What do you think?
Rate this book
Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff
Modernity is not the cause of our ecological woes. Only through a deepening of our modernity can we save the planet.
306 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 30, 2015
47 people are currently reading
824 people want to read
About the author
Leigh Phillips
8 books53 followersLeigh Phillips is a science writer and European Union affairs journalist. Writing for Nature, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the New Statesman, Jacobin, Scientific American, amongst other outlets, he has visited appallingly ill-equipped Siberian tuberculosis hospices, interviewed Mexican nanotechnology researchers bombed by eco-terrorists, tricked into eating whale meat by Norwegian diplomats in the high Arctic, followed Hungarian fascists on a torch-lit march threatening a gypsy village, and been tear-gassed and punched in the face by Italian Carabinieri. A long-time Brussels-based reporter, he also spent a decade exposing corporate capture of EU law-making and its accompanying hollowing out of democracy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
February 22, 2017
I agree with the premise of this book. Austerity ecology isn't helping anyone. some people can have an entirely white, liberal, Western bias when they talk about solutions to the earth's problems. But this book? It is a massive straw man... a parody or a caricature of what environmentalists believe. With no sense that he is essentially taking the equivalent of a message board troll, his examples he seeks to disprove are Derrick Jensen and Naomi Klein. This is not difficult. Environmentalists, as a whole, are not arguing that poor people are consuming too much. They are suggesting that middle class Westerners consume more than they need, and we can Iearn to live more modestly...no sacrifice of "progress", however defined, required. And this denies nothing to the world's poor. To claim they want poor people to suffer is a sad tactic that the author fails to back with evidence. It would be like a book arguing that atheists are evil because...Hitler. I was really looking for evidence in favour of the cornucopian view, but the book simply fails to deliver any evidence at all. This book is a rant, and despite the reasonableness of its thesis, it fails to prove it.
November 9, 2015
It is good to see the deep Greens get taken to task by someone of the left for a change. It is about time environmental issues were taken out of the hands of the smug middle and upper classes for a change.
November 12, 2015
Was tossing up whether to give this book 2 or 3 stars, but I landed on three.
Lots of really good and challenging ideas in this book. I just wish Leigh wrote them in a better way. At times it comes across as very lecturing and arrogant, but then followed up with an apology (I don't want to criticise the people who I've just spent ten pages tearing to shreds). It just could have been a little less righteous and a little more conciliatory.
More importantly though I think Leigh's own philosophy seems confused. He talks about being a left socialist (yay!), but never describes what that actually means for him. This is particularly ironic as one point he criticises Naomi Klein for not defining capitalism in her book (a good criticism), but at the same time never does so in his own work. In doing so we're left with demands that we fight for 'democracy' without any real description of what that means. I think the book would have been much stronger with a little bit more of that work.
Despite this there were some really good and challenging ideas in this work. I think Leigh presents some stuff, particularly around growth and technology, that many in the left needs to hear. Also really easily written, making it a joy to read.
Lots of really good and challenging ideas in this book. I just wish Leigh wrote them in a better way. At times it comes across as very lecturing and arrogant, but then followed up with an apology (I don't want to criticise the people who I've just spent ten pages tearing to shreds). It just could have been a little less righteous and a little more conciliatory.
More importantly though I think Leigh's own philosophy seems confused. He talks about being a left socialist (yay!), but never describes what that actually means for him. This is particularly ironic as one point he criticises Naomi Klein for not defining capitalism in her book (a good criticism), but at the same time never does so in his own work. In doing so we're left with demands that we fight for 'democracy' without any real description of what that means. I think the book would have been much stronger with a little bit more of that work.
Despite this there were some really good and challenging ideas in this work. I think Leigh presents some stuff, particularly around growth and technology, that many in the left needs to hear. Also really easily written, making it a joy to read.
January 17, 2022
Evidently, Leigh Phillips wrote a 300-page takedown of degrowth without ever having spoken to one of its intelligible advocates. He awkwardly assumes that societal advancement must intensify individual consumption, which leads to arguments like “the steady-state economy must by definition refuse most technological advance, and even most new knowledge as well.” (Under Phillips’s definition of technological advance, public transportation and other shared services clearly don’t count.) Several pages later, in an attempt to universalize ecological conquest, Phillips deftly implies that indigenous resource management practices were comparable to the devastating practices wrought by European imperialists. Regrettably, Phillips invokes a rejection of the “Ecological Indian” trope to make this point—the worst of many bad moments in this book.
I nearly lost my ability to continue in Chapter Four, where Phillips argues that ecological balance is an empty concept because species extinctions occur in the absence of humans, too. With astonishing confidence and a “gotcha” attitude, he rides this wave all the way to a refutation of Evo Morales and the Bolivian Constitution.
From this point forward, the book began to improve. There were two critiques that I found especially valuable: First, Phillips's climate rebuttal of "localist" food, labor, and consumer movements, which he argues "fit within and contribute to a broader mood of abandonment of the possibility of any type of post-capitalist society." There is a strong argument that progressive movements focus too much of a critique on scale (e.g., corporation vs. small business) and not enough on the relations of production. Second, Phillips's criticism of "expert" consensus-based (i.e., post-democratic) governance, which he argues are actually less capable of catalyzing the transformative changes needed to halt the climate crisis than democracy. Instead, Phillips calls for "genuine transnational democracy [which] means an abandonment of polite but undemocratic stakeholder negotiations between bureaucrats, diplomats, and their experts, and the welcome return of robust ideological antagonism" to tackle 21st century global crises.
I tried with this book, and I was legitimately excited to engage with a purportedly “progressive” rebuttal to degrowth. Overall, I'm disappointed. Occasionally, Phillips does offer interesting and important views, but they are far outweighed by narrow-minded—and at times, flat out ignorant—"hot takes."
I nearly lost my ability to continue in Chapter Four, where Phillips argues that ecological balance is an empty concept because species extinctions occur in the absence of humans, too. With astonishing confidence and a “gotcha” attitude, he rides this wave all the way to a refutation of Evo Morales and the Bolivian Constitution.
From this point forward, the book began to improve. There were two critiques that I found especially valuable: First, Phillips's climate rebuttal of "localist" food, labor, and consumer movements, which he argues "fit within and contribute to a broader mood of abandonment of the possibility of any type of post-capitalist society." There is a strong argument that progressive movements focus too much of a critique on scale (e.g., corporation vs. small business) and not enough on the relations of production. Second, Phillips's criticism of "expert" consensus-based (i.e., post-democratic) governance, which he argues are actually less capable of catalyzing the transformative changes needed to halt the climate crisis than democracy. Instead, Phillips calls for "genuine transnational democracy [which] means an abandonment of polite but undemocratic stakeholder negotiations between bureaucrats, diplomats, and their experts, and the welcome return of robust ideological antagonism" to tackle 21st century global crises.
I tried with this book, and I was legitimately excited to engage with a purportedly “progressive” rebuttal to degrowth. Overall, I'm disappointed. Occasionally, Phillips does offer interesting and important views, but they are far outweighed by narrow-minded—and at times, flat out ignorant—"hot takes."
March 17, 2016
While I agree with the premise and dearly wanted a crisp presentation of his position, the author could not deliver. His writing is so insufferable it detracts the efforts of those making the same proposal.
The word selection, the abuse of adjectives, and the sentence structure make the author sound like the twin brother of that comic store character in the Simpsons.
98% of this book is not relevant and can be skipped. I skipped to the end when the author wrote, "...any bounded lump of anything can be divided infinitely, even while being finite." The statement is philosophically true, but its use was particularly slimy given the context of the argument. It was the final straw, of many tons of hay, that made me decide to close this book forever.
The word selection, the abuse of adjectives, and the sentence structure make the author sound like the twin brother of that comic store character in the Simpsons.
98% of this book is not relevant and can be skipped. I skipped to the end when the author wrote, "...any bounded lump of anything can be divided infinitely, even while being finite." The statement is philosophically true, but its use was particularly slimy given the context of the argument. It was the final straw, of many tons of hay, that made me decide to close this book forever.
September 27, 2019
Maybe one of the most important leftist books I've read in recent times. Leigh Phillips provides a critique of the Eco-primitivist or degrowth movement which has infected much of the left environmentalist movement. This is coupled with a distrust of science and the enlightenment which is strangely conservative and goes against what the left is really supposed to be fighting for.
Phillips instead proposes the Marxist position of continued human progress and economic growth through our developed science and technology to combat our current climate change problems. He makes a strong case there really is no reason in saving the environment unless it is done so to increase the standards of living for all humans. This humanist approach not only is attractive, but it remains true to the Marxist historical materialist view of progress. Ultimately, I do want to see the end of capitalism, but I want it to be an advanced capitalism where my living standards are higher and my work requirements are lower. Hell, let's be honest, I want to eventually achieve fully automated luxury communism. I see no reason to shortchange that as our goal.
Phillips instead proposes the Marxist position of continued human progress and economic growth through our developed science and technology to combat our current climate change problems. He makes a strong case there really is no reason in saving the environment unless it is done so to increase the standards of living for all humans. This humanist approach not only is attractive, but it remains true to the Marxist historical materialist view of progress. Ultimately, I do want to see the end of capitalism, but I want it to be an advanced capitalism where my living standards are higher and my work requirements are lower. Hell, let's be honest, I want to eventually achieve fully automated luxury communism. I see no reason to shortchange that as our goal.
March 16, 2016
"The Planet is Fine. The People are F--ked" George Carlin
"Between techno-utopianism and neo-luddism there is Promethean optimism that recognises that while at each stage of our history, as a result of our solving past problems, new problems are created, we then must work--and often work very hard indeed--to overcome them" Leigh Phillips
The book is a defense of industrial civilization, scientific and technological progress, and economic growth--although more inspiring than substantial in many sections, and sometimes contradictory. (Statements like "We need to embrace once again continent-transforming projects like those of Lenin and Roosevelt" and "[We should make distinction] between democratic planning [...] and authoritarian planning, as in case of USSR or Walmart" cohabitate freely in the book).
"Between techno-utopianism and neo-luddism there is Promethean optimism that recognises that while at each stage of our history, as a result of our solving past problems, new problems are created, we then must work--and often work very hard indeed--to overcome them" Leigh Phillips
The book is a defense of industrial civilization, scientific and technological progress, and economic growth--although more inspiring than substantial in many sections, and sometimes contradictory. (Statements like "We need to embrace once again continent-transforming projects like those of Lenin and Roosevelt" and "[We should make distinction] between democratic planning [...] and authoritarian planning, as in case of USSR or Walmart" cohabitate freely in the book).
November 29, 2015
A huge relief from the ongoing eco-doom narratives that are paralyzing so many people. This book is a funny, yet well-sourced and well-supported, antidote to the messages of bleakness and doom that permeate the environmental movement. It show us how growth and technology (wisely used) can help us to manage our resources. And how certain misconceptions and misdirections of the enviro thought leaders are resulting in unhelpful trajectories.
March 12, 2019
Written in a really shitty and snarky tone, it is nonetheless an extremely useful guide to thinking about which ideas are useful to the left in the 21st century. I just wish it had gone a little farther in counterproposing a new ecosocialist narrative.
B
B
February 4, 2023
In dit boek brengt Leigh Phillips een pleidooi voor economische groei, moderniteit en technologie vanuit een progressief, socialistisch en ecologistisch standpunt. Hij bewijst hiermee dat een vooruitgangsoptimist niet per se een libertair of liberaal (genre Steven Pinker) moet zijn, of anders gezegd, dat ecomodernisme en socialisme samen kunnen gaan.
Soms komt een boek wanneer je het echt het meest nodig hebt. Toen ik daar zat in mijn kot in Nijmegen (van een schamele dertien vierkante meters, met een keuken waar je niet meer dan drie plankjes opbergruimte krijgt, met een wasmachien die met vijftien anderen te delen valt, ...) en ik aan dit boek begon, was er geen haar op mijn hoofd dat dacht aan 'consuminderen', 'minimalisme' of ander 'groen' moralistisch lifestylend gezwets waar Phillips in dit boek even hilarisch als genadeloos afrekent. Neen, dacht ik, geef mij meer! En meer is wat we volgens Phillips nodig hebben. Meer technologie, meer vooruitgang, meer ... spullen. Maar, en dit is cruciaal, dit alles moet democratisch beheerd en verdeeld worden (lees: via een sterke overheid, planning, de publieke sector), zodat de samenleving niet alleen voor de (super)rijken vrijer en gelukkiger wordt.
Phillips' kritiek op degrowth vond ik nog het sterkste aspect aan dit boek. Die kritiek komt vooral aan bod in de eerste hoofdstukken van het boek. Ik geef Phillips ook volledig gelijk dat hij vindt dat links minstens een stuk van dat blakende negentiende-eeuwse vooruitgangsoptimisme terug moet opgraven uit Het Communistisch Manifest en dit vervolgens nieuw leven inblazen. Met ecologische doemboodschappen overtuig je het proletariaat nu eenmaal niet.
De centrale claim van het boek is dat technologie op een sociaal rechtvaardige manier gebruikt moet worden, maar Phillips geeft volgens mij geen antwoord op de vraag waarom dit momenteel niet (of onvoldoende) gebeurt. Ook mist het boek psychologisch inzicht waardoor het niet inziet waarom kleinschalige landbouw en energievoorziening, anti-nuclear activisme en anti-GGO-activisme (zaken die Phillips fel bekritiseert) zoveel mensen aanspreken - zelfs al kloppen Phillips' kritieken op deze zaken. Zo'n inzicht is nochtans cruciaal voor wie de aanhangers van al die zaken wil overtuigen van een andere visie. Ten slotte had ik het gevoel dat Phillips' behandeling van filosofische technologiekritiek vooral op karikaturen en stromannen berustte, hij lijkt volgens mij te weinig de limieten van de rede te erkennen. Want ook in een perfect socialistische, hoogtechnologische wereld zou men op zoek moeten naar wat het leven zinvol maakt, en de rede alleen is daarbij onvoldoende. 'Fully automated luxury communism' is nu eenmaal wel leuk, maar maakt het leven nog niet de moeite waard (al is een rijkere, rechtvaardigere samenleving zeker ook gelukkiger).
Toch kan ik dit verfrissende, spetterend geschreven boek van harte aanraden aan iedereen die zich afvraagt hoe we moeten omgaan met klimaatopwarming, groeiende ongelijkheid en andere sociale en ecologische problemen.
Soms komt een boek wanneer je het echt het meest nodig hebt. Toen ik daar zat in mijn kot in Nijmegen (van een schamele dertien vierkante meters, met een keuken waar je niet meer dan drie plankjes opbergruimte krijgt, met een wasmachien die met vijftien anderen te delen valt, ...) en ik aan dit boek begon, was er geen haar op mijn hoofd dat dacht aan 'consuminderen', 'minimalisme' of ander 'groen' moralistisch lifestylend gezwets waar Phillips in dit boek even hilarisch als genadeloos afrekent. Neen, dacht ik, geef mij meer! En meer is wat we volgens Phillips nodig hebben. Meer technologie, meer vooruitgang, meer ... spullen. Maar, en dit is cruciaal, dit alles moet democratisch beheerd en verdeeld worden (lees: via een sterke overheid, planning, de publieke sector), zodat de samenleving niet alleen voor de (super)rijken vrijer en gelukkiger wordt.
Phillips' kritiek op degrowth vond ik nog het sterkste aspect aan dit boek. Die kritiek komt vooral aan bod in de eerste hoofdstukken van het boek. Ik geef Phillips ook volledig gelijk dat hij vindt dat links minstens een stuk van dat blakende negentiende-eeuwse vooruitgangsoptimisme terug moet opgraven uit Het Communistisch Manifest en dit vervolgens nieuw leven inblazen. Met ecologische doemboodschappen overtuig je het proletariaat nu eenmaal niet.
De centrale claim van het boek is dat technologie op een sociaal rechtvaardige manier gebruikt moet worden, maar Phillips geeft volgens mij geen antwoord op de vraag waarom dit momenteel niet (of onvoldoende) gebeurt. Ook mist het boek psychologisch inzicht waardoor het niet inziet waarom kleinschalige landbouw en energievoorziening, anti-nuclear activisme en anti-GGO-activisme (zaken die Phillips fel bekritiseert) zoveel mensen aanspreken - zelfs al kloppen Phillips' kritieken op deze zaken. Zo'n inzicht is nochtans cruciaal voor wie de aanhangers van al die zaken wil overtuigen van een andere visie. Ten slotte had ik het gevoel dat Phillips' behandeling van filosofische technologiekritiek vooral op karikaturen en stromannen berustte, hij lijkt volgens mij te weinig de limieten van de rede te erkennen. Want ook in een perfect socialistische, hoogtechnologische wereld zou men op zoek moeten naar wat het leven zinvol maakt, en de rede alleen is daarbij onvoldoende. 'Fully automated luxury communism' is nu eenmaal wel leuk, maar maakt het leven nog niet de moeite waard (al is een rijkere, rechtvaardigere samenleving zeker ook gelukkiger).
Toch kan ik dit verfrissende, spetterend geschreven boek van harte aanraden aan iedereen die zich afvraagt hoe we moeten omgaan met klimaatopwarming, groeiende ongelijkheid en andere sociale en ecologische problemen.
March 1, 2017
Overall Phillips book is light, snappy and easy to read. He is one of those rare authors on the left that you can actually enjoy (so very rare today). He takes to task the gangrenous Luddites and neo-Malthusians the way they need to be dissected and then thoroughly refuted from the left quadrant. Using reality, logic and history he does a fairly good job of it. I compare this book with Zubrin’s The Merchants of Despair (Though I did prefer Zubrin's book to this one). His style is influenced by his having been a journalist for a long time, so the book reads more like an article in a left of center magazine. If you are curious as to what went wrong on the left since the early 1970’s, this book will give you the 411.
This is one of those much-needed works to counter the decay that the left has been going through for the last 50 years. Having caused the stoppage of the future by activism, they now denounce the future (secretly regretting it has been cancelled) and now wish to once again go back to the land as they did in their hippie youth. Nihilism, pessimism and all the rest was an ideological bioagent released by the left back then to stop the Wests ponderous growth since it was leaving the communist nations in the dust. The common front did their job too well and now in their dotage, suffering with ideological Alzheimer’s, they wonder what happened and wish to return to a golden time of their infancy. This is missed by Phillips with all of his hue and cry about the great slowdown of inventiveness in the West. He keeps himself parallel to this line of thought as contact with it would destroy what’s left of his belief system.
Deficits in the Book: Phillips does not leave the ideological plantation, for all of his attacks on the green left. The book is peppered with Marxian neologisms and his analysis of all economics is from that view point. Like many he has a totem fetish reactionary preoccupation against the all “evil” neoclassical economics. After the nth reiteration, it got very tedious. He throws in the old Marxian economic fetishism of value for use, surplus value, et al. It is as if he is not aware that Marxian Economics has been refuted constantly over the last 100 years. The labor theory of value is dead, it’s not coming back, and any branch from this dead tree planted by Adam Smith is also dead. It’s time “we” on the “left” moved on.
Also, he is a planner, plain in simple. He wants democratic planning, as if he is unaware that was what the USSR claimed to be doing all of those years (he seems entirely ignorant of the calculation and knowledge problems brought up by his enemy neoclassical economics). For all of his denouncements of the deep green left for wanting to take us back into a glorified golden past, Phillips lapses into the same soliloquy, only his past is the range from 1947 to 1972 in the US and the west. So, the same train to the past is the foundation and focus of his thought, only he gets off the train sooner than his analithic brethren. His analysis of this time period is also jaundiced and tweaked and he purposely ignores what most ideologically driven authors do, any statistics that cast doubt on the neo-left narrative.
All and all though it is a great read. If you are on the left do not pass it up. If you are on the right, conservative or libertarian I recommend the book The End Of Doom.
This is one of those much-needed works to counter the decay that the left has been going through for the last 50 years. Having caused the stoppage of the future by activism, they now denounce the future (secretly regretting it has been cancelled) and now wish to once again go back to the land as they did in their hippie youth. Nihilism, pessimism and all the rest was an ideological bioagent released by the left back then to stop the Wests ponderous growth since it was leaving the communist nations in the dust. The common front did their job too well and now in their dotage, suffering with ideological Alzheimer’s, they wonder what happened and wish to return to a golden time of their infancy. This is missed by Phillips with all of his hue and cry about the great slowdown of inventiveness in the West. He keeps himself parallel to this line of thought as contact with it would destroy what’s left of his belief system.
Deficits in the Book: Phillips does not leave the ideological plantation, for all of his attacks on the green left. The book is peppered with Marxian neologisms and his analysis of all economics is from that view point. Like many he has a totem fetish reactionary preoccupation against the all “evil” neoclassical economics. After the nth reiteration, it got very tedious. He throws in the old Marxian economic fetishism of value for use, surplus value, et al. It is as if he is not aware that Marxian Economics has been refuted constantly over the last 100 years. The labor theory of value is dead, it’s not coming back, and any branch from this dead tree planted by Adam Smith is also dead. It’s time “we” on the “left” moved on.
Also, he is a planner, plain in simple. He wants democratic planning, as if he is unaware that was what the USSR claimed to be doing all of those years (he seems entirely ignorant of the calculation and knowledge problems brought up by his enemy neoclassical economics). For all of his denouncements of the deep green left for wanting to take us back into a glorified golden past, Phillips lapses into the same soliloquy, only his past is the range from 1947 to 1972 in the US and the west. So, the same train to the past is the foundation and focus of his thought, only he gets off the train sooner than his analithic brethren. His analysis of this time period is also jaundiced and tweaked and he purposely ignores what most ideologically driven authors do, any statistics that cast doubt on the neo-left narrative.
All and all though it is a great read. If you are on the left do not pass it up. If you are on the right, conservative or libertarian I recommend the book The End Of Doom.
June 3, 2019
Curious pro status quo book, that takes various 'extremist' ideologies and then gives a status quo answer to them mostly on the grounds of bandwagon effect. In summary it seems to say yes climate change is real, but the only solution is nuclear power, that GMO's are good for the environment and that pollution is natural because we are all part of nature, so should just continue plundering Earths resources at a growing rate, and when we're done that should plunder the cosmos also.
Gotta say it is interesting to read a pro status quo book where someone swallows it all and says it tastes good, glyphosates, vaccines, coal and all.
My main takeaway was that need to avoid fear as a motivator and instead use love. The author was clearly frightened of extremists and is looking for compassionate solutions which is admirable.
Gotta say it is interesting to read a pro status quo book where someone swallows it all and says it tastes good, glyphosates, vaccines, coal and all.
My main takeaway was that need to avoid fear as a motivator and instead use love. The author was clearly frightened of extremists and is looking for compassionate solutions which is admirable.
May 25, 2016
I really liked the premise that scientific advancement, technology, energy use, manufacturing, population growth, etc. are all good things and should be embraced by progressives. I like the idea of pushing back on the Henry David Thoreau left. However, I found this book to be rambly; it seems more like Phillips had a bone to pick with particular individuals.
Read
March 9, 2021Austerity Ecology & The Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defense Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff is a book I found myself enjoying and agreeing with in spite of itself. To begin with, its author, Leigh Phillips, is an unrepentant "brocialist" - a techno-optimist social democrat who celebrates the downfall of actually-existing socialism (ironic given how well his Promethean ambition would fit in under Stalin or Mao), waves away critiques of global North-South relations and the labor aristocracy, and hippie-bashes anyone suggesting that endless consumption is either impossible or undesirable. His engagement with the degrowth movement is often unconstructive and attempts to lump together "anti-civ" anarchists, off-the-grid survivalists, and Occupy-era ecosocialists into some sort of collective unconscience linking together everyone from Theodor Adorno to Adolf Hitler. His "solutions" to the global biocrisis consist mainly of large-scale energy infrastructure projects, an unrealistic faith in recycling efficiency, and a yet-unrealized capacity for innovation.
But what did I like about it?
Phillips offers a sound rebuttal to those proclaiming a decentralized back-to-the-earth movement is the solution to the global biocrisis. There are too many people on our planet for this to work; we can't simply abandon urban spaces by the billions to live as neo-peasants. Even if we could, this would not achieve global ecological stability. Indeed, confronting climate change and the ecological crisis does require the development of massive infrastructure projects to build sustainable energy resources, resource-efficient communities, and carbon-capture mechanisms. Yet Leigh actually sells his case short by failing to describe all the "stuff" we will need to correct the global biocrisis.
However, navigating our way through the difficult times ahead requires more than just a Green New Deal or nuclear power plants. In all likelihood we will face resource scarcity and instability, and we will need to live within those limits. Despite his obvious familiarity with the "collapse-porn addicts", Phillips seems unwilling to accept that threats of collapse (or worse) are not just fatalistic conspiracy theories, but realistic projections. He argues that we can overcome these threats, but the danger is already here. We need to share in his bold imagination merely to survive, but if we imagine a near-future of cornucopian prosperity we will only set ourselves up for disappointment. After all, what happened to the original Prometheus?
But what did I like about it?
Phillips offers a sound rebuttal to those proclaiming a decentralized back-to-the-earth movement is the solution to the global biocrisis. There are too many people on our planet for this to work; we can't simply abandon urban spaces by the billions to live as neo-peasants. Even if we could, this would not achieve global ecological stability. Indeed, confronting climate change and the ecological crisis does require the development of massive infrastructure projects to build sustainable energy resources, resource-efficient communities, and carbon-capture mechanisms. Yet Leigh actually sells his case short by failing to describe all the "stuff" we will need to correct the global biocrisis.
However, navigating our way through the difficult times ahead requires more than just a Green New Deal or nuclear power plants. In all likelihood we will face resource scarcity and instability, and we will need to live within those limits. Despite his obvious familiarity with the "collapse-porn addicts", Phillips seems unwilling to accept that threats of collapse (or worse) are not just fatalistic conspiracy theories, but realistic projections. He argues that we can overcome these threats, but the danger is already here. We need to share in his bold imagination merely to survive, but if we imagine a near-future of cornucopian prosperity we will only set ourselves up for disappointment. After all, what happened to the original Prometheus?
April 20, 2020
I think Philips is right in arguing for a class-sensitive environmentalism. I think he is wrong in arguing for little more (he is gender-blind, colour-blind,...). Why should socialism only be about class and eco-socialism about class and the environment? He raised interesting points, such as the downsides of the privatization of energy and of localisation, but I would really have liked more nuances. Additionally, the condescending tone used by Philips to critique those he presents as mainstream environmentalists made it quite unpleasant for me to read him. In my opinion, it doesn't add any value to his argument, it rather discredits it. At some points, he is also too quick to dismiss their ideas without, or so it seems, trying to really understand their philosophical underpinnings or the paradigms in which they work (e.g. the community-building potential of localism).
May 11, 2022
If you like shoddy arguments, cherry-picked science, and an arrogant author, this book is for you. If you'd like to actually learn about our overlapping ecological crises and the myriad of things we need to do to halt it, then this book is not for you.
April 1, 2016
Great smackdown on liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. Ultimately it's repetitive and spends time on subtle ad hominem attacks.
Read
May 6, 2024waste of time to read, there are much better things worth reading. Read ajay singh chaudhary for an extensive critique of this.
January 4, 2019
This was mostly an enjoyable read despite being a pretty heavy one and a bit repetitive at times. It was certainly thought provoking and I have a lot of admiration for Phillips's audacity and rigour in tearing apart a long-standing shibboleth of the left: de-growthism, which is basically the idea that in order to achieve ecological sustainability and avert impending ecological disaster (such as overpopulation or, most topically, climate change) we have to scale down - to live more simply, to buy and consume less, to move away from technology and progress, and in its most extreme iterations such as the ecoprimitivism of Derek Jensen and others - that we go back to a pre-agrarian way of life.
One-by-one Phillips convincingly uses science and his own rhetoric to tackle the green touchstones of the left: the idea that the planet has a finite limit to how many humans it can support (it does not), the idea that producing less "stuff" would avoid climate change (he argues the opposite is true), that we need to "save the planet" (the planet would be fine without us - it is humans who are in trouble if nothing changes), that small and local are better (often they are actually worse for the environment in a number of ways - not to mention for worker's rights), that GMOs are bad for people and/or the environment (they're not), that we should grow organically (for some crops, yes, but overall, evidence says worse for environment), and that nuclear power is not eco-friendly (he argues it is in fact the cheapest, most sustainable and lowest impact form of energy that would allow us to keep having the "stuff" he defends).
To be clear, in defending "stuff" Phillips is not defending the greed of the rich (he is a socialist after all), but things that help human life, like flush toilets, cars, industrial agriculture, vaccines, and even stuff we might just enjoy. Unlike the puritanism of the Frankfurt school (Adorno etc.) he's not invested in a kind of left-puritanism. In fact, one of his main points is that the original socialism, the socialism of Marx, wanted us to all have more nice things. The problem, argues Phillips, is not production and consumption, but the ownership of the means of production, the distribution of wealth, and a lack of democratic national and international planning. And how would we do this? Phillips demurs that this is beyond the scope of this book, but he makes reference to seizing the means of production and having a socialist revolution. At the very least, he suggests, the powers that be would need to feel there was credible threat of a revolution/mass unrest before they would act to give the people more of what they wanted (e.g. nuclear power) as many western nations did after WWII: "if you do not give the people reform, they are going to give you revolution" - British conservative MP Quentin Hogg in 1943 (150).
As a leftie who is fed up with anti-science, anti-technology, and general woo-nonsense on the left, Phillips' book was a breath of fresh air. However, while the first couple chapters had me laughing-out loud at Phillips' heavy dose of snark, the snarky tone got old fast. While he concedes she has good points on a few things, and his criticisms of her work are valid, I'm not sure he needed to spend quite so much time ragging on Naomi Kline. We get it Leigh Phillips, you don't like her.
While I'm critiquing, the endnoting in this book was sloppy. The numbers in the text don't always match up with the notes in the back and many many facts are stated without any endnote to back them up. Not good news for a book whose argument is so dependent on science. It's not that I doubt your sources, Leigh, but you still need to tell me where to find them.
Of course my ultimate criticism of this book is that while Phillips encourages us all to be optimistic because the end is not neigh, and humans can be saved from climate change (among other scourges) by growth and technology, his optimism depends on his belief that we can/will indeed have a revolution. And how will this happen? Beyond the scope of the book. Part of the reason the de-growthists like Kline are so appealing is that for all Phillips's mockery, they give us tangible things we can do and feel like we are making a difference. We can buy organic. We can ride a bike instead of driving. We can put a solar panel on our roof. Philips rejects these but offers nothing else instead. How do we make the revolution happen? If Phillips knows, he's not telling us, beyond vague gestures towards joining a trade union.
One-by-one Phillips convincingly uses science and his own rhetoric to tackle the green touchstones of the left: the idea that the planet has a finite limit to how many humans it can support (it does not), the idea that producing less "stuff" would avoid climate change (he argues the opposite is true), that we need to "save the planet" (the planet would be fine without us - it is humans who are in trouble if nothing changes), that small and local are better (often they are actually worse for the environment in a number of ways - not to mention for worker's rights), that GMOs are bad for people and/or the environment (they're not), that we should grow organically (for some crops, yes, but overall, evidence says worse for environment), and that nuclear power is not eco-friendly (he argues it is in fact the cheapest, most sustainable and lowest impact form of energy that would allow us to keep having the "stuff" he defends).
To be clear, in defending "stuff" Phillips is not defending the greed of the rich (he is a socialist after all), but things that help human life, like flush toilets, cars, industrial agriculture, vaccines, and even stuff we might just enjoy. Unlike the puritanism of the Frankfurt school (Adorno etc.) he's not invested in a kind of left-puritanism. In fact, one of his main points is that the original socialism, the socialism of Marx, wanted us to all have more nice things. The problem, argues Phillips, is not production and consumption, but the ownership of the means of production, the distribution of wealth, and a lack of democratic national and international planning. And how would we do this? Phillips demurs that this is beyond the scope of this book, but he makes reference to seizing the means of production and having a socialist revolution. At the very least, he suggests, the powers that be would need to feel there was credible threat of a revolution/mass unrest before they would act to give the people more of what they wanted (e.g. nuclear power) as many western nations did after WWII: "if you do not give the people reform, they are going to give you revolution" - British conservative MP Quentin Hogg in 1943 (150).
As a leftie who is fed up with anti-science, anti-technology, and general woo-nonsense on the left, Phillips' book was a breath of fresh air. However, while the first couple chapters had me laughing-out loud at Phillips' heavy dose of snark, the snarky tone got old fast. While he concedes she has good points on a few things, and his criticisms of her work are valid, I'm not sure he needed to spend quite so much time ragging on Naomi Kline. We get it Leigh Phillips, you don't like her.
While I'm critiquing, the endnoting in this book was sloppy. The numbers in the text don't always match up with the notes in the back and many many facts are stated without any endnote to back them up. Not good news for a book whose argument is so dependent on science. It's not that I doubt your sources, Leigh, but you still need to tell me where to find them.
Of course my ultimate criticism of this book is that while Phillips encourages us all to be optimistic because the end is not neigh, and humans can be saved from climate change (among other scourges) by growth and technology, his optimism depends on his belief that we can/will indeed have a revolution. And how will this happen? Beyond the scope of the book. Part of the reason the de-growthists like Kline are so appealing is that for all Phillips's mockery, they give us tangible things we can do and feel like we are making a difference. We can buy organic. We can ride a bike instead of driving. We can put a solar panel on our roof. Philips rejects these but offers nothing else instead. How do we make the revolution happen? If Phillips knows, he's not telling us, beyond vague gestures towards joining a trade union.
August 3, 2018
Leigh Phillips gives the environmental movement a well-deserved kick up the arse. Coming under attack are Naomi Klein, James Howard Kunstler, Ronald Wright, Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, Paul Watson, Paul Kingsnorth, Bill McKibben, John Zerzan, John Bellamy Foster, Chris Hedges, Richard Heinberg, James Lovelock, Lester Brown, Jared Diamond, Slavoj Zizek, Martin Heidegger, Tim Flannery, Rob Hopkins, and they’re all guilty of being anti-modern, anti-growth, anti-enlightenment and not understanding the nature of the free market economy.
I’ve read most of the authors on Phillips’s rant list and am a former member of the Transition Movement, so I can definitely feel his pain, and I’m grateful to him for taking it upon himself to confront the whole mess, so that we can see where it’s going wrong and why.
Close to the hearts of most greens is their pet theory that there was a time in the past when humans lived in harmonious balance with the planet, and that we need to return to that golden age. Naomi Klein wants us to go back to the 1970s, Paul Kingsnorth fancies the 17th Century, Derrick Jensen says we have to go back to the stone age to live without impact on the land. But this is all fantasy according to Phillips. There’s no such thing as balance, the planet is always in flux, always evolving. Humans have always altered their environments. Stories about Avatar-like early human tribes are just Noble Savage fantasies, not borne out by the evidence. According to some historians, even the Native Americans had settled towns, irrigated fields, and burned forests for growing crops.
Another mantra he examines is the idea that small is beautiful. Supposedly, capitalism is bad because it’s big, so the solution is to switch to small scale localised production for everything. But this is wrong on a number of levels. First it can often take less energy to produce food where the conditions are favourable and transport it, rather than use excess energy forcing it to grow in the wrong places. Tomatoes grown in sunny Spain and shipped to the UK produce less CO2 than those grown in greenhouses locally. Second, small capitalism is still capitalism and will still lead to exploitation of land and labour. And third, sometimes big is beautiful too. Big Kit energy projects offer serious solutions to peak fossil fuel. Phillips is pro nuclear and pro GM and wants us to embrace technology because it’s probably the only way out.
My time in the Transition movement was frustrating due to my total inability to ever find anyone who was interested in saving the planet, ironic as that may sound. Nobody wanted to talk about it. It was just about how can we make nice soup and maybe get a bit of funding for a new kitchen. (And those were the good times, the rest of it was bickering and bullying by the various control freaks who tried to run the place!) I see now how that was informed by the attitudes of the predominantly middle class members. In my experience they were only interested in diet and lifestyle choices. Well intentioned perhaps, but is that really an excuse for ignorance among privileged, well educated people? Phillips points out that these types are lost in fantasies about an idyllic rustic life, a vision to which they attach their own aggressive self-serving morality.
Phillips wants to see a modern socialist economy and he wants us to see that this will mean abundance for everyone not austerity for the poor. We need economic growth, not a steady state, and the public sector has to play a leading role in this. He references the work of Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State who has shown that the private sector is timid and conservative when it comes to innovation, and that most technological advance comes from the public sector. The internet, GPS, mobile communications, microchips and touchscreens were all government funded projects.
The answers to climate change are there if we want to look for them. It’s not about switching off the lights, it’s about switching on our brains and learning about history, economics and technology. Socialism is the way forward, says Leigh, so it’s about unionising workforces, nationalising essential services, democratising government, raising standards of living and investing in new industry and infrastructure. As a philosophy it’s about rediscovering the enlightenment, and having confidence in ourselves and our ability to invent bold and creative new ways of living.
I’ve read most of the authors on Phillips’s rant list and am a former member of the Transition Movement, so I can definitely feel his pain, and I’m grateful to him for taking it upon himself to confront the whole mess, so that we can see where it’s going wrong and why.
Close to the hearts of most greens is their pet theory that there was a time in the past when humans lived in harmonious balance with the planet, and that we need to return to that golden age. Naomi Klein wants us to go back to the 1970s, Paul Kingsnorth fancies the 17th Century, Derrick Jensen says we have to go back to the stone age to live without impact on the land. But this is all fantasy according to Phillips. There’s no such thing as balance, the planet is always in flux, always evolving. Humans have always altered their environments. Stories about Avatar-like early human tribes are just Noble Savage fantasies, not borne out by the evidence. According to some historians, even the Native Americans had settled towns, irrigated fields, and burned forests for growing crops.
Another mantra he examines is the idea that small is beautiful. Supposedly, capitalism is bad because it’s big, so the solution is to switch to small scale localised production for everything. But this is wrong on a number of levels. First it can often take less energy to produce food where the conditions are favourable and transport it, rather than use excess energy forcing it to grow in the wrong places. Tomatoes grown in sunny Spain and shipped to the UK produce less CO2 than those grown in greenhouses locally. Second, small capitalism is still capitalism and will still lead to exploitation of land and labour. And third, sometimes big is beautiful too. Big Kit energy projects offer serious solutions to peak fossil fuel. Phillips is pro nuclear and pro GM and wants us to embrace technology because it’s probably the only way out.
My time in the Transition movement was frustrating due to my total inability to ever find anyone who was interested in saving the planet, ironic as that may sound. Nobody wanted to talk about it. It was just about how can we make nice soup and maybe get a bit of funding for a new kitchen. (And those were the good times, the rest of it was bickering and bullying by the various control freaks who tried to run the place!) I see now how that was informed by the attitudes of the predominantly middle class members. In my experience they were only interested in diet and lifestyle choices. Well intentioned perhaps, but is that really an excuse for ignorance among privileged, well educated people? Phillips points out that these types are lost in fantasies about an idyllic rustic life, a vision to which they attach their own aggressive self-serving morality.
Phillips wants to see a modern socialist economy and he wants us to see that this will mean abundance for everyone not austerity for the poor. We need economic growth, not a steady state, and the public sector has to play a leading role in this. He references the work of Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State who has shown that the private sector is timid and conservative when it comes to innovation, and that most technological advance comes from the public sector. The internet, GPS, mobile communications, microchips and touchscreens were all government funded projects.
The answers to climate change are there if we want to look for them. It’s not about switching off the lights, it’s about switching on our brains and learning about history, economics and technology. Socialism is the way forward, says Leigh, so it’s about unionising workforces, nationalising essential services, democratising government, raising standards of living and investing in new industry and infrastructure. As a philosophy it’s about rediscovering the enlightenment, and having confidence in ourselves and our ability to invent bold and creative new ways of living.
March 9, 2020
Contains interesting ideas. Good ideas, even. This book critiques the green-left movement and suggests ways to adapt to climate crisis in ways that use technological strengths instead of shunning them, and that increase public good instead of private reward. I'm all for it. The writing is blunt, jolting, and often entertaining; it's like a cup of cold water in the face, especially if you are familiar with and support the work of environmentalists like Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben.
This guy challenges some of the squishier ideas of the eco-movement by saying, with supporting research, that fears of genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and economic growth might be unfounded and worth revisiting. It's great food for thought. But the book often feels like a long rant against Naomi Klein. It's strangely specific that way in many chapters. I get that she's a major figure with a slightly differing philosophy, but his arguments get weaker when they narrow down to Klein so often.
Overall, though, this book helped me sharpen my thinking on climate, so I'm glad I read it. 4/5
This guy challenges some of the squishier ideas of the eco-movement by saying, with supporting research, that fears of genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and economic growth might be unfounded and worth revisiting. It's great food for thought. But the book often feels like a long rant against Naomi Klein. It's strangely specific that way in many chapters. I get that she's a major figure with a slightly differing philosophy, but his arguments get weaker when they narrow down to Klein so often.
Overall, though, this book helped me sharpen my thinking on climate, so I'm glad I read it. 4/5
January 16, 2020
Oooo err! This certainly put the cat among my pigeons. Well written, carefully structured, and well referenced, this book's claims dismantle a version of green left-ery - particularly that which claims to be "anti-capitalist", but which (he argues) does not really understand capitalism. I was struck by his first use of the word "anthropocene", which - in view of the arguments he makes - might well have been "capitalocene" (c.f. A History of Capitalism in Seven Cheap Things, by Raj Patel and Jason Moore), that is: it is not person-kind that's the problem, it's capitalism. Read it - I am not going to review it (on this reading at least) - just to say that he takes our current predicament as seriously as anyone, but aims (using his own terms) to steer a path of Promethean optimism between techno-utopianism, on the one hand, and neo-luddism (the collapse-porn addicts), on the other - a path which capitalism (and wet versions eco-socialism) block.
July 29, 2023
While I don't fully agree with his assessment of postmodernism in the final chapter -- partially because the term itself is so loose that it can mean anything unless you provide clarification -- Phillip's still provides a useful critique of anti/degrowth sentiments that have become popular on the left. People who say he's painted a caricature should specify what specific form of degrowth discourse they're referring to, as the term expands so much to the point where I question the use of the term "degrowth" as a proper signifier for the movement. As such, even if I were to agree with the criticisms, Phillip provides an important and enlightening critique of popular notions and arguments that, while maybe not encompassing the totality of what's come to call itself degrowth, certainly pervades the discourse enough to be acknowledged.
October 12, 2024
I think it’s important to celebrate development- to be expansive, to sharpen new capabilities, to push forward. To see the left increasingly abandon its modernist ambitions in favor of some ill-defined steady-state cottagecore vision for the future is alarming.
I also think there is aspects of the “simple life” that are admirable. The extend to which modernity itself or just capitalism are anti-human is hard to disentangle. On a more practical level, I do think that some form or “de-growth,” or managed temporary consumption plateaus, will be needed to mitigate ecological damage, even under the rationally planned society the author argues for- which is too hazily presented to really comment on.
This is not a good review because the topics discussed in this book are still to bulky for me to manipulate gracefully. This book is a good leftist critique of the green movement, and I felt that I resonated with it on a spiritual level, at least. You should read this, it’s interesting. But I don’t know what to think about it yet.
I also think there is aspects of the “simple life” that are admirable. The extend to which modernity itself or just capitalism are anti-human is hard to disentangle. On a more practical level, I do think that some form or “de-growth,” or managed temporary consumption plateaus, will be needed to mitigate ecological damage, even under the rationally planned society the author argues for- which is too hazily presented to really comment on.
This is not a good review because the topics discussed in this book are still to bulky for me to manipulate gracefully. This book is a good leftist critique of the green movement, and I felt that I resonated with it on a spiritual level, at least. You should read this, it’s interesting. But I don’t know what to think about it yet.
January 15, 2019
I liked this a lot. Phillips succinctly breaks down many of the myths that continue to harp the left in the distinction between progress and capitalism. In fighting capitalism, the moralizing tendencies of some on the left to push back against consumption and blame consumers or working class folk for their habits and lifestyles sometimes seems to stifle genuine solidarity, but Phillips points to a new agenda for the left to navigate the future.
That is to say though, that Phillips has quite the tone. It's sardonic and caustic, and even when he may be correct, the way he says it continues to hamper me giving him full support. But a fine view of of how to make this full automated luxury communism dream realized.
That is to say though, that Phillips has quite the tone. It's sardonic and caustic, and even when he may be correct, the way he says it continues to hamper me giving him full support. But a fine view of of how to make this full automated luxury communism dream realized.
October 31, 2024
there were a few valid arguments in this - compelling ones being about the backstory and histories behind sustainable energies and why local produce wasn’t necessarily better. but the tone of the book was snarky and arguments were lazy - eg a reason against degrowth is because if you pretend the planet is a elastic band ball, it is infinitely divisible!! so from a finite resource we have infinite possibilities!! the book is an extreme argument against degrowth without proper consideration of nuances. didn’t like some of the adjectives he used and using steven pinker to show that we are actually less violent than ever before is also stupid.
November 17, 2018
A bit polemic in tone, but thought provoking. Prompted some new thinking on my part and that's one of the highest compliments you can pay a book. The last chapter was not my favorite, but up to that point there's much insight to be gained. I enjoyed the polemic tone and found it charming, but others may not. It was nice to have a distinctive voice while reading about such important topics.
October 19, 2019
Finally polished this off. An excellent piece on the need for the the left to embrace progress again rather than navel gazing. Fair warning that this book takes a little bit to take off as you have to get through a little lefty infighting to get to the actual meat of the argument. Still recommended though.
November 6, 2019
This is rough. Like many of the other reviewers, I am craving what his title promises. After a few chapters, though, all I really picked up was that he thinks Naomi Klein/etc are hypocrites. Like, OK, you made your case, now move on. As a reader it became impossible to hear out his arguments against those people when he gave no hints of any alternative worldview. DNF
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews