What do you think?
Rate this book
A Rough Ride to the Future
In A Rough Ride to the Future, James Lovelock - the great scientific visionary of our age - presents a radical vision of humanity's future as the thinking brain of our Earth-system James Lovelock, who has been hailed as 'the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on earth since Charles Darwin' (Independent) and 'the most profound scientific thinker of our time' (Literary Review) continues, in his 95th year, to be the great scientific visionary of our age.
184 pages, Paperback
First published April 3, 2014
42 people are currently reading
472 people want to read
About the author
James E. Lovelock
29 books314 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
April 3, 2014
James Lovelock is unique, both as a scientist and as a writer. He may be most famous for his Gaia hypothesis that the Earth acts as if it were a self-regulating living entity, but has done so much more in a 94 year life to date.
Rough Ride (not to be confused with Jon Turney’s Rough Guide to the Future) is an important book, but it is also flawed, and I wanted to get those flaws out of the way, as I’ve awarded it four stars for the significance of its content, rather than its well-written nature. It is, frankly, distinctly irritating to read – meandering, highly repetitive and rather too full of admiration for Lovelock’s achievements. But I am not giving the book a top rating as a ‘well done for being so old’ award – far from it. Instead it’s because Lovelock has some very powerful things to say about climate change. I’ve been labelled a green heretic in the past, and there is no doubt that Lovelock deserves this accolade far more, as he tears into the naivety of much green thinking and green politics.
He begins, though, by taking on the scientific establishment, pointing out the limitations of modern, peer reviewed, team-oriented science in the way that it blocks the individual and creative scientific thinker – the kind of person who has come up with most of our good scientific ideas and inventions over the centuries. He does this primarily to establish that he is worth listening to, rather than being some lone voice spouting nonsense. I’m not sure he needs to do this – I think there are few who wouldn’t respect Lovelock and give him an ear, but it’s a good point and significant that he feels it necessary.
The main thrust of the book is to suggest that our politicians (almost universally ignorant of science) are taking the wrong approach to climate change. He derides the effort to develop renewable energy, despises the way the Blair government chickened out of nuclear power (and is very heavy on the Germans and Italians for their panic reaction after the Japanese tsunami) and makes it clear that from his viewpoint, our whole approach to climate change is idiotic.
With the starting point that the whole system is far too complex to allow any decent modelling, or to be sure what any attempts at geoengineering could achieve, Lovelock suggests that the answer is to let Gaia get on with sorting itself out, and instead of worrying about trying to manage carbon emissions in our current situation, we should instead put our efforts into adapting the way we live to cope with changes in the climate. He points out, the kind of climate we had before the industrial revolution (or accelerated evolution, as he believes it to be) was not the typical climate of the Earth either, which would be more like its state in the grips of an Ice Age.
Rather that trying to somehow get it back to an imaginary utopian state, he argues we should be looking at new ways to live that will enable us to manage despite what the climate throws at us. He points out, for instance, that in our fears of the impact of 2 to 6 degrees of warming we miss that Singapore manages perfectly well in an environment that is 12.5 degrees above the global average. Of course, you might argue that we couldn’t sustain that way of life for 7 billion people – and Lovelock is sanguine about this. He doesn’t expect humans to carry on at that kind of population level, as part of the adaptation.
What’s fascinating is that while reading the book I also read an article by that most demonised of environmental figures, Bjorn Lomborg, and it was remarkable how much similarity there was in their views of the approach we should take, though coming at the problem from very different directions and with very different predicted outcomes.
A final thrust of the book is perhaps less convincing. Lovelock, looking 100 million years or more into the future, suggests that the best way our descendants can survive to keep Gaia going is in electronic form, as it would be possible to live on for many more millions of years despite the Earth warming, due to the Sun’s gradual increase of output, to a stage where it is uninhabitable by biological life. At the same time he dismisses terraforming Mars (and doesn’t even consider starships) as a mechanism for keeping a future humanity alive. This seems a bit of an stance and dilutes, rather than helps the central message of what we should do about climate change and human existence on Earth.
As I mentioned earlier on, you may well find the book a frustrating read because of all the repetition, but this is a book that will really get you thinking about our approach to climate change, and whether we’ve got it all terribly wrong. Read it.
Rough Ride (not to be confused with Jon Turney’s Rough Guide to the Future) is an important book, but it is also flawed, and I wanted to get those flaws out of the way, as I’ve awarded it four stars for the significance of its content, rather than its well-written nature. It is, frankly, distinctly irritating to read – meandering, highly repetitive and rather too full of admiration for Lovelock’s achievements. But I am not giving the book a top rating as a ‘well done for being so old’ award – far from it. Instead it’s because Lovelock has some very powerful things to say about climate change. I’ve been labelled a green heretic in the past, and there is no doubt that Lovelock deserves this accolade far more, as he tears into the naivety of much green thinking and green politics.
He begins, though, by taking on the scientific establishment, pointing out the limitations of modern, peer reviewed, team-oriented science in the way that it blocks the individual and creative scientific thinker – the kind of person who has come up with most of our good scientific ideas and inventions over the centuries. He does this primarily to establish that he is worth listening to, rather than being some lone voice spouting nonsense. I’m not sure he needs to do this – I think there are few who wouldn’t respect Lovelock and give him an ear, but it’s a good point and significant that he feels it necessary.
The main thrust of the book is to suggest that our politicians (almost universally ignorant of science) are taking the wrong approach to climate change. He derides the effort to develop renewable energy, despises the way the Blair government chickened out of nuclear power (and is very heavy on the Germans and Italians for their panic reaction after the Japanese tsunami) and makes it clear that from his viewpoint, our whole approach to climate change is idiotic.
With the starting point that the whole system is far too complex to allow any decent modelling, or to be sure what any attempts at geoengineering could achieve, Lovelock suggests that the answer is to let Gaia get on with sorting itself out, and instead of worrying about trying to manage carbon emissions in our current situation, we should instead put our efforts into adapting the way we live to cope with changes in the climate. He points out, the kind of climate we had before the industrial revolution (or accelerated evolution, as he believes it to be) was not the typical climate of the Earth either, which would be more like its state in the grips of an Ice Age.
Rather that trying to somehow get it back to an imaginary utopian state, he argues we should be looking at new ways to live that will enable us to manage despite what the climate throws at us. He points out, for instance, that in our fears of the impact of 2 to 6 degrees of warming we miss that Singapore manages perfectly well in an environment that is 12.5 degrees above the global average. Of course, you might argue that we couldn’t sustain that way of life for 7 billion people – and Lovelock is sanguine about this. He doesn’t expect humans to carry on at that kind of population level, as part of the adaptation.
What’s fascinating is that while reading the book I also read an article by that most demonised of environmental figures, Bjorn Lomborg, and it was remarkable how much similarity there was in their views of the approach we should take, though coming at the problem from very different directions and with very different predicted outcomes.
A final thrust of the book is perhaps less convincing. Lovelock, looking 100 million years or more into the future, suggests that the best way our descendants can survive to keep Gaia going is in electronic form, as it would be possible to live on for many more millions of years despite the Earth warming, due to the Sun’s gradual increase of output, to a stage where it is uninhabitable by biological life. At the same time he dismisses terraforming Mars (and doesn’t even consider starships) as a mechanism for keeping a future humanity alive. This seems a bit of an stance and dilutes, rather than helps the central message of what we should do about climate change and human existence on Earth.
As I mentioned earlier on, you may well find the book a frustrating read because of all the repetition, but this is a book that will really get you thinking about our approach to climate change, and whether we’ve got it all terribly wrong. Read it.
August 24, 2017
I found Gaia interesting, and if not entirely in line with what I believe, still plausible; it’s obvious that the Earth’s ecosystems are governed by systems of feedback, and that sometimes that has had a stabilising effect — and that life continues to find a way to survive. From this book, it seems like Lovelock believes the ‘rough ride’ is mostly for humanity, ignoring the fact that we’ve severely thrown off natural systems, and that we’re not innocent in this. We’ve known we’re doing it for quite some time, and yet he sort of shrugs it off and says there’s no use feeling guilty. Well, guilt won’t fix the climate, but a sense of responsibility might help.
He’s right that humans have to change and adapt to the changing climate, but I’m not so sanguine that’s going to be enough for life to go on. I’m pretty sure bacteria and archaea will get along fine, but we’re decimating the ranks of amphibians, big mammals, sea creatures, etc. And he’s not always up on modern science: he still seems to believe, here, that the atmosphere can’t be more than about 25% oxygen without causing regular devastating fires. He’s wrong: we know the oxygen saturation has been much higher, and life went on — that’s why there were gigantic dragonflies; they couldn’t have survived in a lower-oxygen atmosphere.
While the Gaia theory has been influential, I think perhaps Lovelock should sit down and stop profiting by it. This book is rather rambling, at times even confused.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
He’s right that humans have to change and adapt to the changing climate, but I’m not so sanguine that’s going to be enough for life to go on. I’m pretty sure bacteria and archaea will get along fine, but we’re decimating the ranks of amphibians, big mammals, sea creatures, etc. And he’s not always up on modern science: he still seems to believe, here, that the atmosphere can’t be more than about 25% oxygen without causing regular devastating fires. He’s wrong: we know the oxygen saturation has been much higher, and life went on — that’s why there were gigantic dragonflies; they couldn’t have survived in a lower-oxygen atmosphere.
While the Gaia theory has been influential, I think perhaps Lovelock should sit down and stop profiting by it. This book is rather rambling, at times even confused.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
October 29, 2015
I have the highest regard for James Lovelock and his great work over many years, including of course Daisyworld and his now famous Gaia hypothesis. Thus it is with considerable hesitation that I give this book just two stars.
Lovelock has always been somewhat of an iconoclast. His wholistic vision has always lent a freshness and a challenge to his work. The book jacket said that "instead of feeling guilty, we should recognize what is happening, prepare for change, and ensure that we survive as a species so we can contribute to - perhaps even guide - the next evolution." This would represent a very different perspective than most of the stuff one reads, and one I would be open to it if based on sound science. (I work in the energy and climate field, and have struggled with how to respond positively, but yet realistically, to the impending climate change trainwreck headed our way).
However, the book had very little to do with the description on the dust jacket. The book is a collection of rambling thoughts and several autobiographical detours. The thesis was never, in my mind, laid out clearly, and it lacked any solid supporting evidence. Most of what Lovelock offered was that history has shown our species to be able to respond to necessity with creative solutions that one can't necessarily think of ahead of time. That is precisely what I have heard for years, from people who who refuse to consider that the free market or in technology may not be sufficient to the current crisis. Why should I accept it now, without significant supporting evidence, just because it comes from someone like Lovelock (who at least accepts that climate change is a major problem and who is otherwise credible)?
Two other books I have read that present the optimist's credo that I found stimulating and much harder to dismiss were The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves by Matt Ridley, and What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly.
Lovelock has always been somewhat of an iconoclast. His wholistic vision has always lent a freshness and a challenge to his work. The book jacket said that "instead of feeling guilty, we should recognize what is happening, prepare for change, and ensure that we survive as a species so we can contribute to - perhaps even guide - the next evolution." This would represent a very different perspective than most of the stuff one reads, and one I would be open to it if based on sound science. (I work in the energy and climate field, and have struggled with how to respond positively, but yet realistically, to the impending climate change trainwreck headed our way).
However, the book had very little to do with the description on the dust jacket. The book is a collection of rambling thoughts and several autobiographical detours. The thesis was never, in my mind, laid out clearly, and it lacked any solid supporting evidence. Most of what Lovelock offered was that history has shown our species to be able to respond to necessity with creative solutions that one can't necessarily think of ahead of time. That is precisely what I have heard for years, from people who who refuse to consider that the free market or in technology may not be sufficient to the current crisis. Why should I accept it now, without significant supporting evidence, just because it comes from someone like Lovelock (who at least accepts that climate change is a major problem and who is otherwise credible)?
Two other books I have read that present the optimist's credo that I found stimulating and much harder to dismiss were The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves by Matt Ridley, and What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly.
September 27, 2015
It is a bit hard to believe that this is the same author who wrote "The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning." Lovelock apparently has decided that global warming did not materialize like he predicted just a few years ago. This, despite the fact that 2012 saw the lowest arctic ice coverage ever recorded, that 2014 was the warmest year on record, and that 2015 is now crushing the 2014 temperature record.
I also question Lovelock's conviction that the saving of humanity is all-important, that humanity alone can save the Earth and therefore must be preserved. Humanity is the species directly responsible for entering the Earth into the 6th great extinction event.
His solution for global warming seems to be to not worry about it and to build air conditioned cities for humans to pack into. He is against renewable energy, perhaps because he doesn't like the sight of giant windmills near his home.
He also spends quite a bit of time in the book worrying about what is going to happen to the Earth in 100 million years as the sun continues to grow hotter. We have nearly destroyed the Earth in just a couple hundred years, we have a lot more serious problems than to worry about what is going to happen in 100 million years. His point is that we need to be sure to preserve humans so that intelligent life will be here to save life on Earth.
I've talked about some of the things in his book that bothered me, but he certainly has an interesting point of view worth thinking about.
I also question Lovelock's conviction that the saving of humanity is all-important, that humanity alone can save the Earth and therefore must be preserved. Humanity is the species directly responsible for entering the Earth into the 6th great extinction event.
His solution for global warming seems to be to not worry about it and to build air conditioned cities for humans to pack into. He is against renewable energy, perhaps because he doesn't like the sight of giant windmills near his home.
He also spends quite a bit of time in the book worrying about what is going to happen to the Earth in 100 million years as the sun continues to grow hotter. We have nearly destroyed the Earth in just a couple hundred years, we have a lot more serious problems than to worry about what is going to happen in 100 million years. His point is that we need to be sure to preserve humans so that intelligent life will be here to save life on Earth.
I've talked about some of the things in his book that bothered me, but he certainly has an interesting point of view worth thinking about.
August 8, 2020
As a complex systems thinker and futurist I have always been grateful to Lovelock for his wholistic and scientific ideas. This book, however, is more-than-terrible.
After rambling about a bit, celebrating the tired old "great solo [white] male" narrative, and declaring how innovative solo thinkers are, and how awful teams and consensus are, Lovelock finally, almost accidentally, says of the rest of the world's humans: "[T]hey are exposed incessantly to fictional... ...stories whose untruth is rarely challenged by those of us who know the truth." In other words, "us" knowledgeable old white men have to lead the unwashed and ignorant masses to salvation. Recipes for totalitarianism, much?
He then goes on to explain why we need hierarchies, inequality, and monogamy in order to survive. And by "survive" he means huddle up in super-organism cities, presumably watched over by machines of loving grace, to ride out the rough patch while the rest of the world dies off.
We've seen this narrative before, and it still persists around us right now: the narrative that the "right" people will survive the cataclysm ahead -- no doubt because the one right "God" wants them to.
This book really saddened me, because I've always greatly respected Lovelock for his body of work, but herein he just comes across as a deluded old man in despair, unable to appreciate joy and diversity and cooperation and the collective triumph that is civilization.
After rambling about a bit, celebrating the tired old "great solo [white] male" narrative, and declaring how innovative solo thinkers are, and how awful teams and consensus are, Lovelock finally, almost accidentally, says of the rest of the world's humans: "[T]hey are exposed incessantly to fictional... ...stories whose untruth is rarely challenged by those of us who know the truth." In other words, "us" knowledgeable old white men have to lead the unwashed and ignorant masses to salvation. Recipes for totalitarianism, much?
He then goes on to explain why we need hierarchies, inequality, and monogamy in order to survive. And by "survive" he means huddle up in super-organism cities, presumably watched over by machines of loving grace, to ride out the rough patch while the rest of the world dies off.
We've seen this narrative before, and it still persists around us right now: the narrative that the "right" people will survive the cataclysm ahead -- no doubt because the one right "God" wants them to.
This book really saddened me, because I've always greatly respected Lovelock for his body of work, but herein he just comes across as a deluded old man in despair, unable to appreciate joy and diversity and cooperation and the collective triumph that is civilization.
December 13, 2019
The smarts of mineral deprived desert goat herders from 2000 years ago blended with 20th century vocabulary.
December 13, 2017
I read through most of this at the library today, and it was a breath of fresh air compared to many who speak on this topic. He doesn't waste time trying to appease moralisers, and instead just engages in some realistic speculation on the future we need to be prepared to face. He exposes well the moral blindness that is leading many countries like the UK to sacrifice cheap low carbon option of nuclear power in favor of unreliable and environmentally ugly renewable energy sources such as wind power.
He also exposes well the dubious politically motivated "consensus" on global warming (they now call it climate change to be even less committal), which hides the fact the science diverges massively among this consensus, and so do the proposed methods of how to tackle the problem.
I also found the speculations on hive like cities in the future where humans create small habitable zones on the planet with controlled climates, rather than trying to save the whole planet, as being interesting, at times very worrying, (more so than maybe Lovelock seems to recognise in terms of the social consequences), but nevertheless, very realistic speculations at a possible practical resolution to these climate problems for humanity in the future.
An area on that front that worries me is one possible consequence of this approach may lead to new levels of control through the media of people's views on things in order to bring everyone into line. Lovelock suggests we have a natural hierarchy among this hive city with still much individual freedom. The problem is this will clash starkly with many on the left who are committed to destroying all hierarchies in favor of homogenuous humanity of fairness and equal outcomes. In line with that they will most likely enforce organisation in a top down oligarchal or dictatorial manner, rather than it being a natural hierarchy.
The poor rating does not surprise me much of this book, despite its quality, as I think this is largely politically motivated, as he is on the left politically yet still willing to expose some of the dubious dogmas of the political left. The left does not like people who step out of line with their almost religious dogmas, but this book goes against this dumb polarisation, which made it a refreshing read.
He also exposes well the dubious politically motivated "consensus" on global warming (they now call it climate change to be even less committal), which hides the fact the science diverges massively among this consensus, and so do the proposed methods of how to tackle the problem.
I also found the speculations on hive like cities in the future where humans create small habitable zones on the planet with controlled climates, rather than trying to save the whole planet, as being interesting, at times very worrying, (more so than maybe Lovelock seems to recognise in terms of the social consequences), but nevertheless, very realistic speculations at a possible practical resolution to these climate problems for humanity in the future.
An area on that front that worries me is one possible consequence of this approach may lead to new levels of control through the media of people's views on things in order to bring everyone into line. Lovelock suggests we have a natural hierarchy among this hive city with still much individual freedom. The problem is this will clash starkly with many on the left who are committed to destroying all hierarchies in favor of homogenuous humanity of fairness and equal outcomes. In line with that they will most likely enforce organisation in a top down oligarchal or dictatorial manner, rather than it being a natural hierarchy.
The poor rating does not surprise me much of this book, despite its quality, as I think this is largely politically motivated, as he is on the left politically yet still willing to expose some of the dubious dogmas of the political left. The left does not like people who step out of line with their almost religious dogmas, but this book goes against this dumb polarisation, which made it a refreshing read.
October 17, 2014
Tends to ramble and is repetitive, harping on the same few points, especially towards the end. The book is a mishmash of themes Lovelock feels strongly about, such as the practice of science as a career, recounting the discovery of CFCs harming the ozone, how nuclear energy is perfectly safe and should be expanded everywhere etc. His pet peeve against wind farms also gets another airing. Unlike his previous more focused books on climate change, this one is a collection of thoughts that at many times appear rather random and poorly organized. Perhaps it's a sign of age that we find the venerable scientist rambling on and repeating himself.
This time round Lovelock seems less convinced than previously about the trajectory of climate change, with the disclaimer on hindsight that climate involves so many interacting complex systems (such as oceanic climate) that we are unable to make accurate long term predictions, much less try to stop it, whether through sustainable development practices or geoengineering. Instead, he proposes that we all move to compact, dense cities that are climatically sealed from the outside world in order to survive the tougher climate. Unfortunately, I am afraid packing people more tightly together does not reduce our collective ecological footprint. Cities import energy and resources from the countryside, putting out waste in exchange. How we would manage to continue our lives inside urban centers while simultaneously reducing the carrying capacity of the non-urban surface of the planet is beyond me. I am genuinely puzzled that a man of his intellect did not take basic ecological concepts into account.
Lovelock verges on science fiction (though he claims otherwise) in painting a picture of the deep future where new lifeforms more adapted to a hotter planet, perhaps a symbiosis of carbon and electronic life. It is the intervening period that matters, in my opinion. We face a crisis of limits in this century, and merely hoping that some of us survive to allow Gaia to evolve to her next stage is nothing more than a mere intellectual exercise, offering no guidance unfortunately.
This time round Lovelock seems less convinced than previously about the trajectory of climate change, with the disclaimer on hindsight that climate involves so many interacting complex systems (such as oceanic climate) that we are unable to make accurate long term predictions, much less try to stop it, whether through sustainable development practices or geoengineering. Instead, he proposes that we all move to compact, dense cities that are climatically sealed from the outside world in order to survive the tougher climate. Unfortunately, I am afraid packing people more tightly together does not reduce our collective ecological footprint. Cities import energy and resources from the countryside, putting out waste in exchange. How we would manage to continue our lives inside urban centers while simultaneously reducing the carrying capacity of the non-urban surface of the planet is beyond me. I am genuinely puzzled that a man of his intellect did not take basic ecological concepts into account.
Lovelock verges on science fiction (though he claims otherwise) in painting a picture of the deep future where new lifeforms more adapted to a hotter planet, perhaps a symbiosis of carbon and electronic life. It is the intervening period that matters, in my opinion. We face a crisis of limits in this century, and merely hoping that some of us survive to allow Gaia to evolve to her next stage is nothing more than a mere intellectual exercise, offering no guidance unfortunately.
June 24, 2017
I was prompted to read A Rough Ride to the Future after being pulled up on Facebook by a well-known popular science writer. The topic in question was nuclear power (which I strongly support), in which I described James Lovelock as ‘an embarrassing ally, with all that Gaia stuff of his’. The science writer correctly suspected that I had only read about the ‘Gaia stuff’ second- or third-hand, and assured me that what Lovelock says is quite different from the ‘hippy dippy version’ popularly portrayed.
With the exception of the Gaia stuff, from what I'd heard of Lovelock, he always sounded like a very interesting and intelligent man, who is clearly on message about nuclear power. He is also a strong advocate of scientists' working across disciplines—which has to be a good thing. So I thought I should, perhaps, give his latest book a chance.
Reading A Rough Ride to the Future confirmed much of what I already thought I knew about Lovelock. He is, indeed, an extremely interesting and intelligent man, who has a knack for looking at problems in a different way to other people. As you read his words, he seems to say plenty of things you already know—or thought you knew—but he expresses them from a totally different perspective. Seeing familiar concepts described from a different perspective can be very useful, but it does sometimes make reading Lovelock difficult, as you try to translate his words back into your own world-view, to check whether what he's saying makes any sort of sense.
There's a lot of food for thought in this book. A Rough Ride to the Future did genuinely make me re-consider my own position on some important issues, especially with respect to global warming. One key point I took from the book—although I don't know if it's true—is that most people modelling climate-change aren't adequately taking into account the influence of living organisms on climate. More surprisingly, perhaps, Lovelock also claims that the complexities of what's going on in the world's oceans aren't being modelled in anything like the detail of those going on in the atmosphere. If Lovelock is right about this—I suspect he might be right, but somewhat overstating his case—then clearly we have a problem with climate-modelling that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
As for ‘that Gaia stuff’, Lovelock is as utterly infuriating as I expected. The idea of treating the whole of the planet as a single ‘living’ system is an interesting, and quite possibly very useful, metaphor. But Lovelock keeps referring to ‘Gaia’ as if the metaphor is literally true. (Yes, I appreciate that's what you're supposed to do with a metaphor, but he tends to take things way too far.) The index card I used as a bookmark was soon covered in exasperated scrawls. Here's a selection of my notes, to give a flavour of just how frustrating I sometimes found this book:
As you will gather, I found some of this book extremely exasperating. Lovelock himself explains most of my exasperation—although he prefers to think of it as confusion—on p.81:
I think Lovelock is plain misguided here: most people—including engineers and physicists—do not make the same subtle distinction as he does between the words ‘goal’ and ‘purpose’; and ‘purpose’ does not usually imply intelligent design—although it sometimes can. So, to treat the two words as if they have clear, albeit subtly different, meanings is to invite confusion. In other words, if Lovelock can see that there is clear confusion over the words he uses, why not use less confusing ones?
Even though, in the passage quoted above, Lovelock clearly seems to acknowledge that Gaia is a metaphor—it is the only time, as far as I could see, that he seems to acknowledge it in this book—for much of the rest of the book, he treats the metaphor so literally, that it begins to sound like nonsense. That's no way to sell a metaphor to anyone.
But don't let this frustrated, exasperated rant put you off. I did genuinely enjoy A Rough Ride to the Future. It gave me plenty to think about, as well as some new perspectives on matters I have already thought about. Bear with it, and you will probably, like me, get a lot out of it—especially if you can stop your eyes glazing over, and your brain reeling, whenever Lovelock starts harping on about ‘all that Gaia stuff of his’.
With the exception of the Gaia stuff, from what I'd heard of Lovelock, he always sounded like a very interesting and intelligent man, who is clearly on message about nuclear power. He is also a strong advocate of scientists' working across disciplines—which has to be a good thing. So I thought I should, perhaps, give his latest book a chance.
Reading A Rough Ride to the Future confirmed much of what I already thought I knew about Lovelock. He is, indeed, an extremely interesting and intelligent man, who has a knack for looking at problems in a different way to other people. As you read his words, he seems to say plenty of things you already know—or thought you knew—but he expresses them from a totally different perspective. Seeing familiar concepts described from a different perspective can be very useful, but it does sometimes make reading Lovelock difficult, as you try to translate his words back into your own world-view, to check whether what he's saying makes any sort of sense.
There's a lot of food for thought in this book. A Rough Ride to the Future did genuinely make me re-consider my own position on some important issues, especially with respect to global warming. One key point I took from the book—although I don't know if it's true—is that most people modelling climate-change aren't adequately taking into account the influence of living organisms on climate. More surprisingly, perhaps, Lovelock also claims that the complexities of what's going on in the world's oceans aren't being modelled in anything like the detail of those going on in the atmosphere. If Lovelock is right about this—I suspect he might be right, but somewhat overstating his case—then clearly we have a problem with climate-modelling that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
As for ‘that Gaia stuff’, Lovelock is as utterly infuriating as I expected. The idea of treating the whole of the planet as a single ‘living’ system is an interesting, and quite possibly very useful, metaphor. But Lovelock keeps referring to ‘Gaia’ as if the metaphor is literally true. (Yes, I appreciate that's what you're supposed to do with a metaphor, but he tends to take things way too far.) The index card I used as a bookmark was soon covered in exasperated scrawls. Here's a selection of my notes, to give a flavour of just how frustrating I sometimes found this book:
• p.12 “… if Gaia's goal is to keep the Earth habitable”—no, it bloody isn't!
• p.34 Plays the Galileo/lone-genius card.
• p.43 Uses the word ‘evolution’ to apply to Earth as a whole—damn confusing!
• p.43 Use of word ‘for’ in 2nd sentence implies purpose (wrongly).
• p.53 (bottom) uses language of intent again—very confusing!
• p.61 “The idea that I am trying to launch here is: the appearance of new species naturally [… is a response] to need.”—RUBBISH! This is the language of Lamarck!
• p.97 “If Gaia exists”—what is this supposed to mean? [i.e. How can a metaphor ‘exist’?]
• p.149 “[fossil fuel] is part of Gaia's self-regulation.”—Bollocks! It might be regulating, but it's not self-regulation.
As you will gather, I found some of this book extremely exasperating. Lovelock himself explains most of my exasperation—although he prefers to think of it as confusion—on p.81:
Some of the difficulties in accepting Gaia come from confusion over my use of the word ‘goal’. Engineers and most physicists use the word, or its synonym ‘aim’, openly and without embarrassment [aside: I'm not sure if they do] when describing a dynamic system that self-regulates and sustains a constant state, and strongly resists perturbation from that state. […] Both spinning tops and Gaia are dynamic systems; the top's goal is to spin on its axis of rotation; Gaia's goal is to maintain a habitable environment for whatever is its biosphere.
The semantic problem arises because the definitions of ‘goal’ and ‘purpose’ overlap. Purpose usually implies conscious action, intelligently designed. But goal can be an engineering or systems science metaphor [my emphasis], and is only concerned with reaching the stable state of a dynamic system, not with an explanation of how the state was reached.
I think Lovelock is plain misguided here: most people—including engineers and physicists—do not make the same subtle distinction as he does between the words ‘goal’ and ‘purpose’; and ‘purpose’ does not usually imply intelligent design—although it sometimes can. So, to treat the two words as if they have clear, albeit subtly different, meanings is to invite confusion. In other words, if Lovelock can see that there is clear confusion over the words he uses, why not use less confusing ones?
Even though, in the passage quoted above, Lovelock clearly seems to acknowledge that Gaia is a metaphor—it is the only time, as far as I could see, that he seems to acknowledge it in this book—for much of the rest of the book, he treats the metaphor so literally, that it begins to sound like nonsense. That's no way to sell a metaphor to anyone.
But don't let this frustrated, exasperated rant put you off. I did genuinely enjoy A Rough Ride to the Future. It gave me plenty to think about, as well as some new perspectives on matters I have already thought about. Bear with it, and you will probably, like me, get a lot out of it—especially if you can stop your eyes glazing over, and your brain reeling, whenever Lovelock starts harping on about ‘all that Gaia stuff of his’.
November 26, 2014
James has got to the age now when he can say "Well, I warned you - it's up to you how you want it to turn out". He laments the passing of the time when a scientist could work alone and have his or her results published. He says that evolution has been accelerated dramatically since humans learned to get energy from fossil fuels, and that the future may mean that we have to replace carbon-based intelligence with silicon-based intelligence, and that would be the logical way forward. For Gaia does not particularly care for humans. Towards the end, he seems to repeat himself. Anyway, a fearless commentator who has contributed much to science over the course of his long life.
December 10, 2016
Totally thought provoking book. I like it because Lovelock makes me think about my pre-conceived views of our rapidly arriving future in new ways. Lovelock clearly recognizes that we have entered the Anthropocene. and even gives a precise date when it started. He gives some new ideas how we can reconcile our rapid technological changes and demands for energy with planetary limits. I like his concept as cities becoming hives.
July 27, 2018
I loved the original Gaia book. So, seemingly, did James Lovelock – I wish I had a pound for every time he uses the word ‘Gaia’ in this short follow-up work.
I have to give him credit for his fluent prose. It took me a while to register that he didn’t have much to say beyond an understandable affection for Gaia, and that this book amounts to little more than odd ramblings about how flawed the scientific/academic establishment is, followed by a view that the approach to saving the planet is still wrong.
By the end he verges on the zany, calmly contemplating the possibility of homo sapiens’ semi-extinction; and simultaneously, the idea that we might all have become bionic creatures by that stage. But funnily enough, it strikes me that there is a possible grain of truth in what he says, and if he fails to convince it is because he is, after all, well into his nineties. If I can write that well in my eighties I shall be overwhelmingly proud of myself.
He doesn’t really develop the idea in any depth, and that allows the reader to scoff. But it strikes me that it is an argument worth exploring anyway: homo sapiens has evolved constantly since the very beginning and it is indeed a failing of the climate change lobby to assume that s/he has reached a perfect state and will not evolve further. It’s true that, in the macro sense, we are in trouble: as the planet warms up it is increasingly unlikely that 9 billion + of us can survive in comfort. But in evolutionary terms, cold and pitiless as they naturally are, it matters not one jot of, say, five billion of those individuals should die out, in the interests of reaching the next evolutionary stage. All those capable of thriving at higher temperatures would be OK, eskimos need not apply, so to speak. And a spin-off part of this evolution, he burbles in passing, is that we are all already beginning to enhance our bodies with non-organic devices, ranging from fillings in our teeth to knee joints to pacemakers to computer-driven limbs. Maybe this too will produce innovations enabling us to cope better with climate change: built-in air-conditioning, or whatever.
Though I say so myself, my preceding paragraph could even claim to be more convincing and cogent than James Lovelock’s text. But he still deserves the credit for inspiring the thought: it isn’t entirely clear, but I think that is what he was driving at!
I have to give him credit for his fluent prose. It took me a while to register that he didn’t have much to say beyond an understandable affection for Gaia, and that this book amounts to little more than odd ramblings about how flawed the scientific/academic establishment is, followed by a view that the approach to saving the planet is still wrong.
By the end he verges on the zany, calmly contemplating the possibility of homo sapiens’ semi-extinction; and simultaneously, the idea that we might all have become bionic creatures by that stage. But funnily enough, it strikes me that there is a possible grain of truth in what he says, and if he fails to convince it is because he is, after all, well into his nineties. If I can write that well in my eighties I shall be overwhelmingly proud of myself.
He doesn’t really develop the idea in any depth, and that allows the reader to scoff. But it strikes me that it is an argument worth exploring anyway: homo sapiens has evolved constantly since the very beginning and it is indeed a failing of the climate change lobby to assume that s/he has reached a perfect state and will not evolve further. It’s true that, in the macro sense, we are in trouble: as the planet warms up it is increasingly unlikely that 9 billion + of us can survive in comfort. But in evolutionary terms, cold and pitiless as they naturally are, it matters not one jot of, say, five billion of those individuals should die out, in the interests of reaching the next evolutionary stage. All those capable of thriving at higher temperatures would be OK, eskimos need not apply, so to speak. And a spin-off part of this evolution, he burbles in passing, is that we are all already beginning to enhance our bodies with non-organic devices, ranging from fillings in our teeth to knee joints to pacemakers to computer-driven limbs. Maybe this too will produce innovations enabling us to cope better with climate change: built-in air-conditioning, or whatever.
Though I say so myself, my preceding paragraph could even claim to be more convincing and cogent than James Lovelock’s text. But he still deserves the credit for inspiring the thought: it isn’t entirely clear, but I think that is what he was driving at!
December 26, 2025
The late author was a great thinker and a scientist. However, this book written in 2014, has been overtaken by events and some of the conjectures in it have not held true. The author knew this as he reviewed more up to date data. He was concerned that climate models did not take the mechanics of the oceans into account and that was why, as of 2014, global warming was below predictions. Since then the models have improved and the temperature data show agreement with the more dire predictions. One point that holds up well is that the challenge of climate change should be addressed not only by the adoption of carbon neutral technologies but also by mitigation projects such as flood barriers. The latter has not been funded nearly as well as the carbon neutral technologies.
December 7, 2019
I think this an essential book to read on the climate debate for both deniers and believers. However, I don't believe in Gaia--yet. My concern is that his ideas will be misappropriated when he's not around to explain or defend them.
"Now that my body carries the means of a two-way connection, I must admit and empathetic dread for some unfortunate future person who is body becomes connected to one or more of the ubiquitous social networks. I suffer with that future person and can’t imagine no punishment more severe than having my still comparatively clear mind overtaken by the spam of hucksters in the never ceasing gossip of the Internet."
"Now that my body carries the means of a two-way connection, I must admit and empathetic dread for some unfortunate future person who is body becomes connected to one or more of the ubiquitous social networks. I suffer with that future person and can’t imagine no punishment more severe than having my still comparatively clear mind overtaken by the spam of hucksters in the never ceasing gossip of the Internet."
November 25, 2018
Não há ano que não se passe que não se ouça a expressão "nós não somos nada" para embalar esse passar. Morre alguém, assoma-se uma tragédia, e fazemos questão de lembrar, uns com intenção verdadeira, outros só pelo ritmo das palavras, a fragilidade da condição humana.
Aos 95 anos, o cientista James Lovelock, em jeito de despedida faz do antropoceno uma batalha perdida, em que há que aproveitar o que resta enquanto durar. O impacto da condição tecnológica na atmosfera exigiria uma adaptação radical às novas condições de sobrevivência de Gaia.
Tal como a morte do indivíduo que surge lentamente pela velhice ou de um momento para o outro, fruto de doença ou acidente, também o fim da humanidade como espécie espera o seu fim. E só há duas opções: a morte súbita, com sucedeu com os dinossauros, ou a morte evolutiva. Nesta, a terra pode muito bem reagir ao nosso impacto nela, tornando as condições de vida insustentáveis para nós, dispensando-nos.
Sair de cena tem assim toda a aparência de um bumpy ride.
Aos 95 anos, o cientista James Lovelock, em jeito de despedida faz do antropoceno uma batalha perdida, em que há que aproveitar o que resta enquanto durar. O impacto da condição tecnológica na atmosfera exigiria uma adaptação radical às novas condições de sobrevivência de Gaia.
Tal como a morte do indivíduo que surge lentamente pela velhice ou de um momento para o outro, fruto de doença ou acidente, também o fim da humanidade como espécie espera o seu fim. E só há duas opções: a morte súbita, com sucedeu com os dinossauros, ou a morte evolutiva. Nesta, a terra pode muito bem reagir ao nosso impacto nela, tornando as condições de vida insustentáveis para nós, dispensando-nos.
Sair de cena tem assim toda a aparência de um bumpy ride.
May 1, 2022
An interesting contrarian view from someone who's clearly acquired a lot of knowledge over their lifetime, but frequently unstructured, full of emotional tangents and a dash of ego.
Fortunately, a short read! :) And I did learn a thing or two, and ponder a few ideas.
Fortunately, a short read! :) And I did learn a thing or two, and ponder a few ideas.
December 15, 2018
I've attempted to review this book, but the plain fact is that I'm really very conflicted about it. Thus I'll leave it unreviewed until such time as I'm clearer in my own mind about what I think.
June 24, 2020
Superbly informative and very well written. Easily understood by laymen such as myself. Thought provoking. It was an exciting read.
Want to read
August 24, 2025reviewNone
July 11, 2021
When Lovelock describes how he believes we should meet the challenges of climate change are completely disconnected from any understanding of public policy, equity, or how any of his ideas might be enacted. There's little serious engagement with how implementing any of his ideas might affect life for anyone.
This book also reads like a first draft. Wild claims will be mentioned in passing, points that he says are essential to his worldview are hinted at, but never followed up on. There are also a lot of weird tangents that an editor needed to cut. My prize for the best one was when he congratulated himself for growing up without safety regulations. He shocked himself with a radio in the bath and accidentally ate nightshade, but that didn't stop him from thriving.
This book also reads like a first draft. Wild claims will be mentioned in passing, points that he says are essential to his worldview are hinted at, but never followed up on. There are also a lot of weird tangents that an editor needed to cut. My prize for the best one was when he congratulated himself for growing up without safety regulations. He shocked himself with a radio in the bath and accidentally ate nightshade, but that didn't stop him from thriving.
May 17, 2015
At 95, Lovelock, having been retired from most of his consultancy work because "you can't trust a 95 year old with sensitive information", has time to occupy himself with writing.
A scientist turned author, speculating our farthest future, cannot avoid moving into the world of science fiction, and there's plenty of it here. He is sanguine about the continuation of the human race in half a billion years time, albeit with assistance from electronic symbioses, bionics, and radically decreased numbers, living in strategically placed, environmentally controlled cities, somewhat like vast shopping malls, protecting humans from the harsh climate. However, in other moments of speculation, he imagines perhaps a little tropic where once was a temperate zone.
I found the book repetitive on the whole, and unnecessarily so as unlike his previous books dealing with his hypothesis of the Earth system, Gaia, and the threat of climate change, there is no message or fresh scientific fact to impart, mostly just a scientist's speculation. With his underlying optimism and good humour, it's more ramble than rough ride. Tellingly there's a sort of apology for this in the acknowledgments where he thanks his editor "without whose skilled editing my book would be like a jigsaw puzzle waiting to have its separate pieces joined"
I will recommend reading Lovelock, if you're in any way interested in science, Earth systems and climate change, and who wouldn't be?, but I wouldn't recommend starting with this. Not knowing anything about him or his work, I can't see how you would come away with a good and fair impression. This, I think, should be seen as a curiosity for his fans and future biographers. The Gaia books are much more impressive and powerful.
Despite this overall opinion, I did enjoy it in parts and one or two ideas are extremely thought provoking. And I like Lovelock, so I'm allowing it three stars.
A scientist turned author, speculating our farthest future, cannot avoid moving into the world of science fiction, and there's plenty of it here. He is sanguine about the continuation of the human race in half a billion years time, albeit with assistance from electronic symbioses, bionics, and radically decreased numbers, living in strategically placed, environmentally controlled cities, somewhat like vast shopping malls, protecting humans from the harsh climate. However, in other moments of speculation, he imagines perhaps a little tropic where once was a temperate zone.
I found the book repetitive on the whole, and unnecessarily so as unlike his previous books dealing with his hypothesis of the Earth system, Gaia, and the threat of climate change, there is no message or fresh scientific fact to impart, mostly just a scientist's speculation. With his underlying optimism and good humour, it's more ramble than rough ride. Tellingly there's a sort of apology for this in the acknowledgments where he thanks his editor "without whose skilled editing my book would be like a jigsaw puzzle waiting to have its separate pieces joined"
I will recommend reading Lovelock, if you're in any way interested in science, Earth systems and climate change, and who wouldn't be?, but I wouldn't recommend starting with this. Not knowing anything about him or his work, I can't see how you would come away with a good and fair impression. This, I think, should be seen as a curiosity for his fans and future biographers. The Gaia books are much more impressive and powerful.
Despite this overall opinion, I did enjoy it in parts and one or two ideas are extremely thought provoking. And I like Lovelock, so I'm allowing it three stars.
April 21, 2015
Lovelock lays out our future in his own terms using facts and figures to follow one direction in which Gaia might possibly travel.
Gaia as you may recall, is the totality of the Earth's biosphere, which he suggests has a form of intelligence that allows it to self regulate the planet. He also suggests that we humans are the final piece that will allow it to become self-aware.
He indicates (in this book) that we should now leave the planet to its own devices (because our efforts are too late, and too pitiful to do very much), and we should now concern ourselves with living in controlled environments. This reminds me of concepts to be found in many Sci-fi books.
Lovelock thinks that our planet will reach another stable equilibrium, which may be too hot and thus no longer suitable for carbon based lifeforms, hence the need for domes, and other controlled spaces.
Towards the rear of the book, further ahead in time, he suggests that our carbon based lifeforms will have it rough long before the red giant the sun will become, will engulf us. He suggests several versions of life as it might evolve, mostly electronic or cybernetic.
He also hints that Gaia will choose to evolve such lifeforms because our present wet carbon based neural systems are not fast enough to cope with the ever increasing rate of change.
An interesting book on the whole, but I'm not entirely sure that his predictions are right. Rarely does the future turn out the way we expect, though of course, anything is possible.
Gaia as you may recall, is the totality of the Earth's biosphere, which he suggests has a form of intelligence that allows it to self regulate the planet. He also suggests that we humans are the final piece that will allow it to become self-aware.
He indicates (in this book) that we should now leave the planet to its own devices (because our efforts are too late, and too pitiful to do very much), and we should now concern ourselves with living in controlled environments. This reminds me of concepts to be found in many Sci-fi books.
Lovelock thinks that our planet will reach another stable equilibrium, which may be too hot and thus no longer suitable for carbon based lifeforms, hence the need for domes, and other controlled spaces.
Towards the rear of the book, further ahead in time, he suggests that our carbon based lifeforms will have it rough long before the red giant the sun will become, will engulf us. He suggests several versions of life as it might evolve, mostly electronic or cybernetic.
He also hints that Gaia will choose to evolve such lifeforms because our present wet carbon based neural systems are not fast enough to cope with the ever increasing rate of change.
An interesting book on the whole, but I'm not entirely sure that his predictions are right. Rarely does the future turn out the way we expect, though of course, anything is possible.
June 1, 2015
As a lifelong fan and supporter of this exceptional man and scientist, I've read all of Lovelock's books, so I feel I can put this one into some sort of perspective. It contains the usual quotient of interesting, possibly even world-changing ideas, but they are sparsely distributed among the pages. Too much time is spent speculating about things the author isn't really qualified to speak about. That's not to say he shouldn't - we're all human beings, and we're all qualified in some way to speak about our world. The SF and future speculations here though are naive and not convincing. The environmental/Earth/planetary science elements however are up to Lovelock's usual extraordinary standard. I don't think this book will stand the test of time in the way that Gaia, Homage To Gaia and Medicine For An Ailing Planet will. Well worth a read though, as are all his books.
June 12, 2019
Sometimes it's helpful to get a completely different point of view. James Lovelock talks climate change and looks at the problems of the tribally-driven believer/non-believer dialogue. He proposes some unconventional solutions for dealing with the results of climate change and overpopulation.
May 8, 2016
Feels a bit like he's writing in his diary rather than presenting an argument. It's a pity that I couldn't get hold of his previous books, that, according to the reviews, are significantly better crafted.
September 3, 2015
Thought provoking, Lovelock never looks for the easy answer.
July 8, 2015
Top notch brain activity. Lovelock clearly knows what he's talking about and explains, very clearly, why many of us clearly do not. And as it turns out, we're not completely buggered, probably.
September 10, 2015
Mostly interesting analysis, despite some strawman arguments and bad/crackpot ideas thrown into the mix. However, it is just so rambling in style that it becomes boring to read.
October 3, 2015
A reiteration, really, of Lovelock's main arguments. Well explained as ever, but somehow less exciting and less insightful than some of his others - not my favourite Lovelock work.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews