So, I've just read the opening pages of the book, and I thought she was doing really well at setting up how our pursuit of stuff will ruin us. However, even after making an excellent point that all human systems are subsystems of the earth's systems, she still makes the error that I think sabotages environmentalists everywhere. She claims that we are killing the planet. I don't think we have the capacity to kill the planet. I think the earth will easily outlast us, whatever we do. The thing we ARE doing is making the planet uninhabitable for US. That's what we're doing. I think this is a message that more people would respond to, since many people are numb to damages caused to the earth and its species. Anyway ... I'll keep reading, but it was disappointing to see her swap her systems right after getting them in order. The earth has outlasted many disasters. It can outlast us. Life may be different then, but it will still evolve and adapt.
UPDATE: Okay, so I read further in the book and I found that the author has a bad habit. When she is presenting her information, she will often tell it in such a way that it makes her point "stronger," but when the point is actually looked at, well, it falls apart.
For Example: She does an example of how it takes 98 tons of material to produce 1 ton of paper. Then she goes on about how wasteful that is. Okay, so let me give a counter example. Let's say I want to make a little pouch to keep things in. In order to do that, I need to acquire some fabric, thread, a sewing machine, a table to put the sewing machine on, a chair to sit on while I run it, a pair of sheers to cut the fabric, some little scissors to snip the threads with, some pins to hold the fabric together, and a piece of ribbon or something to thread through the top to close the pouch (or a zipper or clasp or whatever). So ... to get myself a little pouch, I need sooooooooo much more stuff than the little pouch by itself. Isn't that wasteful?
But here's the thing: I'm going to use that table, chair, thread, sewing machine, scissors, pins, etc., again and again and again as I make more things. The same holds true with MUCH of that 98 tons of material to produce 1 ton of paper. So, why doesn't she tell us how much of those 98 tons are only used once? Because then her point wouldn't be so overblown.
And that, I think, is the downfall of the book. She doesn't trust her information enough, so she gets a little frantic about it and ends up not quite telling the truth in enough instances that the alert reader begins to grow wary and wonder if sources need to be checked. This shouldn't have to the be the case. Especially when someone who already believes that we should consume so much less and change how we govern things in the world (me) feels skeptical while reading about this very topic.
Now, before I finish off, I want to say that she DOES say some very good things in this book. I liked how she showed that big companies like Nike don't make shoes, they *brand* shoes. They *market* shoes. Apple does the same thing. They don't *make* electronics. They brand them and market them. It's a good revelation of how the systems all work (or don't work). So, yes, she says good things, but I found that I couldn't relax and trust her, so I gave up on the book. Alas.