What do you think?
Rate this book
Living on Earth: Forests, Corals, Consciousness, and the Making of the World
The bestselling author of Other Minds shows how we and our ancestors have reinvented our planet.
If the history of the Earth were compressed down to a year, our species would arise in the last thirty minutes or so of the final hour. But life itself is not such a late It has existed on Earth for something like 3.7 billion years—most of our planet’s history and over a quarter of the age of the universe (as far as we can tell).
What have these organisms—bacteria, animals, plants and the rest—done in all this time? In Living on Earth, the philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith tells the long story of living action, and its impact. Where his acclaimed books Other Minds and Metazoa explored the riddle of how conscious minds came to exist on Earth, Living on Earth turns to what happens when we look at the mind from another side—as a cause, as a factor, in the making of the world in which we live.
To that end, Godfrey-Smith takes us on a grand tour of communication, culture, and consciousness. He visits Rwandan gorillas and Australian bowerbirds, returns to coral reefs and octopus dens, considers the impact of language and writing, and weighs the responsibilities our unique powers bring with them, as they relate to factory farming, habitat preservation, climate change, and the use of animals in experiments. Ranging from the seas to the forests, and from animate matter’s first appearance to its future extinction, Godfrey-Smith offers a novel picture of the course of life on Earth and how we might meet the challenges of our time, the Anthropocene.
If the history of the Earth were compressed down to a year, our species would arise in the last thirty minutes or so of the final hour. But life itself is not such a late It has existed on Earth for something like 3.7 billion years—most of our planet’s history and over a quarter of the age of the universe (as far as we can tell).
What have these organisms—bacteria, animals, plants and the rest—done in all this time? In Living on Earth, the philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith tells the long story of living action, and its impact. Where his acclaimed books Other Minds and Metazoa explored the riddle of how conscious minds came to exist on Earth, Living on Earth turns to what happens when we look at the mind from another side—as a cause, as a factor, in the making of the world in which we live.
To that end, Godfrey-Smith takes us on a grand tour of communication, culture, and consciousness. He visits Rwandan gorillas and Australian bowerbirds, returns to coral reefs and octopus dens, considers the impact of language and writing, and weighs the responsibilities our unique powers bring with them, as they relate to factory farming, habitat preservation, climate change, and the use of animals in experiments. Ranging from the seas to the forests, and from animate matter’s first appearance to its future extinction, Godfrey-Smith offers a novel picture of the course of life on Earth and how we might meet the challenges of our time, the Anthropocene.
336 pages, Paperback
First published August 14, 2024
163 people are currently reading
3361 people want to read
About the author
Peter Godfrey-Smith
18 books687 followersI am currently Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the Graduate Center, CUNY (City University of New York), and Professor of History and Philosophy of Science (half-time) at the University of Sydney.
I grew up in Sydney, Australia. My undergraduate degree is from the University of Sydney, and I have a PhD in philosophy from UC San Diego. I taught at Stanford University between 1991 and 2003, and then combined a half-time post at the Australian National University and a visiting position at Harvard for a few years. I moved to Harvard full-time and was Professor there from 2006 to 2011, before coming to the CUNY Graduate Center. I took up a half-time position in the HPS program at the University of Sydney in 2015.
My main research interests are in the philosophy of biology and the philosophy of mind. I also work on pragmatism (especially John Dewey), general philosophy of science, and some parts of metaphysics and epistemology. I’ve written four books, Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature (Cambridge, 1996), Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Chicago, 2003), Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection (Oxford, 2009), which won the 2010 Lakatos Award, and Philosophy of Biology, released in 2014 by Princeton.
My photos and videos have appeared in the New York Times, National Geographic, Boston Globe, Boston Review, and elsewhere.
I grew up in Sydney, Australia. My undergraduate degree is from the University of Sydney, and I have a PhD in philosophy from UC San Diego. I taught at Stanford University between 1991 and 2003, and then combined a half-time post at the Australian National University and a visiting position at Harvard for a few years. I moved to Harvard full-time and was Professor there from 2006 to 2011, before coming to the CUNY Graduate Center. I took up a half-time position in the HPS program at the University of Sydney in 2015.
My main research interests are in the philosophy of biology and the philosophy of mind. I also work on pragmatism (especially John Dewey), general philosophy of science, and some parts of metaphysics and epistemology. I’ve written four books, Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature (Cambridge, 1996), Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Chicago, 2003), Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection (Oxford, 2009), which won the 2010 Lakatos Award, and Philosophy of Biology, released in 2014 by Princeton.
My photos and videos have appeared in the New York Times, National Geographic, Boston Globe, Boston Review, and elsewhere.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
September 25, 2024
Godfrey-Smith--a philosopher of science, not a scientist--describes Living on Earth as "a history of organisms as causes, rather than evolutionary products," and adds that "One result is a dynamic picture of the Earth, a picture of an Earth continually changing because of what living things do."
This results in some interesting tidbits, such as how the oxygen exhaled by early cyanobacteria interacted with the iron in nearby sedimentary rocks to turn them rust-red. But I turn over and over in my mind a statement such as "This idea of a history that puts minds, especially human minds, into a lineage of transforming agents, and treats those agents as part of the history of the Earth, was the seed of the book," and I'm at something of a loss to understand what's novel in it, what's going to change my perspective on evolution or on "the history of the Earth." That human minds are (a) part of Earth's history, and (b) transformative -- we are in the Anthropocene, no? -- isn't exactly news.
There were phrases and insights that kept me reading. Living things as "pockets of organization." Life as replication, vs life as the presence of metabolism, and what we make of viruses, which replicate themselves but pirate other metabolisms to do so. Where the border of an organism is, when the organism has effects outside itself. That a living planet holds much more energy than a dead one, because a living planet (ours) is storing the sun's energy. That the Gaia hypothesis may tempt us to think that the Earth is capable of rescuing itself from our deleterious effects on it. "With the evolution of flowers, plants could now interact at a distance. ... Insects became, in a sense, instruments used by plants to span space." I appreciated, too, Godfrey-Smith's discussion of consciousness, which he sees as prevalent in some form even among creatures, such as insects, that we don't usually think of as aware in any way. The same goes for his ethical argument about how we treat the animals we use for food and in experimentation. (This argument has much in common with the discussion in Todd May's excellent Should We Go Extinct?.)
The trouble is that, as engaging as I found many of the pieces of Godfrey-Smith's argument, I remained at a loss to understand where that argument led -- what was original about it, I mean. And G-S really seems to like the sound of his own voice, because gosh was there a lot of repetition.
Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch and Carl Zimmer's Parasite Rex transformed my understanding of evolution and (believe it or not) power. That's what I want, ideally, from a book about science; I was hoping to find it here, and I didn't.
Thanks to FSG and NetGalley for the ARC.
This results in some interesting tidbits, such as how the oxygen exhaled by early cyanobacteria interacted with the iron in nearby sedimentary rocks to turn them rust-red. But I turn over and over in my mind a statement such as "This idea of a history that puts minds, especially human minds, into a lineage of transforming agents, and treats those agents as part of the history of the Earth, was the seed of the book," and I'm at something of a loss to understand what's novel in it, what's going to change my perspective on evolution or on "the history of the Earth." That human minds are (a) part of Earth's history, and (b) transformative -- we are in the Anthropocene, no? -- isn't exactly news.
There were phrases and insights that kept me reading. Living things as "pockets of organization." Life as replication, vs life as the presence of metabolism, and what we make of viruses, which replicate themselves but pirate other metabolisms to do so. Where the border of an organism is, when the organism has effects outside itself. That a living planet holds much more energy than a dead one, because a living planet (ours) is storing the sun's energy. That the Gaia hypothesis may tempt us to think that the Earth is capable of rescuing itself from our deleterious effects on it. "With the evolution of flowers, plants could now interact at a distance. ... Insects became, in a sense, instruments used by plants to span space." I appreciated, too, Godfrey-Smith's discussion of consciousness, which he sees as prevalent in some form even among creatures, such as insects, that we don't usually think of as aware in any way. The same goes for his ethical argument about how we treat the animals we use for food and in experimentation. (This argument has much in common with the discussion in Todd May's excellent Should We Go Extinct?.)
The trouble is that, as engaging as I found many of the pieces of Godfrey-Smith's argument, I remained at a loss to understand where that argument led -- what was original about it, I mean. And G-S really seems to like the sound of his own voice, because gosh was there a lot of repetition.
Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch and Carl Zimmer's Parasite Rex transformed my understanding of evolution and (believe it or not) power. That's what I want, ideally, from a book about science; I was hoping to find it here, and I didn't.
Thanks to FSG and NetGalley for the ARC.
June 3, 2024
Living on Earth by Peter Godfrey-Smith
Expected publication: September 3, 2024
Rating: 2.5 stars
Date Read: 3 June 2023
DISCLAIMER: This is an unbiased review provided in exchange for the ARC of this book from Netgalley (though the publisher probably regrets it now. Sorry! but the book just didn't work for me.)
"Human action should not be contrasted with "nature", should not be set against it. The evolution of human action is part of the evolution of the transformation of environments by living activity. This starts out as a near-inevitable consequence of life, takes new forms in animals, then reaches the extravagances made possible by human minds, societies, and cultures."
This is a quote from the beginning of chapter 8 of Living on Earth by Peter Godfrey-Smith. It is also the whole point of the book, followed by an appeal to think differently about our role in this world and our responsibility towards it. Especially in light of the enormous scope of human influence over other organisms and their environment.
At the end of this book, I've come to the conclusion that the book was not meant for me. With phrases such as "dinosaur times", explanations for simple things such as rust and "crossing the Rubicon", and the repetitive explanations for photosynthesis and mitochondria, not to mention the plethora of examples of all the "cool" things nature does (all the examples that I have spent a life-time seeing on Attenborough's nature and other documentaries, and also reading in numerous books), as well as harping on the evils of modern civilization (which we are constantly and repeatedly inundated with already), this book seems to be written with those brand new to the marvels of the world, how it functions and what effects humans have on it. Not someone like me looking for new marvels, or a new perspective on old marvels, or feasible solutions.
This book does not provide anything new or original. Not even the author's perspective - the "story of living action, and its impact" - is original. The author's version (I cannot call it a thesis since it is not developed properly) of nature (animals, plants, bacteria, humans etc) "making the world in which we live" seems to be an afterthought in each chapter, until you get to the "humans are bad" chapters. The last two opinionated chapters on ethics and the evils of modern high density civilization (and humans as a species) are preaching to the choir, not particularly well researched, and extremely superficial. These are complicated topics that are more nuanced than belied by the author's brief talking points.
The writing style starts of nebulous, with musings and anecdotes*, several paragraph that doesn't serve a purpose, and is not particularly well structured i.e. the different examples tend to bounce from one to the other and don't feed into each other organically. The writing style gets more solid as the book progresses, but there are still issues with transitions between examples/sections/chapters. I felt the book lacked proper cohesion and focus; it felt too disjointed - there was no proper spine to hang the contents on, just a whole lot of hyoid, malleu, incus, and stapes bones. I also got the distinct impression that the author apparently likes the sound of his own voice, or perhaps the appearance of his words on the page, since he just drones on instead of getting to the point, using more concise language/explanations, or he would include information/anecdotes that simply weren't relevant. On the other hand, the chapter on Godfrey-Smith's pet subject, consciousness, and language development was downright exciting compared to the preceding and following chapters.
The author is a philosopher, rather than a biologist, but he insists on combining the two, so I do expect something more substantial than oft-repeated biological/environmental factoids slathered in philosophical musings and personal anecdotes.
*This author should stick to writing about his beloved octopodes. A semi-memoir type book about his experiences diving to his octopus "cities" and the interesting things octopodes do would fit better with this author's writing style - and would be a hell of a lot more interesting to read than a rehash of "old stuff".
Note: There are three plurals for octopus. Octopi is the oldest plural of octopus, coming from the belief that words of Latin origin should have Latin endings. Octopuses was the next plural, giving the word an English ending to match its adoption as an English word. Lastly, octopodes stemmed from the belief that because octopus is originally Greek, it should have a Greek ending. - From the Merriam Webster Dictionary.
I'm using octopodes because I like it!
Expected publication: September 3, 2024
Rating: 2.5 stars
Date Read: 3 June 2023
DISCLAIMER: This is an unbiased review provided in exchange for the ARC of this book from Netgalley (though the publisher probably regrets it now. Sorry! but the book just didn't work for me.)
"Human action should not be contrasted with "nature", should not be set against it. The evolution of human action is part of the evolution of the transformation of environments by living activity. This starts out as a near-inevitable consequence of life, takes new forms in animals, then reaches the extravagances made possible by human minds, societies, and cultures."
This is a quote from the beginning of chapter 8 of Living on Earth by Peter Godfrey-Smith. It is also the whole point of the book, followed by an appeal to think differently about our role in this world and our responsibility towards it. Especially in light of the enormous scope of human influence over other organisms and their environment.
At the end of this book, I've come to the conclusion that the book was not meant for me. With phrases such as "dinosaur times", explanations for simple things such as rust and "crossing the Rubicon", and the repetitive explanations for photosynthesis and mitochondria, not to mention the plethora of examples of all the "cool" things nature does (all the examples that I have spent a life-time seeing on Attenborough's nature and other documentaries, and also reading in numerous books), as well as harping on the evils of modern civilization (which we are constantly and repeatedly inundated with already), this book seems to be written with those brand new to the marvels of the world, how it functions and what effects humans have on it. Not someone like me looking for new marvels, or a new perspective on old marvels, or feasible solutions.
This book does not provide anything new or original. Not even the author's perspective - the "story of living action, and its impact" - is original. The author's version (I cannot call it a thesis since it is not developed properly) of nature (animals, plants, bacteria, humans etc) "making the world in which we live" seems to be an afterthought in each chapter, until you get to the "humans are bad" chapters. The last two opinionated chapters on ethics and the evils of modern high density civilization (and humans as a species) are preaching to the choir, not particularly well researched, and extremely superficial. These are complicated topics that are more nuanced than belied by the author's brief talking points.
The writing style starts of nebulous, with musings and anecdotes*, several paragraph that doesn't serve a purpose, and is not particularly well structured i.e. the different examples tend to bounce from one to the other and don't feed into each other organically. The writing style gets more solid as the book progresses, but there are still issues with transitions between examples/sections/chapters. I felt the book lacked proper cohesion and focus; it felt too disjointed - there was no proper spine to hang the contents on, just a whole lot of hyoid, malleu, incus, and stapes bones. I also got the distinct impression that the author apparently likes the sound of his own voice, or perhaps the appearance of his words on the page, since he just drones on instead of getting to the point, using more concise language/explanations, or he would include information/anecdotes that simply weren't relevant. On the other hand, the chapter on Godfrey-Smith's pet subject, consciousness, and language development was downright exciting compared to the preceding and following chapters.
The author is a philosopher, rather than a biologist, but he insists on combining the two, so I do expect something more substantial than oft-repeated biological/environmental factoids slathered in philosophical musings and personal anecdotes.
*This author should stick to writing about his beloved octopodes. A semi-memoir type book about his experiences diving to his octopus "cities" and the interesting things octopodes do would fit better with this author's writing style - and would be a hell of a lot more interesting to read than a rehash of "old stuff".
Note: There are three plurals for octopus. Octopi is the oldest plural of octopus, coming from the belief that words of Latin origin should have Latin endings. Octopuses was the next plural, giving the word an English ending to match its adoption as an English word. Lastly, octopodes stemmed from the belief that because octopus is originally Greek, it should have a Greek ending. - From the Merriam Webster Dictionary.
I'm using octopodes because I like it!
August 14, 2024
A beautiful discussion on how life evolved on Earth. From the prokaryotes to arthropods to humans, the evolution of life can sometimes be a complicated story but Godfrey-Smith wonderfully summarises and explains the details needed to understand this incredible journey.
A large chunk of the book focuses much more on humans directly and how we influence and manipulate the environment. Godfrey-Smith makes clear his stance on the extent to which we should be involved in the planet. How we should change our current behaviour in favour of habitat conservation. He acknowledges the disproportionate power we hold over other species and discusses how this came to be, and how we should wield it.
I think I started to teeter off in interest when the discussion moved to ethics. The discussion surrounding the evils of farming are always the same and have never been of great interest to me personally, in the sense that we already know what the problem is, people just refuse to implement solutions. The section related to animal testing is very subjective and your thoughts and feelings definitely depend on your position on the advancement of science. Of course this is his book and therefore his opinions are front and center, he essentially entirely denounces animal testing and favours the slower progression of science which I can see as being a valid point - the scientific progress post 1700s has been exponential compared to the rest of our history and so we have gotten used to constant breakthroughs in the field and therefore it may seem incomprehensible to want to slow this advancement down but he argues this in favour of protecting animals from potentially harmful conditions. Again, how you react and interpret this section of the book highly depends on your own personal opinions.
Aside from this chapter, the rest of the book was very enjoyable and interesting.
3.5
A large chunk of the book focuses much more on humans directly and how we influence and manipulate the environment. Godfrey-Smith makes clear his stance on the extent to which we should be involved in the planet. How we should change our current behaviour in favour of habitat conservation. He acknowledges the disproportionate power we hold over other species and discusses how this came to be, and how we should wield it.
I think I started to teeter off in interest when the discussion moved to ethics. The discussion surrounding the evils of farming are always the same and have never been of great interest to me personally, in the sense that we already know what the problem is, people just refuse to implement solutions. The section related to animal testing is very subjective and your thoughts and feelings definitely depend on your position on the advancement of science. Of course this is his book and therefore his opinions are front and center, he essentially entirely denounces animal testing and favours the slower progression of science which I can see as being a valid point - the scientific progress post 1700s has been exponential compared to the rest of our history and so we have gotten used to constant breakthroughs in the field and therefore it may seem incomprehensible to want to slow this advancement down but he argues this in favour of protecting animals from potentially harmful conditions. Again, how you react and interpret this section of the book highly depends on your own personal opinions.
Aside from this chapter, the rest of the book was very enjoyable and interesting.
3.5
May 18, 2024
What I loved most about this book was the writing style. It read like it was written by the fun college professor or a passionate friend. I think Godfrey-Smith will become one of the few non-fiction authors I follow.
There were times that made me question the age of the audience of the book because it would define what rust is or explain what photosynthesis and the mitochondria is multiple times. It works in talking about the horror/beauty in oxygen, but can be repetative. It did pay off, for example we all know about left-side right-side thinking, but using a picture to describe it made so much more sense.
It's the third installment, however it can be read out of order. Thank you #Netgalley in exchange for an honest review of #LivingOnEarth. 3.5/5 stars. Its approximately 200 pages for a quick read with lots of interesting facts/theories.
There were times that made me question the age of the audience of the book because it would define what rust is or explain what photosynthesis and the mitochondria is multiple times. It works in talking about the horror/beauty in oxygen, but can be repetative. It did pay off, for example we all know about left-side right-side thinking, but using a picture to describe it made so much more sense.
It's the third installment, however it can be read out of order. Thank you #Netgalley in exchange for an honest review of #LivingOnEarth. 3.5/5 stars. Its approximately 200 pages for a quick read with lots of interesting facts/theories.
January 19, 2025
An odd but overall good book, despite certain flaws. The first third or so is on the evolution of action, particularly though not exclusively the action of animals with nervous systems. The next third zooms in on human action and human consciousness. The final third explores the ethics of human action upon the nonhuman world, from farming and vivisection to climate and habitat destruction.
The tone and format is all a bit meandering; there are some clear central themes but it is not super cohesive. That’s okay, because it’s usually interesting, but it’s a departure from his previous, more focused book. He also seems more uncertain here, offering his ideas as possible speculations, a humility I appreciated but that again gives the book a less focused feel.
The ethical discussion was a little disappointing; his heart’s in the right place but I have a variety of theoretical and practical issues with how he approaches the topics, which make him too soft on certain less overt forms of animal abuse. And here his speculative tone felt less like an expert grappling with enormous questions and more someone who hadn’t thought about things too hard. I did think some of his wild animal ethics discussion was worthwhile, but mainly insofar as it reflected his expertise in animal experience.
Anyway, overall I liked it and have learned a lot from his trilogy (this, Other Minds, and Metazoa).
The tone and format is all a bit meandering; there are some clear central themes but it is not super cohesive. That’s okay, because it’s usually interesting, but it’s a departure from his previous, more focused book. He also seems more uncertain here, offering his ideas as possible speculations, a humility I appreciated but that again gives the book a less focused feel.
The ethical discussion was a little disappointing; his heart’s in the right place but I have a variety of theoretical and practical issues with how he approaches the topics, which make him too soft on certain less overt forms of animal abuse. And here his speculative tone felt less like an expert grappling with enormous questions and more someone who hadn’t thought about things too hard. I did think some of his wild animal ethics discussion was worthwhile, but mainly insofar as it reflected his expertise in animal experience.
Anyway, overall I liked it and have learned a lot from his trilogy (this, Other Minds, and Metazoa).
September 8, 2024
Feels like two very different books awkwardly combined. I liked the first part as much as the author's previous Other Minds and Metazoa; felt the second part was a muddled philosophical mess. 2.5 stars, but I'm rounding down for the last couple of hours of pure blather.
September 9, 2024
One of my favorite things about reading is the way books end up in conversation with each other, sometimes on purpose if I am reading to a theme, and sometimes by happenstance. I recently read Todd May's Should We Go Extinct which takes a philosophical approach to whether humanity is a net good or not. That laid the groundwork for Peter Godfrey-Smith's latest which examines the question of what is life and its value. Living on Earth is the perfect companion read and I appreciate both books so much more together. One focuses on philosophical questions and the other on the scientific and practical answers and applications. Thank you to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for the audio ARC.
I had a great time reading this book. It was excellent fodder for endless dinner conversations. I appreciated that it was scientific but not so scientific that I couldn't follow the author's thought process. Even when I disagreed, I could see how Godfrey-Smith got from point A to point B. The audio narration was a pleasure, like hearing from your adventurous uncle about his latest escapades. While the author acknowledges current challenges, Living on Earth is more hopeful than doom and gloom. I recommend this book to anyone wanting to reawaken a sense of wonder at the world around us, explore interesting questions about that world, and be challenged to live in a way that leads to mutual flourishing between humanity and the rest of creation.
I had a great time reading this book. It was excellent fodder for endless dinner conversations. I appreciated that it was scientific but not so scientific that I couldn't follow the author's thought process. Even when I disagreed, I could see how Godfrey-Smith got from point A to point B. The audio narration was a pleasure, like hearing from your adventurous uncle about his latest escapades. While the author acknowledges current challenges, Living on Earth is more hopeful than doom and gloom. I recommend this book to anyone wanting to reawaken a sense of wonder at the world around us, explore interesting questions about that world, and be challenged to live in a way that leads to mutual flourishing between humanity and the rest of creation.
Read
September 30, 2025I probably read this too close to Becoming Earth, because a lot of the content was similar but with a more philosophical angle. Overall I enjoyed it, but the sweeping scope made it a little hard to tell what the thesis of the book was, especially compared to Other Minds and Metazoa, both of which I enjoyed more. He’s still a great writer for making complex philosophical ideas accessible, and I love the conversational style. Just think the book may have tried to do too much.
October 1, 2025
This book shows how language is deeply cultural, starting as social interaction and becoming a tool for thought. I found the insights into the brain especially fascinating: the left hemisphere as the
"interpreter" of patterns and the right attuned to relations, shaping how we see consciousness and how our past affects our future Equally powerful was the discussion on animal treatment, framed by the question: in the afterlife would we choose to return as an animal, knowing what that life looks like? This framing makes the reality of how we impose control over other living beings painfully clear.
Overall, the book left me with two major takeaways: first, the importance of understanding our consciousness, and second, the importance of rethinking how we live with other creatures on earth.
Both are not only intellectually stimulating thoughts, but also ethically pressing ones. For anyone curious about how language, culture, and the brain shape our lives, and about our responsibilities toward animals, I highly recommend diving into this book.
"interpreter" of patterns and the right attuned to relations, shaping how we see consciousness and how our past affects our future Equally powerful was the discussion on animal treatment, framed by the question: in the afterlife would we choose to return as an animal, knowing what that life looks like? This framing makes the reality of how we impose control over other living beings painfully clear.
Overall, the book left me with two major takeaways: first, the importance of understanding our consciousness, and second, the importance of rethinking how we live with other creatures on earth.
Both are not only intellectually stimulating thoughts, but also ethically pressing ones. For anyone curious about how language, culture, and the brain shape our lives, and about our responsibilities toward animals, I highly recommend diving into this book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 15, 2025
I liked this one better than Metazoa but not as much as Other Minds. That's largely because it lacks the focused thesis of OM, and the hook of a particular (charismatic) species through which to explore it. Instead, this text is more of a gentle summary of "what it's all about" that feels more like talking to your humanist grandpa than a forceful polemic for a particular viewpoint on life, evolution, and everything. Godfrey-Smith does set his views against a handful of other thinkers, but he's not really getting into the scrum of fights on the origin of life, consciousness and qualia, etc.
His thesis here is welcome but also relatively anodyne: organisms are not just responsive to the environment, but actively shape it through their own processes and choices. Minds should be seen as but one step in a process of transformation that life has wrought on the earth, however momentous, notable mainly because mindedness opens up so much more decision space for how change occurs. Perception-action loops allow the minded creature to accelerate and (somewhat) direct the pace and type of change in the environment.
Godfrey-Smith muses about the Gaia Hypothesis without accepting its more extreme formulations, but is nonetheless willing to think through some of the ethical consequences of our heightened control over the ecosystems of the earth. The last half of the book turns this into a plodding but good-hearted condemnation of factory farming and animal medical testing. He takes seriously but ultimately doesn't endorse some positions I found quite silly regarding the ethics of bioengineering the redness of teeth and claws out of nature: Godfrey-Smith was certainly more patient than I could have been with proposals for pacifying predators to reduce overall suffering in the universe.
None of this stuff is bad, but it also doesn't exactly pulse with passionate intensity. Godfrey-Smith is an amiable guide to some of the big questions, but he lacks the boldness to stake out really surprising takes on them. It's a decent choice if you want a slug of nature-mysticism but even the transcendentalists don't have the naturalism dialed up enough for you. It's the atheist's cri de coeur: "I'm just happy to be here."
His thesis here is welcome but also relatively anodyne: organisms are not just responsive to the environment, but actively shape it through their own processes and choices. Minds should be seen as but one step in a process of transformation that life has wrought on the earth, however momentous, notable mainly because mindedness opens up so much more decision space for how change occurs. Perception-action loops allow the minded creature to accelerate and (somewhat) direct the pace and type of change in the environment.
Godfrey-Smith muses about the Gaia Hypothesis without accepting its more extreme formulations, but is nonetheless willing to think through some of the ethical consequences of our heightened control over the ecosystems of the earth. The last half of the book turns this into a plodding but good-hearted condemnation of factory farming and animal medical testing. He takes seriously but ultimately doesn't endorse some positions I found quite silly regarding the ethics of bioengineering the redness of teeth and claws out of nature: Godfrey-Smith was certainly more patient than I could have been with proposals for pacifying predators to reduce overall suffering in the universe.
None of this stuff is bad, but it also doesn't exactly pulse with passionate intensity. Godfrey-Smith is an amiable guide to some of the big questions, but he lacks the boldness to stake out really surprising takes on them. It's a decent choice if you want a slug of nature-mysticism but even the transcendentalists don't have the naturalism dialed up enough for you. It's the atheist's cri de coeur: "I'm just happy to be here."
April 18, 2024
Good read although I found my attention wandering a bit while reading as some sections weren’t as interesting as others.
September 22, 2024
A gentle non-technical philosophical look at nature, biology, ecology, ethics. I liked a lot, but not quite as much as his two previous books.
September 22, 2024
Peter Godfrey-Smith explores complex topics in a multidisciplinary manner and his books are always insightful.
This is a tribute to the power living beings have to influence or even change their environment. Life on earth wouldn't be possible without this.
This is a tribute to the power living beings have to influence or even change their environment. Life on earth wouldn't be possible without this.
Read
April 15, 2025This book is a hugely ambitious tour of life on planet Earth, starting at the dawn of Earth and reaching to the present day. It covers an awe-inspiring range of topics, from stromatolites and their role in the history of life, the author's views on the Gaia hypothesis, the behaviour and social lives of octopuses and bower birds, differences between the left and right hand sides of human brains, the minds of people who have split brains or are conjoined twins, the ethics of factory farming and use of animals in scientific research, to the difficulties and possibilities for preservation of 'wild nature' and wild habitats. Wow! The overarching theme is that life on Earth has been shaped by the environment of the Earth, and the Earth's environment by living organisms, and that we humans should appreciate, treat humanely, and preserve our animal (and plant) cousins as we and they arose out of the same rich evolutionary history. In several places in the book the author mentions discussions he has had with friends, and the feeling of reading the book is being invited to participate in the musings and debates of the author. I imagine he and his friends have many fascinating discussions. The writing style is rather meandering, but I enjoyed the thoughtfulness and philosophy and ethics knowledge of the author, who looks at many topics in fresh and interesting ways. He clearly loves animals and wild nature, and I love that he is championing their cause and arguing for the huge importance of preserving habitats and cherishing animal life. There were a couple of places where I would have liked the author to go deeper into a topic - for example, regarding use of animals in scientific research, what does he see as the ethics of using research animals such as mice to test vaccines for diseases that primarily affect the world's poorest people (e.g. cholera, dengue, etc.)? And when he talks about differences between the roles of the right and left of the human brain, how does recent findings on neurodiversity in humans and in animals fit into our understanding of this? I would love to sit with the author and his friends and hear them discuss those topics too. A thought-provoking and fascinating read.
One small quibble that I have is that the author is rather dismissive of microbial life and small invertebrates as being uninteresting. For example, he says: "Archaea are like bacteria. [...] It's hard to summon any enthusiasm at all for nematodes." I disagree with this - to me, bacteria, nematodes and other microscopic life are extremely diverse, complex, fascinating and even beautiful when seen under a microscope. While they are not visible to the human eye, or as relatable as large animals are to us, they are also our evolutionary cousins and co-inhabitants of our planet (many even live within humans). I wish Godfrey-Smith had covered their lives, behaviours, social interactions and ecological niches, as well as the philosophical questions and ethics of how we humans view and treat them, more in this book. This is a small quibble, or perhaps a suggestion for Godfrey-Smith's next book!
One small quibble that I have is that the author is rather dismissive of microbial life and small invertebrates as being uninteresting. For example, he says: "Archaea are like bacteria. [...] It's hard to summon any enthusiasm at all for nematodes." I disagree with this - to me, bacteria, nematodes and other microscopic life are extremely diverse, complex, fascinating and even beautiful when seen under a microscope. While they are not visible to the human eye, or as relatable as large animals are to us, they are also our evolutionary cousins and co-inhabitants of our planet (many even live within humans). I wish Godfrey-Smith had covered their lives, behaviours, social interactions and ecological niches, as well as the philosophical questions and ethics of how we humans view and treat them, more in this book. This is a small quibble, or perhaps a suggestion for Godfrey-Smith's next book!
July 16, 2025
(2,5/5) Pese a que los primeros capítulos son deliciosos, en lo que supone una suerte de divulgación agradable y agradecida, la mediocridad filósofica de Godfrey-Smith salta rápidamente a la palestra cuando se mete en camisa de once varas.
Es una pena, pero ocurre a menudo, que cuando especialistas en campos científicos (biólogos, cosmólogos, neurólogos, etcétera) escriben un ensayo sobre un rango inmenso de temas, como es aquí el caso (lenguaje, conciencia, moral...), sentando cátedra a partir de autores un tanto convencionales, la obra se vuelve superflua y decepcionante.
Reiteramos que cuando Godfrey-Smith se centra en las temáticas que realmente conoce (biología, zoología), es un gusto leerlo, pero cuando se lanza a asuntos basados en un puñado de lecturas de impacto sin humus filosófico, el resultado es un continuo tobogán de altibajos donde se pierde incluso el objetivo de la obra. A no ser que ésta tenga la pretenciosidad de "cerrar" asuntos tan complejos como la ficción, la mente, el lenguaje, la cultura y la moral (¡nada menos!) con una serie de postillas simplonas que obvian la complejidad filósofica del último siglo...(al que se subestima una y otra vez).
Es una pena observar, una vez más, que tantos científicos o no han leído o no han comprendido a tantos ensayistas, intelectuales, antropólogos y filósofos de los últimos 80 años (algunos de ellos, mal llamados "continentales", "post-estructuralistas", etcétera), quienes se han devanado los sesos de todas las formas posibles para profundizar y ahondar en temáticas de esta complejidad. Pienso en Heidegger o Derrida, en Merleu-Ponty o Zizek de los que, si Godfrey-Smith quiere seguir por este camino de omnicomprensión, podría aprender mucho (mismamente le aconsejaría, para iniciarse en otra perspectiva biológica y zoológica, a Felice Cimatti o a Emanuele Coccia).
En conclusión, prefiero, para divulgación biológica, a Franz de Waal (aunque también cae, a menudo, en superfluidades y reduccionismos) y, sobre todo, a John Dupré.
Es una pena, pero ocurre a menudo, que cuando especialistas en campos científicos (biólogos, cosmólogos, neurólogos, etcétera) escriben un ensayo sobre un rango inmenso de temas, como es aquí el caso (lenguaje, conciencia, moral...), sentando cátedra a partir de autores un tanto convencionales, la obra se vuelve superflua y decepcionante.
Reiteramos que cuando Godfrey-Smith se centra en las temáticas que realmente conoce (biología, zoología), es un gusto leerlo, pero cuando se lanza a asuntos basados en un puñado de lecturas de impacto sin humus filosófico, el resultado es un continuo tobogán de altibajos donde se pierde incluso el objetivo de la obra. A no ser que ésta tenga la pretenciosidad de "cerrar" asuntos tan complejos como la ficción, la mente, el lenguaje, la cultura y la moral (¡nada menos!) con una serie de postillas simplonas que obvian la complejidad filósofica del último siglo...(al que se subestima una y otra vez).
Es una pena observar, una vez más, que tantos científicos o no han leído o no han comprendido a tantos ensayistas, intelectuales, antropólogos y filósofos de los últimos 80 años (algunos de ellos, mal llamados "continentales", "post-estructuralistas", etcétera), quienes se han devanado los sesos de todas las formas posibles para profundizar y ahondar en temáticas de esta complejidad. Pienso en Heidegger o Derrida, en Merleu-Ponty o Zizek de los que, si Godfrey-Smith quiere seguir por este camino de omnicomprensión, podría aprender mucho (mismamente le aconsejaría, para iniciarse en otra perspectiva biológica y zoológica, a Felice Cimatti o a Emanuele Coccia).
En conclusión, prefiero, para divulgación biológica, a Franz de Waal (aunque también cae, a menudo, en superfluidades y reduccionismos) y, sobre todo, a John Dupré.
August 13, 2025
El punto de partida del libro es analizar la capacidad de los seres vivos para modificar la Tierra y, en general, su ambiente. Comienza a repasar a grandes rasgos la historia de la Tierra y se detiene en el paso que, para él, es decisivo en el devenir de los acontecimientos posteriores, que es la aparición de los organismos fotosintéticos. Posteriormente se centra en la aparición de la mente o, más bien, n el desarrollo de esta hasta alcanzar el nivel de complejidad del ser humano. Para ello, el autor se centra en la percepción y la acción y cómo estas se vinculan. Por último, ya centrado en el ser humano, analiza sus efectos sobre el resto de seres vivos, centrándose en la agricultura intensiva y la experimentación con animales y, posteriormente en cómo deberíamos enfocar la conservación del mediambiente.
Si bien el comienzo el libro es interesante y parece sentar las bases de lo que después será un desarrollo que promete ser deslumbrante, el libro va perdiendo fuelle,.Da la sensación que no sabe bien por dónde seguir y todo se convierte al final en una maraña de ideas dispersas y no queda una idea clara de qué es lo que ha pretendido contar el autor. Habla de muchas cosas que en lo básico pueden tener que ver, pero en algunos casos se queda muy escaso de desarrollo y en otros parece dar cabida a algunas ideas muy cuestionables y que rozan lo paracientífico, cuando no la pseudociencia. En ocasiones dice no estar seguro de la hipótesis que plantea. Que no sabe si ha comprendido bien una idea que comienza a explicar después. Sería preferible, creo, que hubiese tratado de desarrollar mejor esas ideas o haberse informado más en profundidad o bien, habérselas ahorrado al lector. No entraré a desgranar las ideas del libro. Algunas de ellas las comparto y con otras estoy en desacuerdo por la escasez de argumentos que proporciona el autor a favor se sus ideas o bien porque no las transmite de un modo convincente. De hecho, algunos pasajes parecen escritos a salto de mata, como si tuviese que rellenar páginas sin más. Comparado con Otras mentes, este libro se queda muy lejos de aquel.
Si bien el comienzo el libro es interesante y parece sentar las bases de lo que después será un desarrollo que promete ser deslumbrante, el libro va perdiendo fuelle,.Da la sensación que no sabe bien por dónde seguir y todo se convierte al final en una maraña de ideas dispersas y no queda una idea clara de qué es lo que ha pretendido contar el autor. Habla de muchas cosas que en lo básico pueden tener que ver, pero en algunos casos se queda muy escaso de desarrollo y en otros parece dar cabida a algunas ideas muy cuestionables y que rozan lo paracientífico, cuando no la pseudociencia. En ocasiones dice no estar seguro de la hipótesis que plantea. Que no sabe si ha comprendido bien una idea que comienza a explicar después. Sería preferible, creo, que hubiese tratado de desarrollar mejor esas ideas o haberse informado más en profundidad o bien, habérselas ahorrado al lector. No entraré a desgranar las ideas del libro. Algunas de ellas las comparto y con otras estoy en desacuerdo por la escasez de argumentos que proporciona el autor a favor se sus ideas o bien porque no las transmite de un modo convincente. De hecho, algunos pasajes parecen escritos a salto de mata, como si tuviese que rellenar páginas sin más. Comparado con Otras mentes, este libro se queda muy lejos de aquel.
February 27, 2025
Besides writing books on evolutionary biology, Peter Godfrey-Smith is a scuba-diving philosopher and animal rights activist. The book under review is the third of a trilogy. The first book explored the mind of the octopus ("Other Minds"), and the second studied animal minds and the birth of consciousness ("Metazoa"). In "Living on Earth," he explores the nature of human intelligence, how its environment shapes it, and how it shapes the environment. Needless to say, this is a work of great ambition.
Since Darwin's "Origin of the Species," it has been known that human consciousness and agency are conditioned by the environment in which they live. "Action emanates from points of view, from the peculiar angle each animal has on things." All animals have unique social characteristics, some more complex than others. Humans, however, have complex social organizations and use complex language abilities that serve their expansive imaginations. Humans can imagine a different world. This language-using ability empowers humans exponentially in getting things done in the world and shaping the environment. That is why, since the explosion of the first nuclear bomb, the epoch has been called the Anthropocene. Humans are a geologic force.
As our environment and reality are continually reimagined and transformed by our human agency, the philosopher Godfrey-Smith asks the appropriate moral questions. As apex predators and apex engineers, we must ask ourselves about the morality of factory farming, habitat destruction, and our obligations to non-human life. This book offers an excellent discussion of these issues.
Since Darwin's "Origin of the Species," it has been known that human consciousness and agency are conditioned by the environment in which they live. "Action emanates from points of view, from the peculiar angle each animal has on things." All animals have unique social characteristics, some more complex than others. Humans, however, have complex social organizations and use complex language abilities that serve their expansive imaginations. Humans can imagine a different world. This language-using ability empowers humans exponentially in getting things done in the world and shaping the environment. That is why, since the explosion of the first nuclear bomb, the epoch has been called the Anthropocene. Humans are a geologic force.
As our environment and reality are continually reimagined and transformed by our human agency, the philosopher Godfrey-Smith asks the appropriate moral questions. As apex predators and apex engineers, we must ask ourselves about the morality of factory farming, habitat destruction, and our obligations to non-human life. This book offers an excellent discussion of these issues.
December 21, 2024
A bit of a jumble in terms of Godfrey-Smith's goal for the book, which I never really felt he achieved. In fact I kept forgetting what it was, and wondered whether he hadn't as well. But maybe living on Earth is itself a jumble, and trying to establish some sort of theme among the many points this book touches is just impossible. The creation of the climate, very early life, the structure of cells, the evolution of animals, human consciousness, other consciousnesses, the ethics of our interactions with the natural world - and wonderous critters he encountered scuba diving. I've read many other books that address these individual topics way more succinctly.
But here's the rub - I'm still giving it 5 stars because I really enjoyed it. It's accessibly written and I was always engaged and fascinated by it. There are a number of issues tackled in ways that were new to me that gave me cause to think and reflect, eg shared brain waves, how animals experience their lives, suffering. A philosopher of science is always going to have their work cut out because the topic is by its own nature so amorphous and all-encompassing, attempting to synthesize such a vast amount of material is a huge task and I feel the book should be evaluated on whether the writer takes the reader along on the trip as much as whether we actually reach the destination. I don't think we did, but we saw some fascinating sites along the way and I enjoyed the driver's company.
But here's the rub - I'm still giving it 5 stars because I really enjoyed it. It's accessibly written and I was always engaged and fascinated by it. There are a number of issues tackled in ways that were new to me that gave me cause to think and reflect, eg shared brain waves, how animals experience their lives, suffering. A philosopher of science is always going to have their work cut out because the topic is by its own nature so amorphous and all-encompassing, attempting to synthesize such a vast amount of material is a huge task and I feel the book should be evaluated on whether the writer takes the reader along on the trip as much as whether we actually reach the destination. I don't think we did, but we saw some fascinating sites along the way and I enjoyed the driver's company.
February 3, 2025
I really like the way Godfrey-Smith writes, but the big struggle I had with this book was understanding why it was written at all. As someone who themselves tends to write these rambling, wide spanning works which cover a bunch of topics, trying to mash them together, this book should have landed for me, but I found myself at a loss with it.
If I take a book like Sapiens, for instance, which equally covers a huge amount of ground, a book like that I, like most people, find hard to put down, this book is similar, but different in all the ways that count. With this, I can see some connection between the chapters, but it's just so broad and general, it feels like the author has been forced into writing it, perhaps to follow up the other, more successful book—other minds, or whatever it's called. It feels like a well written bunch of essays, and an author looking for a hook to hang it all on.
Either way, I found myself about half way through really wanting to just put it aside and move on, but I did honestly enjoy the way Godfrey-Smith writes. I just had an issue with the substance, not the style, of everything in the pages. Perhaps if he’d gone much deeper on just one of the topics covered, instead of skating from one to another, I feel the book would have a lot more longevity. I suspect, in a few days, I will remember little of it at all.
If I take a book like Sapiens, for instance, which equally covers a huge amount of ground, a book like that I, like most people, find hard to put down, this book is similar, but different in all the ways that count. With this, I can see some connection between the chapters, but it's just so broad and general, it feels like the author has been forced into writing it, perhaps to follow up the other, more successful book—other minds, or whatever it's called. It feels like a well written bunch of essays, and an author looking for a hook to hang it all on.
Either way, I found myself about half way through really wanting to just put it aside and move on, but I did honestly enjoy the way Godfrey-Smith writes. I just had an issue with the substance, not the style, of everything in the pages. Perhaps if he’d gone much deeper on just one of the topics covered, instead of skating from one to another, I feel the book would have a lot more longevity. I suspect, in a few days, I will remember little of it at all.
September 12, 2024
Living on Earth is an epic examination of life on our planet. The author, Godfrey- Smith takes a sweeping look at biology and evolutionary theory, but in an accessible and interesting way. Godfrey-Smith brings philosophical musings to the front and center. Kant and his categorical imperative are discussed, along with the views of utilitarianism and Pete Singer’s animal welfare perspective. Godfrey-Smith delves into intentionality and the choices made in nature that affect our planet as a whole.
I listened to the audiobook in advance for free from NetGalley. It was an enjoyable experience, with great narrators (including the author) who had a calm and knowledgeable way of presenting the material. The information shared was fenced and nuanced, so I did have to re-listen to several parts to comprehend. The book itself was very descriptive, really bringing the reader into the topic at hand. Overall, I felt this audiobook was worth the time I put into to listen and puzzle over the contents. It was interesting, with a plethora of scientific information shared in a fun, understandable way. Living on Earth gave me a lot to digest and mull over.
I listened to the audiobook in advance for free from NetGalley. It was an enjoyable experience, with great narrators (including the author) who had a calm and knowledgeable way of presenting the material. The information shared was fenced and nuanced, so I did have to re-listen to several parts to comprehend. The book itself was very descriptive, really bringing the reader into the topic at hand. Overall, I felt this audiobook was worth the time I put into to listen and puzzle over the contents. It was interesting, with a plethora of scientific information shared in a fun, understandable way. Living on Earth gave me a lot to digest and mull over.
December 13, 2025
The cover of this book is so beautiful. On occasion, I like to read books about natural science. This book had the added bonus of tying in philosophy as well. I’ve been curious about what philosophy is doing currently- having been a student of it several decades ago.
It is a short book - just 278 pages with many notes. I like books that are well researched. The book took a broad look at multiple topics. I liked the sections best that used a philosophical framework to consider. This was done in discussions about consciousness.
The book fell short when the author went into the realm of morality - humans responsibility to the earth, other living beings, and nonhuman animals. The arguments used to support the author’s morals at this point were difficult to support. The most extreme of these was rewilding and imposing measures to increase nonhuman animals quality of life. The author used the litmus test of pain as the measure.
The book would have been more influential and sound if the author had narrowed his focus. I did appreciate the opportunity to have my thinking challenged.
It is a short book - just 278 pages with many notes. I like books that are well researched. The book took a broad look at multiple topics. I liked the sections best that used a philosophical framework to consider. This was done in discussions about consciousness.
The book fell short when the author went into the realm of morality - humans responsibility to the earth, other living beings, and nonhuman animals. The arguments used to support the author’s morals at this point were difficult to support. The most extreme of these was rewilding and imposing measures to increase nonhuman animals quality of life. The author used the litmus test of pain as the measure.
The book would have been more influential and sound if the author had narrowed his focus. I did appreciate the opportunity to have my thinking challenged.
September 6, 2024
I have the utmost respect for Peter Godfrey-Smith, who is a great thinker and has a very distinctive perspective on evolutionary biology. However, I always find it a bit difficult to get engaged in his narrative – for some reason his style is not to my liking. This book was no different. It's very informative, even eye-opening at times – but presented in a way that I found somewhat uncompelling. I have to admit that I much preferred another recent book on a similar subject, Becoming Earth: How Our Planet Came to Life by Ferris Jabr. But if you're a fan and have devoured previous Godfrey-Smith books, you won't be disappointed.
Thanks to the publisher, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and NetGalley for an advanced copy of this book.
Thanks to the publisher, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and NetGalley for an advanced copy of this book.
December 25, 2024
I have read other books by the author and liked them enough so I have decided to read this book also. This book is like a collection of interconected essays about aspects of life in the world to specific questionings about humans, going from how life came to be on Earth, the feeling of self in animals (not just humans), language and more recent discussions, like the welfare of cattle animals, the changing of nature by humans and so on. It's really diversified, but for me some chapters were more interesting and easy to understand than others, but I admit the the majority of the topics discussed here were things that I have already read about before in some way (some more than others). In the end I consider it a cool book and was interesting to see the discussions brought by the author.
Thank you Netgalley and Farrar, Strous and Giroux for the eARC of this book. All the opinions here are my own and given freely.
Thank you Netgalley and Farrar, Strous and Giroux for the eARC of this book. All the opinions here are my own and given freely.
October 26, 2024
Living on Earth, Peter Godfrey-Smith (2.5)
I was quite disappointed with this book. There were many interesting pieces of information, but the writing often had me asking: ‘what is your point again?’. Even the habit of telling the reader what they will read at the start of a chapter didn’t help me navigate through it. The concept of describing how humans and other life started on the planet and have affected the planet is laudable, but I found the execution lacking. I enjoyed the chapter on birds – both well written and fascinating. I could now watch a whole show on Bower Birds. Not surprising, as a vegetarian, I applauded the chapter on what we have done with animals both as food and experimental subjects. I would also add I found this more philosophical than scientific.
I was quite disappointed with this book. There were many interesting pieces of information, but the writing often had me asking: ‘what is your point again?’. Even the habit of telling the reader what they will read at the start of a chapter didn’t help me navigate through it. The concept of describing how humans and other life started on the planet and have affected the planet is laudable, but I found the execution lacking. I enjoyed the chapter on birds – both well written and fascinating. I could now watch a whole show on Bower Birds. Not surprising, as a vegetarian, I applauded the chapter on what we have done with animals both as food and experimental subjects. I would also add I found this more philosophical than scientific.
November 25, 2024
I was a big fan of Peter Godfrey-Smith's book Other Minds, but found this one much less interesting. Other minds explored the evolution of intellegence, particularly that of octopi. In contrast, Living on Earth focuses on how life forms effected the planet. For example, the role of photophysensis in creating abundant oxygen create newer living possibilities. And of course, how humans have affected the planet, which includes climate change but also more broadly the type of animals and ecosystems we cultivate and so on. Godfrey-Smith continues to bring his interesting philosophical perpsective to all of these topics, but ultimately the book does not have the same wow factor that Other Minds did and while there is much to learn from it and could feel quite meandering at times.
4/10
4/10
June 1, 2025
I found this book to be well written and interesting at first, but ultimately put it down for being far too philosophical for my taste in a science-based book. Although I do believe that an open mind, bordering on a philosophical one, is essential in science - this book may have taken things a little too far while simultaneously remaining too small. Despite discussing the Earth as a whole through its evolutionary history, all of the author's examples are centered in Australia (not to be critical to the lovely Aussies, their country is spectacular). Additionally I found the author, though descriptive, to be rather long-winded. These opinions however, have not deterred me from reading his other work - Other Minds is still at the top of my reading list.
January 16, 2025
I enjoyed the integration of philosophical perspectives on what it means for a life to be worth living and biology. The interpretation that the quality of a life defines whether it is worth living resonated with me, though I still disagree with the idea that just because some livestock are cared for and have a decent quality of life that this justifies agriculture. There are other factors to consider when weighing up a practice that deals with an animals life, such as environmental impact (which in turn has detrimental impacts on the quality of life of other organisms, so this philosophical framework of suffering could be extended to the secondary effects of agriculture).
August 29, 2024
A thoughtful discussion of life on our planet. The author has a curious mind and delves deep into evolution, differentiating traits developed for survival vs superficial “showy” advantage. He takes on the definitions of life, consciousness, and sentience, making a case for how much animals understand and therefore how that might (or should) impact how we treat them. While decrying abuses at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), he also doesn’t suggest we simply let all the animals roam free. He offers a workable alternative that would improve conditions for animals being raised for food. The book is part science, part ethics, part philosophy.
My thanks to the author, publisher, producer, and #NetGalley for early access to the audiobook for review purposes. Available September 3, 2024.
My thanks to the author, publisher, producer, and #NetGalley for early access to the audiobook for review purposes. Available September 3, 2024.
September 30, 2024
Interesting and well written, but it covered too many subjects from the way life started on earth and evolution, to the various aeons of the earth's existence, to mammals, to the extinction of species as a result of human greed and growth, to philosophic and ethical handling of nonhuman species for scientific experiments or concentrated animal feeding and breeding pens, to be fully informative on any one. As a matter of general reading, it raised a great many ideas and questioned others, which was provocative and useful.
August 18, 2025
i like Godfrey-smith very much as an author. however i felt like the first two books of this series were of a higher quality. it felt like reading some of the leftover thoughts he had about different topics within life and consciousness all thrown together. nonetheless those thoughts were quite nice to read. i loved the a new concept he brought forward: "is a life worth living" and "if you were reincarnated, would you want to live that life?". which to me really highlighted the ongoing animal suffering in factory farming.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews