly beginning to agree with it. This book contains a wealth of information regarding the human impacts on Earth, not just with respect to climate change, but also other ideas such as the impact of humans on the evolution of other species due to colonisation during the Age of Western Exploration, as well as increasing equality through Universal Basic Income. This information is extremely important in these days as the threat of our own demise via climate change looms larger with each passing day.
February 1, 2019
4.75 ⭐️
This was an excellent and detailed look at the history of human civilization and our impact on the environment. Trying to identify the best point in geologic time as the beginning of our impact is extremely difficult. This book provides well researched options for possible starting points while describing the process in how a new epoch is determined in geologic time. I would highly recommend this for anyone interested in a more general analysis of the climate change issue without diving far into the politics surrounding it. It is a little jargon heavy which might not read well for everyone. The discussion on economics I feel went a bit too far into detail and the enjoyment I felt reading this entire book was somewhat lost in the last couple of chapters which is why I couldn’t give it a full 5 stars.
This was an excellent and detailed look at the history of human civilization and our impact on the environment. Trying to identify the best point in geologic time as the beginning of our impact is extremely difficult. This book provides well researched options for possible starting points while describing the process in how a new epoch is determined in geologic time. I would highly recommend this for anyone interested in a more general analysis of the climate change issue without diving far into the politics surrounding it. It is a little jargon heavy which might not read well for everyone. The discussion on economics I feel went a bit too far into detail and the enjoyment I felt reading this entire book was somewhat lost in the last couple of chapters which is why I couldn’t give it a full 5 stars.
December 4, 2019
Read for my IRG class, the Science, Technology, and the Environment track.
This book is so well-written in every way. The facts are presented without coddling the feelings of colonizers and imperial states. I can only hope my classmates actually do their reading and understand some of what's in this book, like the following quote from page 389:
“The West, as we have seen in earlier chapters, got rich by plundering the rest of the world, and used up most of the world’s global carbon budget. A third of the extra carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere came from the USA, a third from Europe and a third from the rest of the world.”
The final chapter in particular is an excellent assessment of our present mode of living, and a call to action which resonates:
“It will be difficult, but we cannot afford to fail.”
Solarpunk revolution now!
This book is so well-written in every way. The facts are presented without coddling the feelings of colonizers and imperial states. I can only hope my classmates actually do their reading and understand some of what's in this book, like the following quote from page 389:
“The West, as we have seen in earlier chapters, got rich by plundering the rest of the world, and used up most of the world’s global carbon budget. A third of the extra carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere came from the USA, a third from Europe and a third from the rest of the world.”
The final chapter in particular is an excellent assessment of our present mode of living, and a call to action which resonates:
“It will be difficult, but we cannot afford to fail.”
Solarpunk revolution now!
May 23, 2019
The book touches upon a most relevant topic such as the history of our planet from the perspective of human impacts on its capacity to support us in the future. It resembles a bit Harari's Sapiens, but it is scientifically literate when it comes to our footprint on the planet, which makes it even more relevant than Sapiens in my view. I do have some criticism when it comes to 1. a certain angle the book uses to look at the history of capitalism and 2. to the fact that some of the solutions suggested by the last pages are not as straightforward as they seem (since they carry future risks and uncertainties). But all in all the scope, ambition, and scientific rigor in exploring the history of some of our major impacts on our planet make this book a must read. I would give it a 4.5.
June 7, 2020
I stumbled upon this book by accident and picked it up because of its beautiful cover and interesting title. I did not expect it to be centered around geology, however I did find it extremely captivating to read about the subject. The authors do a really good job in explaining the basic aspects of geological time lines, and why they are relevant in the context of current events, particularly climate change. Several aspects of the book have been very shocking to me, even though I do understand a lot about climate change, especially the suggested start date of the Anthropocene and the reasons for the same.
The book is a must read for anyone interested in understanding and interpreting the current climate crisis and it's origins on our planet.
The book is a must read for anyone interested in understanding and interpreting the current climate crisis and it's origins on our planet.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews