What do you think?
Rate this book
Soyların Tükenişi : Alternatif Bir Kapitalizm Tarihi
Birkaç bin yıl önce dünya, yünlü mamutlar ve kılıç dişli kaplanlardan otomobil büyüklüğündeki armadillolara kadar muazzam çeşitlilikte memeliye ev sahipliği yapıyordu. Sonra insanlar geldi. Gezegene yayıldıkça besin zinciri boyunca yollarına çıkan her şeyi yutarak günümüze kadar devam eden bir yok etme süreci başlattılar.
Bugünün manşetleri, gergedanlar ve pandalar gibi büyük hayvanların karşı karşıya olduğu varoluşsal tehditten bahsediyor. Oysa insanların yol açtığı yıkım, böcekler, yarasalar ve kelebekler gibi daha mütevazı canlıları da kapsıyor. Dünya, her gün yaklaşık yüz canlı türünü kaybediyor.
Ashley Dawson, bu amansız yok oluşun, bir bütün olarak insanlığın mirası kabul edilen hava, su, bitki ve canlıların yanı sıra dil gibi kültürel formların hazinesi olan müştereklere yönelik küresel bir saldırının sonucu olduğunu ve bu saldırının, sermayenin yaşamın tüm alanlarına durmaksızın yayılma ihtiyacından doğduğunu iddia ediyor.
Soyların Tükenişi, bilim, çevrecilik ve radikal siyaset arasındaki keskin çizgilerin aşılması gerekliliğini canlılıkla ifade ediyor.
Bugünün manşetleri, gergedanlar ve pandalar gibi büyük hayvanların karşı karşıya olduğu varoluşsal tehditten bahsediyor. Oysa insanların yol açtığı yıkım, böcekler, yarasalar ve kelebekler gibi daha mütevazı canlıları da kapsıyor. Dünya, her gün yaklaşık yüz canlı türünü kaybediyor.
Ashley Dawson, bu amansız yok oluşun, bir bütün olarak insanlığın mirası kabul edilen hava, su, bitki ve canlıların yanı sıra dil gibi kültürel formların hazinesi olan müştereklere yönelik küresel bir saldırının sonucu olduğunu ve bu saldırının, sermayenin yaşamın tüm alanlarına durmaksızın yayılma ihtiyacından doğduğunu iddia ediyor.
Soyların Tükenişi, bilim, çevrecilik ve radikal siyaset arasındaki keskin çizgilerin aşılması gerekliliğini canlılıkla ifade ediyor.
112 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2016
21 people are currently reading
673 people want to read
About the author
Ashley Dawson
61 books25 followersAshley Dawson is a professor of English at CUNY, New York City. He is the author of Extinction, Mongrel Nation and The Routledge Concise History of Twentieth-Century British Literature, as well as a short story in the anthology Staten Island Noir.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
December 25, 2022
I appreciated being able to further understand an argument I agreed with: that humans via capitalism are responsible for the current mass extinction, rather than just "humanity evil" with no sense of economic/political/historical context.
Overall I wish Dawson had given the reader a bit more with each of his arguments -- each of the case studies he brings up at the beginning could have been a book on their own.
Overall I wish Dawson had given the reader a bit more with each of his arguments -- each of the case studies he brings up at the beginning could have been a book on their own.
January 8, 2018
particularly enjoyed the intersections of colonialism and capitalism. An overhaul of our socio-economic situation DEMANDS reparations to historically exploited people, such as those in the Global South. Interesting suggestions of providing a type of Universal Basic Income for indigenous people who live in biodiverse areas.
February 22, 2017
This book is a bit ridiculous.
It less about extinction and more about blaming extinction on capitalism. The author cherry picks facts and idea to conclude the only solution is for a "radical anti-capitalist conservation movement". The book takes an overly simplistic view of the issue to form its conclusions. Reintroduce the Woolly Mammoth to the Great Plains (aka Pleitocene rewilding), is not going to solve extinction.
It less about extinction and more about blaming extinction on capitalism. The author cherry picks facts and idea to conclude the only solution is for a "radical anti-capitalist conservation movement". The book takes an overly simplistic view of the issue to form its conclusions. Reintroduce the Woolly Mammoth to the Great Plains (aka Pleitocene rewilding), is not going to solve extinction.
March 19, 2016
An interesting call to arms, as it were, and very much a diatribe against neoliberal conservation efforts. Some of his conclusions (particularly in the early historical overview of mass extinctions) seem a bit too pithy, but it does offer an interesting way of reconsidering human effects on ecosystems (the Sumerian deforestation being reflected in the Epic of Gilgamesh I found especially fascinating, but I'm not sure that alone led to the modern-day deserts of Iraq and surrounding regions in the Fertile Crescent, as Dawson suggests).
Be warned: it's a brief book. The print page count is 130; my ebook version was only around 80 pages, including endnotes (the full text clocks in at around 65 ebook "pages"). I do not mention this as a slight against the book at all -- I quite like short books -- but it did leave me asking for more and wishing, at times, for a deeper dive into his examples and suggestions for moving forward.
Be warned: it's a brief book. The print page count is 130; my ebook version was only around 80 pages, including endnotes (the full text clocks in at around 65 ebook "pages"). I do not mention this as a slight against the book at all -- I quite like short books -- but it did leave me asking for more and wishing, at times, for a deeper dive into his examples and suggestions for moving forward.
April 24, 2019
After having read The End of the Megafauna so recently picking up this book was a little bit of a mistake. The book I mentioned covers the very open question as to what exactly caused the extinction of the megafauna and draws the conclusion, already known to most in the archaeological, paleontological, and anthropological fields that human beings predation (overhunting) and climate change were likely not the main culprits for the extinction. If you are interested in the why's and wherefore's of this I recommend looking at this book.
That is not to say that both have not been responsible for other extinctions down the line, and indeed there are certain cases like that of the thylcine, passenger pigeon, and Hawaiin Crow where extinctions were caused either directly by humans or through invasive species introduced purposefully by humans. We are not blameless, yet we are also not incapable of living alongside biodiversity without doing it harm.
Ashley Dawson posits that ever since our species stepped out of Africa and acquired the ability to speak we have been viewing ourselves as distinct from animals, and viewing the world in terms of how we can best exploit it. He calls for a radical revolution in order to keep our present state of biodiversity intact but largely views rewilding and deextinction as ill-advised ventures that view to profit from the environment rather than preserve or conserve it. While some of the author's points do resonate with me, this book has not been written with an accurate view of history nor the conservation views by those espouse rewilding and deextinction as viable solutions.
Too many common mistakes were made when it comes to history, rewilding, and deextinction. Even the myth of the Romans eating to excess only to vomit up their meal and then continue feasting is repeated in here. Rewilding does not seek to establish parks where the animal will live and be managed, but rather to literally rewild the world. Something as simple as reintroducing higher numbers of beavers to California is an act of rewilding, and one that many support. Not everything is big cats.
Deextinction, likewise, is being supported as strongly as it is in hopes of helping to increase the biodiversity of extant species. The passenger pigeon project, and the talk of mammoths, both take front and center more often as those are the 'sexy projects' which then bring in funding which in turn helps the less flashy things happen. While capitalistic society is not conducive to fixing the environment or helping it recover in a general way, so much of this book was mistaken in the facts it presented that I had difficulty digesting it all.
That is not to say that both have not been responsible for other extinctions down the line, and indeed there are certain cases like that of the thylcine, passenger pigeon, and Hawaiin Crow where extinctions were caused either directly by humans or through invasive species introduced purposefully by humans. We are not blameless, yet we are also not incapable of living alongside biodiversity without doing it harm.
Ashley Dawson posits that ever since our species stepped out of Africa and acquired the ability to speak we have been viewing ourselves as distinct from animals, and viewing the world in terms of how we can best exploit it. He calls for a radical revolution in order to keep our present state of biodiversity intact but largely views rewilding and deextinction as ill-advised ventures that view to profit from the environment rather than preserve or conserve it. While some of the author's points do resonate with me, this book has not been written with an accurate view of history nor the conservation views by those espouse rewilding and deextinction as viable solutions.
Too many common mistakes were made when it comes to history, rewilding, and deextinction. Even the myth of the Romans eating to excess only to vomit up their meal and then continue feasting is repeated in here. Rewilding does not seek to establish parks where the animal will live and be managed, but rather to literally rewild the world. Something as simple as reintroducing higher numbers of beavers to California is an act of rewilding, and one that many support. Not everything is big cats.
Deextinction, likewise, is being supported as strongly as it is in hopes of helping to increase the biodiversity of extant species. The passenger pigeon project, and the talk of mammoths, both take front and center more often as those are the 'sexy projects' which then bring in funding which in turn helps the less flashy things happen. While capitalistic society is not conducive to fixing the environment or helping it recover in a general way, so much of this book was mistaken in the facts it presented that I had difficulty digesting it all.
Read
November 21, 2023"The power of human dreams has historically been closely tied to the generative multiformity of the plant and animal life that surrounds us. Even in the 'advanced' capitalist cultures, we encourage our children to learn basic forms of empathy and imagination by giving them toy animals and reading them stories like The Tale of Peter Rabbit. We have always used animals and plants to symbolize our most intimate fears, our hopes, and even our greatest loves. As capitalism tears increasingly gaping holes in the beautiful web of life of which we are a part, our capacity to dream, to imagine different, more manifold worlds is radically impoverished. Every species that is consigned to oblivion is a grave loss to the planet in general and a serious threat to the many people whose lives are intertwined with that species. In addition, however, such losses are the most concrete possible testimony to the ecocidal character of capitalism. In the face of such an irredeemably rapacious and ultimately impoverishing system, we must insist on the human capacity to dream and to build a more just, more biologically diverse world.” :'(
March 12, 2020
A quick read about the connection between anthropocentrism and extinction. It was ok, wasnt overly into it nor was I bored by it. Kept me engaged as it was a good primer into the effect that humans have had on extinction. Didnt agree with some points, but I felt it was overall a good read.
April 27, 2021
Ashley Dawson is an English Professor at CUNY in New York City specializing in environmental studies. His book “Extinction: A Radicalized History” is a work of nonfiction that analyzes the intersection between the effects of current political economic mechanisms on the environment. His intended audience for this work is anyone who benefits from capitalism in hopes of exposing the exploitation that allows the system to thrive. The title of this book is extremely interesting because it makes the claim that extinction is not purely based in biology, but also but the economic system that facilitated it. By analyzing this multifaceted issue through a variety of lenses, Dawson calls for radical change in order to avoid the collapse of our own civilization.
“Extinction: A Radicalized History” by Ashley Dawson is a short but powerful read which describes the impact that mankind has had on the mass extinction of organisms across the globe. Dawson begins his book with a grotesque description of an elephant corpse rotting in the sun, having been killed by poachers for its tusks. This introduction exposes the harsh reality of the state of the natural world that has been hidden by our cushioned first world lives. In addition, it calls the reader to action and makes them more susceptible to Dawson’s claim that an economic revolution is inevitable in order to preserve endangered species. This combined with Dawson’s extremely organized flow of logic through his table of contents make him thoroughly convincing.
In his book, Dawson discusses the idea of how most of the earth’s biodiversity is found in the tropics. He then explains how much of the destruction of these habitats can be tied to the exploitation of the global south through capitalism and primitive accumulation. He also frames extinction as an “attack on the global commons” as increasingly laissez faire trade policies lead to the privatization of natural resources. He does understand that there is a fear that if capitalism ever stops expanding, there will be an economic crisis. However, Dawson points out that the alternative is far worse, where monoculture and commodification are favored over biodiversity, resulting in the destruction of global ecosystems.
Compared to other articles that I have read on similar topics, I found Dawson’s book to be very inspiring. While other readers might critique his failure to provide a solution to the problem of extinction, I do not believe that it detracts from his overall point. As a political ecologist, Dawson has already done a fantastic job of examining this very complex issue in an interdisciplinary manner. If anything, I believe that providing his own solutions to the issue would have diluted his purpose of educating the reader on the impact that capitalism has on the loss of biodiversity. One area that I wished that Dawson would have expanded on more though is the impact that the subjugation of racial minorities may have had on extinction. A few examples that come to mind include oppression of Indigenous peoples during the fur trade and the slave trade of the 1800’s.
Overall, I found “Extinction: A Radical History” extremely interesting to read and would recommend it to any animal lover who seeks a deeper understanding of global biodiversity. The book can be purchased through any bookstore or online seller such as Amazon. It is also available as an ebook on Kindle. It was published April 22nd 2016 by OR Books.
“Extinction: A Radicalized History” by Ashley Dawson is a short but powerful read which describes the impact that mankind has had on the mass extinction of organisms across the globe. Dawson begins his book with a grotesque description of an elephant corpse rotting in the sun, having been killed by poachers for its tusks. This introduction exposes the harsh reality of the state of the natural world that has been hidden by our cushioned first world lives. In addition, it calls the reader to action and makes them more susceptible to Dawson’s claim that an economic revolution is inevitable in order to preserve endangered species. This combined with Dawson’s extremely organized flow of logic through his table of contents make him thoroughly convincing.
In his book, Dawson discusses the idea of how most of the earth’s biodiversity is found in the tropics. He then explains how much of the destruction of these habitats can be tied to the exploitation of the global south through capitalism and primitive accumulation. He also frames extinction as an “attack on the global commons” as increasingly laissez faire trade policies lead to the privatization of natural resources. He does understand that there is a fear that if capitalism ever stops expanding, there will be an economic crisis. However, Dawson points out that the alternative is far worse, where monoculture and commodification are favored over biodiversity, resulting in the destruction of global ecosystems.
Compared to other articles that I have read on similar topics, I found Dawson’s book to be very inspiring. While other readers might critique his failure to provide a solution to the problem of extinction, I do not believe that it detracts from his overall point. As a political ecologist, Dawson has already done a fantastic job of examining this very complex issue in an interdisciplinary manner. If anything, I believe that providing his own solutions to the issue would have diluted his purpose of educating the reader on the impact that capitalism has on the loss of biodiversity. One area that I wished that Dawson would have expanded on more though is the impact that the subjugation of racial minorities may have had on extinction. A few examples that come to mind include oppression of Indigenous peoples during the fur trade and the slave trade of the 1800’s.
Overall, I found “Extinction: A Radical History” extremely interesting to read and would recommend it to any animal lover who seeks a deeper understanding of global biodiversity. The book can be purchased through any bookstore or online seller such as Amazon. It is also available as an ebook on Kindle. It was published April 22nd 2016 by OR Books.
November 23, 2022
the end justifies the means is probably the mentality that Ashley Dawson derides the most when it comes to our society and how we have handled our fellow living beings; yet having finished this slim booklet I can't ignore the fact that Dawson stuck to the same mentality when writing his narrative/ plea for a radical approach to preserving biodiversity.
If I were to distill to its essence; this book is as follows: "humans have killed most of the fauna on the planet, we have been doing it since we made the first hunting bow, we built our first states on this eco genocide who ultimately fell because of it, capitalism has taken this eco genocide to ever higher intensive levels and has no reason to stop, conservation as it is does not work and will fail, end capitalism to save the biodiversity to save human kind.
To be kind frank, few if anything of this book works because Dawson purposefully (or perhaps ignorance) gave a historical narrative full of flaws and simplifications. In particular I focus on the part of the narrative that equates the first states , their imperialism and eco genocide. As Dawson presents it we have the peaceful Egyptians who maintained their nile economy in contrast to the aggressive near eastern states who collapsed as the desert crept in on their over exploited farmlands. This is a problematic dichotomy because it falls back on presumptions of ancient Egypt which was far from a pacifist state not interested in imperialism or exploitation of natural resources outside its direct zone of origin. Dawson makes a whole deal about logging of ceder trees by near eastern states as example of greedy over exploitation, fair enoug but sir, the Egyptians did the exact same thing as well as various expeditions to punt for rare resources and animal products.
Dawson then jumps right to ancient Rome and then really digs his heals into downright historical error. "following a period of political conflict between patricians elites and plebians in the 5th and 4th centuries bce, large numbers of Romans began to migrate to newly conquered provinces..... Let get a few things straight here, plebians did not mean poor, the plebian patrician conflict precisely led to plebians sharing power in consulships and tribunates of the people, these weren't token positions for cowed strawmen, but full on powerful men with actual power and wealth, the richest man in Roman history Marcus Licinius Crassus was a plebian! and he was an aggressive imperialist for his personal gain. Secondly what does Dawson consider imperialism? do we include the founding of the latin union, the Etruscians and the samnite wars? if he does, he should not because the exploitation and plunder we equate with imperialism really starts with Sicily in 241 BC after the first war with Carthage and which led to a mass slave plantation system and exploitation which led to massive revolts against Roman rule, meaning even sticking to his own logic there is 300 years between the plebian and patrician conflict and the imperialism he sees as a result of it.
If the latter is debatable, then the lines under this are not; saying the conquest of Egypt by Augustus was the last expansion and last time the elites could share booty with the people of Rome. No mr Dawson, emperor Claudius added the mineral rich britain to the empire, emperor Trajanus added the gold rich Dacia to the realm and quite a lot more emperor's were able to do so. One more thing he writes "he (referring augustus) was the last emperor who could afford to do so." ehm mr Dawson you do realize Augustus was the first emperor right? Which other emperors did you have in mind before him? But then it goes on "the romans also used their conquests to deal with shortfalls in domestic agricultural productivity. First Egypt, then Sicily and finally north Africa were turned into the granary of the empire in order to provide Rome's citizens with their free supply of daily bread. First Egypt? No first Sicily mr Dawnson then North Africa and finally Egypt. Then it goes on a bit further how in the past Romans considered nature the domains of the gods but then Stocism and epicurianism legitimized waste, orgies and debauchery leading to over exploitation which Dawson takes as a small step in seamless road towards Christianity and its assumption of god giving man the world to use as it pleases. The fall of Rome is linked to the high cost of import of luxury food, leading to trade imbalance and thus economic crisis and thus inability to pay for everything, like giving free food to the plebians( which dawson wrongly equates with poor commoners) and then finally the fall of the empire. I mean by the gods what is this morality driven monstrosity of an oversimplified ancient history??
After I finished the book I better understood the narrative Dawson was writing here. Dawson wants to make a cautionary tale here; the elites do imperialism to placate the poor with food, games and booty, this makes society perverse and corrupt and leas to downfall; "it will happen to us too!!!!" The sad thing is, you don't have to make as many mistakes as Dawson did to write a narrative like that. Likewise strong cases can and should be made about the ecological damage the Romans did cause and Dawson does rightfully point to gladiator games and masses of wild animals killed for sport and show. But omits the ecological damage done for maintaining the mass of bathing houses in the empire and the near extinction of Silphium herb due to over exploitation for its medicinal usages. Meaningful analogies can and should be made about consumer societies indulging in consumption of faraway resources without devolving in the long disproved "orgies caused the end of the empire" narrative.
Was I focusing to much on this? All of the above is in reference to merely a few paragraphs yet I do think it is important to do so because the cause of ecological justice and conservation is not served with faulty historical narratives. Likewise in the following chapters lines such as " women were burned at the stake in Europe as part of the campaign to enclose the commons that helped inaugurate capitalism." I mean, now capitalism is to blame for witch trials? If your going to make such bold claims, do you think it would need a bit more then one paragraph?
The second to last chapter is dedicated to existing preservation and more so Restoration of wild areas. Rewilding is viciously attacked in this chapter via a "guilty by association" approach. It starts off with the successful rewilding of yellowstone park by releasing wolves into the park which led to a more stable ecological state of the park. Then however Dawson goes on a spiral that ends up with genetic experiments to clone mammoths, almost literally saying "see this is what this whole rewilding nonsense leads to, mammoth cloning." I get it, the people behind the mammoth cloning are at best eccentrics and at worst megalomaniacs but in both cases take up loads of money and attention that should be going to conservation of species alive right now or at maximum to restore genetic diversity of species with a narrow genetic survivor population via cloning. Likewise I agree that patenting the genetic codes of animals is abhorrent and opens the door to whole new levels of industrial and conglomerate control of our world but to Dawson it comes across as all the same, the people releasing wolves into yellowstone on the same side as the wannabe mammoth riders.
The last chapter is finally spent on the alternatives, but a lot more then "down with capitalism" is not to be found here. Naomi Klein wrote several books and articles on this and did so more thoughtfully, delicate and as activist and radical as Dawson did. This booklet does not help the causes of conservation, ecological justice for the global south, indigenous peoples and individual rights of wild fauna at all, I would say it damages it with is badly written historical morality lessons and damnation of anything not at least as radical as his ideas.
If I were to distill to its essence; this book is as follows: "humans have killed most of the fauna on the planet, we have been doing it since we made the first hunting bow, we built our first states on this eco genocide who ultimately fell because of it, capitalism has taken this eco genocide to ever higher intensive levels and has no reason to stop, conservation as it is does not work and will fail, end capitalism to save the biodiversity to save human kind.
To be kind frank, few if anything of this book works because Dawson purposefully (or perhaps ignorance) gave a historical narrative full of flaws and simplifications. In particular I focus on the part of the narrative that equates the first states , their imperialism and eco genocide. As Dawson presents it we have the peaceful Egyptians who maintained their nile economy in contrast to the aggressive near eastern states who collapsed as the desert crept in on their over exploited farmlands. This is a problematic dichotomy because it falls back on presumptions of ancient Egypt which was far from a pacifist state not interested in imperialism or exploitation of natural resources outside its direct zone of origin. Dawson makes a whole deal about logging of ceder trees by near eastern states as example of greedy over exploitation, fair enoug but sir, the Egyptians did the exact same thing as well as various expeditions to punt for rare resources and animal products.
Dawson then jumps right to ancient Rome and then really digs his heals into downright historical error. "following a period of political conflict between patricians elites and plebians in the 5th and 4th centuries bce, large numbers of Romans began to migrate to newly conquered provinces..... Let get a few things straight here, plebians did not mean poor, the plebian patrician conflict precisely led to plebians sharing power in consulships and tribunates of the people, these weren't token positions for cowed strawmen, but full on powerful men with actual power and wealth, the richest man in Roman history Marcus Licinius Crassus was a plebian! and he was an aggressive imperialist for his personal gain. Secondly what does Dawson consider imperialism? do we include the founding of the latin union, the Etruscians and the samnite wars? if he does, he should not because the exploitation and plunder we equate with imperialism really starts with Sicily in 241 BC after the first war with Carthage and which led to a mass slave plantation system and exploitation which led to massive revolts against Roman rule, meaning even sticking to his own logic there is 300 years between the plebian and patrician conflict and the imperialism he sees as a result of it.
If the latter is debatable, then the lines under this are not; saying the conquest of Egypt by Augustus was the last expansion and last time the elites could share booty with the people of Rome. No mr Dawson, emperor Claudius added the mineral rich britain to the empire, emperor Trajanus added the gold rich Dacia to the realm and quite a lot more emperor's were able to do so. One more thing he writes "he (referring augustus) was the last emperor who could afford to do so." ehm mr Dawson you do realize Augustus was the first emperor right? Which other emperors did you have in mind before him? But then it goes on "the romans also used their conquests to deal with shortfalls in domestic agricultural productivity. First Egypt, then Sicily and finally north Africa were turned into the granary of the empire in order to provide Rome's citizens with their free supply of daily bread. First Egypt? No first Sicily mr Dawnson then North Africa and finally Egypt. Then it goes on a bit further how in the past Romans considered nature the domains of the gods but then Stocism and epicurianism legitimized waste, orgies and debauchery leading to over exploitation which Dawson takes as a small step in seamless road towards Christianity and its assumption of god giving man the world to use as it pleases. The fall of Rome is linked to the high cost of import of luxury food, leading to trade imbalance and thus economic crisis and thus inability to pay for everything, like giving free food to the plebians( which dawson wrongly equates with poor commoners) and then finally the fall of the empire. I mean by the gods what is this morality driven monstrosity of an oversimplified ancient history??
After I finished the book I better understood the narrative Dawson was writing here. Dawson wants to make a cautionary tale here; the elites do imperialism to placate the poor with food, games and booty, this makes society perverse and corrupt and leas to downfall; "it will happen to us too!!!!" The sad thing is, you don't have to make as many mistakes as Dawson did to write a narrative like that. Likewise strong cases can and should be made about the ecological damage the Romans did cause and Dawson does rightfully point to gladiator games and masses of wild animals killed for sport and show. But omits the ecological damage done for maintaining the mass of bathing houses in the empire and the near extinction of Silphium herb due to over exploitation for its medicinal usages. Meaningful analogies can and should be made about consumer societies indulging in consumption of faraway resources without devolving in the long disproved "orgies caused the end of the empire" narrative.
Was I focusing to much on this? All of the above is in reference to merely a few paragraphs yet I do think it is important to do so because the cause of ecological justice and conservation is not served with faulty historical narratives. Likewise in the following chapters lines such as " women were burned at the stake in Europe as part of the campaign to enclose the commons that helped inaugurate capitalism." I mean, now capitalism is to blame for witch trials? If your going to make such bold claims, do you think it would need a bit more then one paragraph?
The second to last chapter is dedicated to existing preservation and more so Restoration of wild areas. Rewilding is viciously attacked in this chapter via a "guilty by association" approach. It starts off with the successful rewilding of yellowstone park by releasing wolves into the park which led to a more stable ecological state of the park. Then however Dawson goes on a spiral that ends up with genetic experiments to clone mammoths, almost literally saying "see this is what this whole rewilding nonsense leads to, mammoth cloning." I get it, the people behind the mammoth cloning are at best eccentrics and at worst megalomaniacs but in both cases take up loads of money and attention that should be going to conservation of species alive right now or at maximum to restore genetic diversity of species with a narrow genetic survivor population via cloning. Likewise I agree that patenting the genetic codes of animals is abhorrent and opens the door to whole new levels of industrial and conglomerate control of our world but to Dawson it comes across as all the same, the people releasing wolves into yellowstone on the same side as the wannabe mammoth riders.
The last chapter is finally spent on the alternatives, but a lot more then "down with capitalism" is not to be found here. Naomi Klein wrote several books and articles on this and did so more thoughtfully, delicate and as activist and radical as Dawson did. This booklet does not help the causes of conservation, ecological justice for the global south, indigenous peoples and individual rights of wild fauna at all, I would say it damages it with is badly written historical morality lessons and damnation of anything not at least as radical as his ideas.
July 30, 2020
Dawson set out to write an introductory, Cliff's Notes style take on extinction, and he did by focusing on the most general relationship between capitalism as a politics of nature and biodiversity. There's very little detail and very little nuance, in lieu of which Dawson takes up a microphone to amplify his polemic against capitalism. It is hard to say much about all of this, because broad strokes are not very interesting and frankly there's nothing much new here. Instead of a compelling argument, you have brutal simplifications in a book that is more an essay than a structured monograph.
For example, Dawson raises the history of whaling as an example of capitalist overexploitation and the death of the commons, against which he raises the long-existing whaling practices of Inuit and Basque peoples. However, instead of engaging with anthropologists of such traditional whaling practices, who may point out the anachronism of claiming that these traditional methods are "sustainable", and complicate matters by discussing questions of scale, social practice, and worldview, Dawson barrels onward blithely attributing a nostalgic idealism to non-capitalist societies. This practice recurs frequently.
As I mentioned, it is a polemic and so this is all to be expected. But it is tiresome unless you deeply enjoy the self-flagellation of self-satisfied and brusque ideologues. At least, that was my take-away from this, which is ironic because on all major points I happen to agree with Dawson's basic thesis and general argument! Perhaps too I was disappointed as I read and enjoyed Extreme Cities: Climate Chaos and the Urban Future, which I found well researched, convincingly argued, and thoughtfully crafted. In comparison, Extinction is a tossed-off pamphlet unlikely to connect to its audience, and even less likely to have the impact it seems to want in its advocacy of transformational social and political change. But hey, maybe it just caught me on a bad day.
For example, Dawson raises the history of whaling as an example of capitalist overexploitation and the death of the commons, against which he raises the long-existing whaling practices of Inuit and Basque peoples. However, instead of engaging with anthropologists of such traditional whaling practices, who may point out the anachronism of claiming that these traditional methods are "sustainable", and complicate matters by discussing questions of scale, social practice, and worldview, Dawson barrels onward blithely attributing a nostalgic idealism to non-capitalist societies. This practice recurs frequently.
As I mentioned, it is a polemic and so this is all to be expected. But it is tiresome unless you deeply enjoy the self-flagellation of self-satisfied and brusque ideologues. At least, that was my take-away from this, which is ironic because on all major points I happen to agree with Dawson's basic thesis and general argument! Perhaps too I was disappointed as I read and enjoyed Extreme Cities: Climate Chaos and the Urban Future, which I found well researched, convincingly argued, and thoughtfully crafted. In comparison, Extinction is a tossed-off pamphlet unlikely to connect to its audience, and even less likely to have the impact it seems to want in its advocacy of transformational social and political change. But hey, maybe it just caught me on a bad day.
August 2, 2016
This book is a good primer on capitalism's role in generating the sixth extinction and the most interesting section contains a decent critique of techno-capitalist solutions to the environmental crisis. But I would have liked more... Dawson touches on a critique of Elizabeth Kolbert and the kind of conservationism that indicts humanity as a whole (most of the Anthropocene literature) and remains blind to structural causes. Frankly it should have been twice as long to address the issues sufficiently.
June 7, 2021
A short read, intended as a 'primer', but the coverage turns out still a little too thin even for an under-coat.
Dawson's history beginning with the great extinction of the late Pleistocene, I think, blurs the line of his argument. There is both a clear quantitative and qualitative difference between the human environmental impact of any/all pre-capitalist societies and the current world capitalist system. Failing to highlight this is a symptom of Dawson's unsteady grip of the true factors at play.
Throughout his analysis, mentions of capitalists, neoliberals, plutocrats, and citizens of the global north, are used almost interchangeably. It is not clear what they are, or how their class interests (or the structures of a class society) effect the topic.
A similar class-blind position is seen in Dawson's use of the popular global north/south divide: inhabitants of the global north are oppressors and environmental destroyers, and south are oppressed and environmental 'stewards'. This forgets that the working class of north and south have more in common with each other than with the capitalists of their own hemisphere.
He also places the indigenous techniques of the 'stewards' of the global south on a pedestal, ignoring that they are only less destructive in scale, and they are almost equally less productive too. A return to these simpler times is a romantic notion, but these 'harmonious' (usually subsistence-based) forms of production cannot sustain humanity without reducing the population by some billions (and you get uncomfortably close to racist, neo-malthusian ideas there). An important contradiction of capitalism (that Dawson neglects) is that, whilst it necessarily degrades labour and land (i.e. people and planet), it also contains the kernel for rational production on the basis of a planned economy to meet the needs of both (if only we seize it and tear away the husk).
Dawson also has a tendency to either draw out metaphors well beyond their use, or to use nonsense phrases to describe real things/changes. For example, his concept of 'environmental time' (and de-extinction as rewinding/reversing this time) is completely absurd and meaningless if (as we should) we do not accept the passing of time as a necessary "remorseless downward spiral towards the end of speciation". It's not time that is acting in reverse, but a process which can occur in either direction over time (just like when you melt an ice cube, you're not witnessing the rewinding of the time taken to freeze it). This, and other instances, can only be the result of Dawson's complete stupidity, or an unfortunate attempt to sound 'trendy' and 'academic' at the expense of saying anything worth saying (or both?).
This focus on 'wordy' words/ideas over a firm grip on reality also leads to the usual post-modernist claptrap about 're-framing' the 'discourse' to (apparently) solve the monumental problems being discussed. Bio-capitalism, despite all the problems Dawson rightly highlights, will be alright in the end if we only 're-frame' it through a lens of environmental-justice (and leave all the real-world, structural stuff completely unchanged?!).
The resulting conclusion is, after all this (apparently) 'anti-capitalist' rhetoric, for modest social reforms which cannot challenge even the shallowest root-causes. We are told the global south can't be trusted to not give all their money to drug lords and demagogues, so we need a global top-down approach. This is both absurd (unless we really believe that the capitalists will allow us to vote away their wealth) and patronising (particularly to the inhabitants of the global south who Dawson apparently cares about so much). What we get is not anything near 'anti-capitalist' but merely de-growth capitalism (a fantasy).
In the final pages, Dawson attacks the argument that humans are collectively responsible for environmental destruction. It's a good point, fairly well made, but too little too late.
Dawson's history beginning with the great extinction of the late Pleistocene, I think, blurs the line of his argument. There is both a clear quantitative and qualitative difference between the human environmental impact of any/all pre-capitalist societies and the current world capitalist system. Failing to highlight this is a symptom of Dawson's unsteady grip of the true factors at play.
Throughout his analysis, mentions of capitalists, neoliberals, plutocrats, and citizens of the global north, are used almost interchangeably. It is not clear what they are, or how their class interests (or the structures of a class society) effect the topic.
A similar class-blind position is seen in Dawson's use of the popular global north/south divide: inhabitants of the global north are oppressors and environmental destroyers, and south are oppressed and environmental 'stewards'. This forgets that the working class of north and south have more in common with each other than with the capitalists of their own hemisphere.
He also places the indigenous techniques of the 'stewards' of the global south on a pedestal, ignoring that they are only less destructive in scale, and they are almost equally less productive too. A return to these simpler times is a romantic notion, but these 'harmonious' (usually subsistence-based) forms of production cannot sustain humanity without reducing the population by some billions (and you get uncomfortably close to racist, neo-malthusian ideas there). An important contradiction of capitalism (that Dawson neglects) is that, whilst it necessarily degrades labour and land (i.e. people and planet), it also contains the kernel for rational production on the basis of a planned economy to meet the needs of both (if only we seize it and tear away the husk).
Dawson also has a tendency to either draw out metaphors well beyond their use, or to use nonsense phrases to describe real things/changes. For example, his concept of 'environmental time' (and de-extinction as rewinding/reversing this time) is completely absurd and meaningless if (as we should) we do not accept the passing of time as a necessary "remorseless downward spiral towards the end of speciation". It's not time that is acting in reverse, but a process which can occur in either direction over time (just like when you melt an ice cube, you're not witnessing the rewinding of the time taken to freeze it). This, and other instances, can only be the result of Dawson's complete stupidity, or an unfortunate attempt to sound 'trendy' and 'academic' at the expense of saying anything worth saying (or both?).
This focus on 'wordy' words/ideas over a firm grip on reality also leads to the usual post-modernist claptrap about 're-framing' the 'discourse' to (apparently) solve the monumental problems being discussed. Bio-capitalism, despite all the problems Dawson rightly highlights, will be alright in the end if we only 're-frame' it through a lens of environmental-justice (and leave all the real-world, structural stuff completely unchanged?!).
The resulting conclusion is, after all this (apparently) 'anti-capitalist' rhetoric, for modest social reforms which cannot challenge even the shallowest root-causes. We are told the global south can't be trusted to not give all their money to drug lords and demagogues, so we need a global top-down approach. This is both absurd (unless we really believe that the capitalists will allow us to vote away their wealth) and patronising (particularly to the inhabitants of the global south who Dawson apparently cares about so much). What we get is not anything near 'anti-capitalist' but merely de-growth capitalism (a fantasy).
In the final pages, Dawson attacks the argument that humans are collectively responsible for environmental destruction. It's a good point, fairly well made, but too little too late.
July 21, 2017
A head on analysis of how capitalism lead to the mass extinction we are now driving.
<< Nature, the wonderfully abundant and diverse wild life of the world, is essentially a free pool of goods and labor that capital can draw on. As critics such as Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have argued, aggressive policies of trade liberalization in recent decades have been predicated on privatizing the commons—transforming ideas, information, species of plants and animals, and even DNA into private property. Suddenly, things like seeds, once freely traded by peasant farmers the world over, have become scarce commodities, and are even being bred by agribusiness corporations to be sterile after one generation, a product farmers in the global South have aptly nicknamed “suicide seeds.” The destruction of global biodiversity needs to be framed, in other words, as a great, and perhaps ultimate, attack on the planet’s common wealth. Indeed, extinction needs to be seen, along with climate change, as the leading edge of contemporary capitalism’s contradictions. >>
<< Capitalism is not necessarily more immoral than previous social systems with regard to cruelty to humans and the gratuitous destruction of nature. As a mode of production and a social system, however, capitalism requires people to be destructive of the environment. Three destructive aspects of the capitalist system stand out when we view this system in relation to the extinction crisis: 1) capitalism tends to degrade the conditions of its own production; 2) it must expand ceaselessly in order to survive; 3) it generates a chaotic world system, which in turn intensifies the extinction crisis. >>
<< De-extinction offers a seductive but dangerously deluding techno-fix for an environmental crisis generated by the systemic contradictions of capitalism. It is not simply that de-extinction draws attention—and economic resources—away from other efforts to conserve biodiversity as it currently exists. The fundamental problem with de-extinction is that it relies on the thoroughgoing manipulation and commodification of nature, and as such dovetails perfectly with biocapitalism. US lawyers have already begun arguing that revived species such as the mammoth would be “products of human ingenuity,” and should therefore be eligible for patenting. >>
<< It has been said that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to envisage the overthrow of capitalism. I would respond to this aphorism from dark times that it is easier to imagine the end of capitalism than it is to articulate any other genuine solution to the extinction crisis. If capitalism is the ultimate cause and prime engine of the extinction crisis, surely we can only conclude that we may find hope in challenging its baleful power with all means at our disposal. Capitalism is not eternal; it is a specific economic system grounded in a set of historically particular economic arrangements and social values. It came onto the world stage relatively recently, and, one way or another, it will eventually make an exit >>
<< Nature, the wonderfully abundant and diverse wild life of the world, is essentially a free pool of goods and labor that capital can draw on. As critics such as Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have argued, aggressive policies of trade liberalization in recent decades have been predicated on privatizing the commons—transforming ideas, information, species of plants and animals, and even DNA into private property. Suddenly, things like seeds, once freely traded by peasant farmers the world over, have become scarce commodities, and are even being bred by agribusiness corporations to be sterile after one generation, a product farmers in the global South have aptly nicknamed “suicide seeds.” The destruction of global biodiversity needs to be framed, in other words, as a great, and perhaps ultimate, attack on the planet’s common wealth. Indeed, extinction needs to be seen, along with climate change, as the leading edge of contemporary capitalism’s contradictions. >>
<< Capitalism is not necessarily more immoral than previous social systems with regard to cruelty to humans and the gratuitous destruction of nature. As a mode of production and a social system, however, capitalism requires people to be destructive of the environment. Three destructive aspects of the capitalist system stand out when we view this system in relation to the extinction crisis: 1) capitalism tends to degrade the conditions of its own production; 2) it must expand ceaselessly in order to survive; 3) it generates a chaotic world system, which in turn intensifies the extinction crisis. >>
<< De-extinction offers a seductive but dangerously deluding techno-fix for an environmental crisis generated by the systemic contradictions of capitalism. It is not simply that de-extinction draws attention—and economic resources—away from other efforts to conserve biodiversity as it currently exists. The fundamental problem with de-extinction is that it relies on the thoroughgoing manipulation and commodification of nature, and as such dovetails perfectly with biocapitalism. US lawyers have already begun arguing that revived species such as the mammoth would be “products of human ingenuity,” and should therefore be eligible for patenting. >>
<< It has been said that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to envisage the overthrow of capitalism. I would respond to this aphorism from dark times that it is easier to imagine the end of capitalism than it is to articulate any other genuine solution to the extinction crisis. If capitalism is the ultimate cause and prime engine of the extinction crisis, surely we can only conclude that we may find hope in challenging its baleful power with all means at our disposal. Capitalism is not eternal; it is a specific economic system grounded in a set of historically particular economic arrangements and social values. It came onto the world stage relatively recently, and, one way or another, it will eventually make an exit >>
Read
March 14, 2024I'm reading through Lithub's 365 Books to Start Your Climate Change Library, a reading list in four sections (Classics, Science, Fiction & Poetry, and Ideas). This book is #14 of Part 2: The Science and #53 overall.
This is short primer on conservation, touching a little bit on wider topics of climate change as well, with an anti-capitalist & intersectional bent. The book covers a lot of topics in conservation within its short page count, which can make it feel a little thin and under-baked. The overt politics combined with brief treatments of the various subjects might turn people off to the message of the book, unless they are already somewhat entrenched in the world of conservation and/or of leftism. However, it may also serve as a good jumping off point for people to learn more about conservation & anti-capitalist approaches to environmentalism.
Further reading that I would suggest:
- Beloved Beasts by Michelle Nijhuis on conservation history
- This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein on environmentalism & anti-capitalism
- Inflamed by Rupa Marya & Raj Patel on intersectional approaches to environmentalism, healthcare, etc.
This is short primer on conservation, touching a little bit on wider topics of climate change as well, with an anti-capitalist & intersectional bent. The book covers a lot of topics in conservation within its short page count, which can make it feel a little thin and under-baked. The overt politics combined with brief treatments of the various subjects might turn people off to the message of the book, unless they are already somewhat entrenched in the world of conservation and/or of leftism. However, it may also serve as a good jumping off point for people to learn more about conservation & anti-capitalist approaches to environmentalism.
Further reading that I would suggest:
- Beloved Beasts by Michelle Nijhuis on conservation history
- This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein on environmentalism & anti-capitalism
- Inflamed by Rupa Marya & Raj Patel on intersectional approaches to environmentalism, healthcare, etc.
October 12, 2017
This was a quick and easy read, but quite an odd one. It does a good job summarizing the history of humanity's persecution and massacre of our fellow species in the opening chapters, but what came next was indeed radical, far too radical in my view. The author clearly has an axe to grind against neoliberal capitalism, putting the blame entirely on it and in the process contradicting his earlier chapters. Don't get me wrong, I am not fond of capitalism myself and agree it has been and continues to be a major force in the destruction of nature, but Dawson's view was simply too extreme even for me. Mankind has been driving animals to extinction long before the Neolithic, as evident in the Pleistocene extinction of megafauna. The invention and adoption of capitalism merely scaled up the intensity and efficiency of it all. The author's call for an end to capitalism is idealistic but quite impractical as there is as yet no viable alternative system that can support a human population of 7.5 billion and counting. For all its faults, one cannot imagine the scientific and industrial revolutions having taken place without the support of private enterprise and all it entailed. The portrayal of capitalism as entirely evil and irredeemable is overly simplistic to say the least. Indeed, it is the runaway success of capitalism that is responsible for our proliferation as a species but will also be our ultimate downfall if we allow it to consume everything including ourselves.
So I'm afraid it's damned if we do and damned if we don't. Brace yourself for impact.
So I'm afraid it's damned if we do and damned if we don't. Brace yourself for impact.
December 26, 2016
Now that with President Trump, the threat of climate based and/or nuclear extinction will be even more alarmingly real, it’s good to read up on this new book which posits that capitalism will make us go extinct. The Romans refused to do sustainable agriculture, and now much of the North African desert and Sicily lies testament to Western Civilization’s modus operandi of destroying one’s land base and then doing the same to adjacent areas (see Derrick Jensen, Culture of Make Believe). “The Roman Empire was probably responsible for the greatest annihilation of large animals since the Pleistocene megafauna mass extinction.” Dawson discusses ideologies of domination like John Locke’s notions that God intended the land for those “industrious and rational”. You learn how most the world’s problems came into sharp focus under capitalism which introduced “enclosure, imperialism, warfare and ecocide”. Sadly, capitalism thrives on what kills the planet, making it, like the use of fossil fuels, only a short-term panacea. It explains why Elizabeth Kolbert got it wrong on her book on extinction. In the end this book meshes exactly with Naomi Klein’s book, This Changes Everything; both books clearly show it is game over for Planet Earth under capitalism. As I’ve said for years, Capitalism means cutting down the last tree to make the last box of Kleenex. Our only alternative to extinction has become radical political transformation.
September 17, 2017
Extinction: a Radical History reads more like an essay than a book. Overall the writing style is a bit preachy and quite dry just as I imagine most student essays.
When purchasing this book I was under the impression that the central theme would be extinction. However, after reading this book it appears the central theme is capitalism and its influence on nature. Make no mistake, a great portion of this book is political not scientific, historic, or nature based. This was extremely disappointing.
Furthermore, the author often shortchanges the reader by offering opinions without leading the reader through sufficient evidence to support his claim. Many times there is no evidentiary support within the text at all. This leaves the reader doing all the legwork of cross-referencing every supposition this author makes ultimately making this book a frustrating read and leading me to wonder what purpose if any this book served.
When purchasing this book I was under the impression that the central theme would be extinction. However, after reading this book it appears the central theme is capitalism and its influence on nature. Make no mistake, a great portion of this book is political not scientific, historic, or nature based. This was extremely disappointing.
Furthermore, the author often shortchanges the reader by offering opinions without leading the reader through sufficient evidence to support his claim. Many times there is no evidentiary support within the text at all. This leaves the reader doing all the legwork of cross-referencing every supposition this author makes ultimately making this book a frustrating read and leading me to wonder what purpose if any this book served.
December 15, 2020
I'm sympathetic towards some of the author's positions, but my God this was unreadable. I appreciate how unhinged this book is and how almost comically incoherent the arguments of this book are (if they are even bothered to be provided at all) more than I appreciate any of its contents. Forget introducing tigers to the Great Plains and trying to genetically reconstruct the wooly mammoth, let's give UBI to the global underclass (let's also forget about the debt imposed by the WB and IMF on the nations these people belong to that was being discussed a few pages back. Also, forget overthrowing the value form that got us in this mess in the first place. We need a revolution to save the environment, but that's too far.) and seize all of Enron's assets! At least it was short and entertaining, if for all the wrong reasons. Maybe I'll check out some of the references for this book that aren't articles from The Guardian.
December 3, 2022
This book was pretty disheartening (in my opinion). I found myself not really wanting to read it because each chapter was yet another problem with our world I should be worried about and there is little to nothing I feel like I can do to make a change. Also I felt like there was a lot of jargon. I feel like my vocabulary is relatively robust, especially in terms of environmental topics since that’s the field I work in. Even so, there were a lot of paragraphs lost on me because there was so much jargon. I don’t think this book is very accessible due to that.
I do give the book props for creativity though and for calling attention to the extinction level crisis we are currently experiencing. And for acknowledging that capitalism is a major barrier to us making progress on climate change. I also appreciated how considerate of environmental justice and historical injustices the author was. We could definitely use more of that in the field!
I do give the book props for creativity though and for calling attention to the extinction level crisis we are currently experiencing. And for acknowledging that capitalism is a major barrier to us making progress on climate change. I also appreciated how considerate of environmental justice and historical injustices the author was. We could definitely use more of that in the field!
April 26, 2025
An interesting if sometimes too-vague assessment of the claimed casual relationship between capitalism (the cause) and extinction (the effect). It provides a very sweeping and brief overview of human and societal evolution and its (assumed to be casual) effects on flora and fauna. It dives a bit into the specific features/mechanisms of capitalism that lead to extinction and prevent capitalist schemes from being a solution to extinction. It argues for an "anti-capitalist" approach to conservation.
Some highlights include new terms and thoughts about conservation, the place of people in nature, and the goal of conservation. The major downside is that the ideas are brief, solutions are waived at rather than specified, some of the characterizations of past thinkers' works are questionable, and the overall asserted casual chain is at times weakly linked.
Some highlights include new terms and thoughts about conservation, the place of people in nature, and the goal of conservation. The major downside is that the ideas are brief, solutions are waived at rather than specified, some of the characterizations of past thinkers' works are questionable, and the overall asserted casual chain is at times weakly linked.
July 7, 2021
I don’t usually feel so inspired after reading books about extinction, capitalism and how creatively humans are destroying the planet. Emphasis on creative, I think, we’re really quite innovative, and simultaneously, so so ridiculous. It’s all made up, and the longer you look, the sillier it looks. Not to belittle how much capitalism has destroyed other species, and the planet. We really did that. Which is nuts! And makes me believe we can sort of do anything, so it’d be great if we were like oh shit, this seems like not a good move anymore, let’s try something else. It can be that simple (with more complicated stuff behind the scenes to make it work). The radicalness of this book really landed for me. I feel optimistic and sort of delighted.
February 13, 2018
This was awkward. I am very much in sympathy with much of the book's overall thesis, having come independently to the conclusion that our present economic system leaves room for only limited efforts to protect biodiversity and the ecosystems that sustain our species - but the weak editing and fact-checking really threw me off and, I fear, would make the whole book easy to dismiss if I was a more hostile audience.
April 21, 2018
Sobering overview of extinctions caused by homo sapiens. Interesting commentary on the intersection of colonialism, neoliberalism and the conservation agenda that has come out of this. The author paints with a broad brush but that's to be expected in a short book covering such a complex topic. The main premise is similar to that of Naomi Klein's analysis of capitalism and climate change, with the author arguing that preventing extinction is incompatible with capitalism as we know it.
May 5, 2024
Absolutely an introductory look at the relationship between death of biodiversity/ecocide and capitalism. I appreciated the care he took to avoid ecofascist talking points, even specifically denouncing ecofascists. He highlighted the colonization of creating places meant solely to have animals only and how that harmed many indigenous communities who at a small percentage of global population do the majority of caretaking for the environment.
December 19, 2024
I can’t place exactly why I don’t like this book, but I don’t. It just mostly talked about capitalism and how it can directly lead to extinctions, which it can, but there’s other factors. I didn’t really feel like I learned anything. I also just didn’t really like the writing or the layout of the chapters. Instead of this book, I’d recommend people read something like The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert (which Dawson mentions in this book).
September 3, 2018
This book requires a fair amount of background knowledge, some of which I didn't have. It's a brutal look at how capitalism could be contributing to (causing, he would say) mass modern extinctions. A small book, and one not to miss even if you disagree with his thesis.
Read
November 30, 2020I liked the author's writing style - the introduction was especially a great way to introduce the climate problem. I did wish Dawson spent more time on elaborating his solutions and how he hopes to achieve them.
June 2, 2021
sitting here reading and waiting for more details and just getting frustrated because I’m learning new information but not being told much about it.
I still found this book quite interesting. I’m going to read some of the books that were referenced.
I still found this book quite interesting. I’m going to read some of the books that were referenced.
June 15, 2022
Has some interesting nuggets and raises important questions. Extinction is obviously a really important topic. But the historiography is questionable, the politics are questionable, and the conclusions are.
August 6, 2017
Flawed. Boring. Unoriginal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews