What do you think?
Rate this book
Defiant Earth: The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene
Humans have become so powerful that we have disrupted the functioning of the Earth System as a whole, bringing on a new geological epoch – the Anthropocene – one in which the serene and clement conditions that allowed civilisation to flourish are disappearing and we quail before 'the wakened giant'. The emergence of a conscious creature capable of using technology to bring about a rupture in the Earth's geochronology is an event of monumental significance, on a par with the arrival of civilisation itself. What does it mean to have arrived at this point, where human history and Earth history collide? Some interpret the Anthropocene as no more than a development of what they already know, obscuring and deflating its profound significance. But the Anthropocene demands that we rethink everything. The modern belief in the free, reflexive being making its own future by taking control of its environment – even to the point of geoengineering – is now impossible because we have rendered the Earth more unpredictable and less controllable, a disobedient planet. At the same time, all attempts by progressives to cut humans down to size by attacking anthropocentrism come up against the insurmountable fact that human beings now possess enough power to change the Earth's course. It's too late to turn back the geological clock, and there is no going back to premodern ways of thinking. We must face the fact that humans are at the centre of the world, even if we must give the idea that we can control the planet. These truths call for a new kind of anthropocentrism, a philosophy by which we might use our power responsibly and find a way to live on a defiant Earth.
200 pages, ebook
First published June 26, 2017
16 people are currently reading
249 people want to read
About the author
Clive Hamilton
39 books127 followersClive Hamilton AM FRSA is an Australian public intellectual and Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics and the Vice-Chancellor's Chair in Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University. He is a member of the Board of the Climate Change Authority of the Australian Government, and is the Founder and former Executive Director of The Australia Institute. He regularly appears in the Australian media and contributes to public policy debates. Hamilton was granted the award of Member of the Order of Australia on 8 June 2009 for "service to public debate and policy development, particularly in the fields of climate change, sustainability and societal trends".
(From Wikipedia.)
(From Wikipedia.)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
May 28, 2017
I like Clive Hamilton. I have read many of his books.
However, I found this book very disappointing. In the preface, the author says that he struggled to write this book. It shows. It is very repetitive (probably because the author did not have much to say). It is not clear who is the target audience. Not recommended.
However, I found this book very disappointing. In the preface, the author says that he struggled to write this book. It shows. It is very repetitive (probably because the author did not have much to say). It is not clear who is the target audience. Not recommended.
November 6, 2023
Zeer interessante en originele gedachten. Helaas wel erg onsamenhangend uiteengezet.
July 4, 2017
Hamilton's Affluenza was deeply meaningful to me, on the deep ethics and psychological benefits of reducing and limiting consumption, and material desires. I was hoping for a similar popular work on climate change... instead I found a short scholarly collection of arguments. If you love classical philosophy, then and only then, you may love this book.
Update: dammit, Hamilton didn't coin Affluenza, I had him confused with John de Graaf. Makes me want to rip away a star, but it's just my misplaced expectations.
Chapter 1 meticulously argues that the climate has irrevocably shifted, so much that we are in a new geologic epoch.
Chapter 2 proves humans are in charge of this new world, alone, and have the moral responsibility to both protect nature and restore the earth system.
In chapters 3 and 4, he argues that both humans and the earth system are becoming more powerful, as the earth system destabilizes. He also praises consciousness and human exceptionalism, noting what a shame it would be if civilization were destroyed by the earth system.
In the last chapter, Hamilton claims that the super-agents that humans have become, now have no ethical grounding, since nature can no longer be protected, since the Anthropocene can't be reported. He calls out for care over neglect of the earth system, but is that a loss to justify it. I simply believe humans have a responsibility to make a biosphere more resilient, more diverse, and more rich in biomass.
Hamilton is categorically against Geoengineering, because he sees it is a binary choice, as negating the need to restrain the wasteful materialistic economy, and reduce the atmospheric carbon load. I am much more pragmatic, and see both as possibly necessary.
In all cases Hamilton debates all objections to his points, though more with logic than data. He is organized and relentless... yet for me at least, he is also pedantic and gets distracted by minutia.
I feel that Hamilton has some important things to say, and that his grounding in classical philosophy and his careful use of language is meaningful, in the sense that he is pointing precisely to meaning. Yet, for example, no matter how many ways he proves that humanity as a whole has changed the entire trajectory of biological life on Earth, ... I still just believe it based on my own original reading of science, and Hamilton could not persuade non-believers in this very academic, vocabulary dense style. The carefully selected words and formulated arguments feel just wasted to me.
"it is no wonder that mainstream ethics today, preserved in the formaldehyde of purified subjectivity, has nothing to say about the Anthropocene. " p143
This is probably the crux of Hamilton's frustration, but is it really true? How about the environmental justice movement? How about broad sympathy for the displaced Pacific Islanders? I don't understand myself how an ethics professor could believe this? Does he only include only some professional academic subset of ethics?
Overall, Hamilton is correct both in his core arguments and his detailed asides. 3 stars for correctness even though the book is hard to plow through.
Update: dammit, Hamilton didn't coin Affluenza, I had him confused with John de Graaf. Makes me want to rip away a star, but it's just my misplaced expectations.
Chapter 1 meticulously argues that the climate has irrevocably shifted, so much that we are in a new geologic epoch.
Chapter 2 proves humans are in charge of this new world, alone, and have the moral responsibility to both protect nature and restore the earth system.
In chapters 3 and 4, he argues that both humans and the earth system are becoming more powerful, as the earth system destabilizes. He also praises consciousness and human exceptionalism, noting what a shame it would be if civilization were destroyed by the earth system.
In the last chapter, Hamilton claims that the super-agents that humans have become, now have no ethical grounding, since nature can no longer be protected, since the Anthropocene can't be reported. He calls out for care over neglect of the earth system, but is that a loss to justify it. I simply believe humans have a responsibility to make a biosphere more resilient, more diverse, and more rich in biomass.
Hamilton is categorically against Geoengineering, because he sees it is a binary choice, as negating the need to restrain the wasteful materialistic economy, and reduce the atmospheric carbon load. I am much more pragmatic, and see both as possibly necessary.
In all cases Hamilton debates all objections to his points, though more with logic than data. He is organized and relentless... yet for me at least, he is also pedantic and gets distracted by minutia.
I feel that Hamilton has some important things to say, and that his grounding in classical philosophy and his careful use of language is meaningful, in the sense that he is pointing precisely to meaning. Yet, for example, no matter how many ways he proves that humanity as a whole has changed the entire trajectory of biological life on Earth, ... I still just believe it based on my own original reading of science, and Hamilton could not persuade non-believers in this very academic, vocabulary dense style. The carefully selected words and formulated arguments feel just wasted to me.
"it is no wonder that mainstream ethics today, preserved in the formaldehyde of purified subjectivity, has nothing to say about the Anthropocene. " p143
This is probably the crux of Hamilton's frustration, but is it really true? How about the environmental justice movement? How about broad sympathy for the displaced Pacific Islanders? I don't understand myself how an ethics professor could believe this? Does he only include only some professional academic subset of ethics?
Overall, Hamilton is correct both in his core arguments and his detailed asides. 3 stars for correctness even though the book is hard to plow through.
March 17, 2018
This is one of those books that should have stayed an essay. Read as much as I could and was no further enlightened after 90 pages as after 15.
November 6, 2023
Filosofen Clive Hamilton är ursinnig och blir bara argare och argare för varje kapitel. Svinbra men man bör vara intresserad av klimatförändringar, etik och mänskligt beteende.
April 6, 2022
A frustrating book. There were a few really good and interesting points here about the philosophical implications of the Anthropocene, and also a good review of both scientific and critical/philosophical literature on the topic, but my god it was so repetitive that it made it an absolute chore to read. The first few chapters literally repeat the same point over and over again in various different contexts without really going developing the core idea at all. We're just told Earth System science is a game changer and it's shown that the Anthropocene is real. Yes. We got it the first time. The final two chapters, I thought, were where the most interesting philosophical grounding of the book took place, but even there Hamilton would liberally take complex ideas on the nature of freedom from Schelling without really explaining them. He just assumed you'd obviously be able to see the connection and why it's important to his argument. Schelling is a difficult thinker. Assuming we'd just be able to see how his system of Freedom in nature applies to the Anthropocene without a full philosophical examination of the matter just seems to oversimplify the issue at hand. The book redeems itself and gains its third star because there are bits in here that are important, and that I could potentially come back to, but on the whole I'm sure there are better books out there on the topic.
November 3, 2025
In zijn eerdere boek Requiem for a species uit 2010 vroeg Clive Hamilton zich af waarom de politiek niet bij machte was om te reageren op de alarmerende berichten vanuit de klimaatwetenschappen. Hij liep daarvoor een groot aantal punten na zoals de korte termijn blik van de politiek; de cognitieve dissonantie bij de burgers (alleen horen wat je wilt horen); het negeren van wetenschappelijke bewijzen als die tegen de eigen fundamentele overtuigingen ingaan; onze houding ten opzichte van de natuur in navolging van Descartes (de natuur kun je vrij gebruiken voor eigen gewin); optimisme over de veerkracht van de natuur; de vanzelfsprekendheid en het heilige geloof (‘fetisj’) in de economische groei (iedereen vaart er wel bij); het optimisme van de ecomodernisten dat de mensheid slim genoeg is om de klimaatproblemen met technologische fixes op te lossen en de uitstoot van CO2 los te koppelen van de economische groei (groene groei); de individualistische levensstijl die geen rekening houdt met anderen en met de natuur, etc. Centraal staat echter dat de klimaatcrisis alleen met collectieve actie is te bezweren, wat een grote(re) rol van de overheid en internationale coördinatie veronderstelt, hetgeen ingaat tegen de conservatieve en liberale waarden van persoonlijke vrijheid, eigen richting en kleine overheid.
In dit boek De provocerende aarde (Defiant Earth) herneemt hij deze discussie en constateert dat de COP21-meeting in Parijs van 2015 wel tot het formuleren van een wenselijk tijdpad (om onder de 1.5C opwarming te blijven) heeft geleid, maar dat er door de landen tot nu toe geen wezenlijke bijdrage is geleverd aan het feitelijke terugbrengen van de uitstoot. Tijd is verloren gegaan aan de schuldvraag of de noordelijke ontwikkelde landen moeten betalen voor hun excessieve CO2 uitstoot in het verleden en of de zuidelijke landen moet worden geholpen met klimaatinvesteringen. Ook China heeft te lang vastgehouden aan de status van ‘ontwikkelingsland’, terwijl het al bijna evenveel uitstoot als de westerse landen. Alle zuidelijke landen zullen binnenkort meer uitstoten dan de noordelijke landen.
Het vooruitzicht dat de mensheid ten onder gaat en dat het technologisch-industriële project op de klippen loopt, dwingt ons tot bezinning op de oorspronkelijke vragen van de mensheid – de raadsels betreffende de oorsprong, de plaats van de mens op aarde, de zin van ons leven en de redding van de mensheid. De mens is ook de enige die in staat is (anders dan de dieren en planten) om de aarde zelf tot onderwerp van reflectie te maken en zich er bewust toe te verhouden. Daarom zoekt Clive Hamilton naar een vorm van antropocentrisme, niet omdat de mens verheven is boven de natuur, maar omdat hij nu nog de enige actor is die in staat is om de aarde te redden, nadat hij zelf alles in het honderd heeft laten lopen.
Dit antropocentrisme is een ander antropocentrisme dan we kennen vanuit de Verlichting: de mens als protagonist van de moderniteit, het autonome subject dat is gezegend met bewustzijn, rede, en met de vrijheid en het vermogen om te beslissen, maar die alleen met zichzelf en in beperkte mate met zijn sociale omgeving rekening wil houden, maar wiens bekommernis zich niet uitstrekt tot de natuur en de aarde, die mens is voorbij.
Het is dus een misvatting het antropoceen op te vatten als een ‘sociaalhistorische’ periode waarin de mens het allemaal nog in eigen hand heeft, dat de invloed op het klimaat nog kan worden teruggedraaid door sociaal of technologisch ingrijpen. Zelfs de naamgever van het antropoceen, de Nederlander Paul Crutzen, zit volgens Hamilton op dat spoor door te suggereren dat de antwoorden op het antropoceen kunnen worden gevonden in wetenschap en engineering, met inbegrip van geo-engineering.
Niets is echter minder waar. De veranderingen zijn al structureel. Het point-of-no-return is al gepasseerd. In een halve eeuw heeft een ontwikkeling plaatsgevonden die vergelijkbaar is met de inslag van een grote meteoriet. Het holoceen is voorbij. We moeten de Apocalyps accepteren als een feit. Het gaat er nu alleen om het ergste te voorkomen. Terug naar de stabiele toestand van nog maar een halve eeuw geleden gaat duizenden jaren duren.
Een tweede misvatting is dat we de aarde nog altijd als passief beschouwen. Dat is niet meer het geval. Om met Bruno Latour te spreken, de natuur als achtergrond en decor van het menselijk drama heeft stilletjes door de achterdeur het pand verlaten. Aarde en natuur nemen een andere gedaante aan die in toenemende mate gepaard gaat met natuurgeweld.
Clive Hamilton slaagt er wel in een nieuwe houding te vinden voor de mensheid - meer in harmonie met de natuur - maar hij kan niet aangeven hoe daar te komen. Het blijft een vrij filosofisch boek, dat niet zo praktisch van aard is. De coverafbeelding is daarom wel iets te dramatisch.
Voor een uitgebreide bespreking zie Civis Mundi #136
In dit boek De provocerende aarde (Defiant Earth) herneemt hij deze discussie en constateert dat de COP21-meeting in Parijs van 2015 wel tot het formuleren van een wenselijk tijdpad (om onder de 1.5C opwarming te blijven) heeft geleid, maar dat er door de landen tot nu toe geen wezenlijke bijdrage is geleverd aan het feitelijke terugbrengen van de uitstoot. Tijd is verloren gegaan aan de schuldvraag of de noordelijke ontwikkelde landen moeten betalen voor hun excessieve CO2 uitstoot in het verleden en of de zuidelijke landen moet worden geholpen met klimaatinvesteringen. Ook China heeft te lang vastgehouden aan de status van ‘ontwikkelingsland’, terwijl het al bijna evenveel uitstoot als de westerse landen. Alle zuidelijke landen zullen binnenkort meer uitstoten dan de noordelijke landen.
Het vooruitzicht dat de mensheid ten onder gaat en dat het technologisch-industriële project op de klippen loopt, dwingt ons tot bezinning op de oorspronkelijke vragen van de mensheid – de raadsels betreffende de oorsprong, de plaats van de mens op aarde, de zin van ons leven en de redding van de mensheid. De mens is ook de enige die in staat is (anders dan de dieren en planten) om de aarde zelf tot onderwerp van reflectie te maken en zich er bewust toe te verhouden. Daarom zoekt Clive Hamilton naar een vorm van antropocentrisme, niet omdat de mens verheven is boven de natuur, maar omdat hij nu nog de enige actor is die in staat is om de aarde te redden, nadat hij zelf alles in het honderd heeft laten lopen.
Dit antropocentrisme is een ander antropocentrisme dan we kennen vanuit de Verlichting: de mens als protagonist van de moderniteit, het autonome subject dat is gezegend met bewustzijn, rede, en met de vrijheid en het vermogen om te beslissen, maar die alleen met zichzelf en in beperkte mate met zijn sociale omgeving rekening wil houden, maar wiens bekommernis zich niet uitstrekt tot de natuur en de aarde, die mens is voorbij.
Het is dus een misvatting het antropoceen op te vatten als een ‘sociaalhistorische’ periode waarin de mens het allemaal nog in eigen hand heeft, dat de invloed op het klimaat nog kan worden teruggedraaid door sociaal of technologisch ingrijpen. Zelfs de naamgever van het antropoceen, de Nederlander Paul Crutzen, zit volgens Hamilton op dat spoor door te suggereren dat de antwoorden op het antropoceen kunnen worden gevonden in wetenschap en engineering, met inbegrip van geo-engineering.
Niets is echter minder waar. De veranderingen zijn al structureel. Het point-of-no-return is al gepasseerd. In een halve eeuw heeft een ontwikkeling plaatsgevonden die vergelijkbaar is met de inslag van een grote meteoriet. Het holoceen is voorbij. We moeten de Apocalyps accepteren als een feit. Het gaat er nu alleen om het ergste te voorkomen. Terug naar de stabiele toestand van nog maar een halve eeuw geleden gaat duizenden jaren duren.
Een tweede misvatting is dat we de aarde nog altijd als passief beschouwen. Dat is niet meer het geval. Om met Bruno Latour te spreken, de natuur als achtergrond en decor van het menselijk drama heeft stilletjes door de achterdeur het pand verlaten. Aarde en natuur nemen een andere gedaante aan die in toenemende mate gepaard gaat met natuurgeweld.
Clive Hamilton slaagt er wel in een nieuwe houding te vinden voor de mensheid - meer in harmonie met de natuur - maar hij kan niet aangeven hoe daar te komen. Het blijft een vrij filosofisch boek, dat niet zo praktisch van aard is. De coverafbeelding is daarom wel iets te dramatisch.
Voor een uitgebreide bespreking zie Civis Mundi #136
October 8, 2020
Defiant Earth: The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene by Clive Hamilton is a complex discussion of the coming, or already arrived, Anthropocene Era. Hamilton is an Australian public intellectual and Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and the Vice-Chancellor's Chair in Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University. He is a member of the Board of the Climate Change Authority of the Australian Government, and is the Founder and former Executive Director of The Australia Institute.
This isn't a book warning about climate change. It seems more like the scolding a child receives after doing something wrong. You understand that what you did was wrong and that there is no way to fix it. The scolding seems to go on forever and the same things are repeated over and over again. This is a scolding to mankind.
The Anthropocene Epoch is here. The Holocene is over. The Anthropocene contains the root Anthrop meaning relating to humans or human actions. There is an argument of when this epoch began. Some proposals are the beginning of humans or the beginning of human impact on the earth (Industrial Revolution) or when man knew what he was doing to the earth and accelerated his influence (the 1990s).
This tends to be a very philosophical book rather than a science book. Different views are given and explained and sometimes leads to confusion whether these are a part of the author's thesis or if he is arguing against it. Some are obvious like those welcoming the new epoch as a fresh beginning. There are even Evangelical Christians who are taking cruises to Antartica hoping to see the becoming of the new Eden. There are those who also think that we can return to the safety of the Holocene if we work at it or develop new technology. Still others like Reagan's former Interior Secretary James Watt believed that the Natural Resources should be used because the Lord was due back soon and they won't be needed after that. Other Christians argue what is meant by taking dominion over the earth -- plunder or stewardship.
Hamilton brings philosophy into the mix citing Marx, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Kant are all used to examine man's actions. Technological industrialization is given the lion's share of the blame. Even as the West cleans up its act to prevent destruction, the destruction continues. The West now blames China and other countries for damaging the earth system. That blame comes right back as China manufactures goods for the West. It is still the same planet. Moving industry from one spot to another does not make it disappear.
All in all, Defiant Earth is a difficult read. It is much more an academic level text than a general public reading. It does feel like a lecture like I mentioned before and certain items, phrases, and themes seem to repeat to the point I was not sure my Kindle was actually saving my place in the book. "You knew you were wrong since the 1990s yet chose to keep destroying the earth and destroying it at an accelerated rate." Perhaps this is the shock we need, or more precisely, the realization that we need.
This isn't a book warning about climate change. It seems more like the scolding a child receives after doing something wrong. You understand that what you did was wrong and that there is no way to fix it. The scolding seems to go on forever and the same things are repeated over and over again. This is a scolding to mankind.
The Anthropocene Epoch is here. The Holocene is over. The Anthropocene contains the root Anthrop meaning relating to humans or human actions. There is an argument of when this epoch began. Some proposals are the beginning of humans or the beginning of human impact on the earth (Industrial Revolution) or when man knew what he was doing to the earth and accelerated his influence (the 1990s).
This tends to be a very philosophical book rather than a science book. Different views are given and explained and sometimes leads to confusion whether these are a part of the author's thesis or if he is arguing against it. Some are obvious like those welcoming the new epoch as a fresh beginning. There are even Evangelical Christians who are taking cruises to Antartica hoping to see the becoming of the new Eden. There are those who also think that we can return to the safety of the Holocene if we work at it or develop new technology. Still others like Reagan's former Interior Secretary James Watt believed that the Natural Resources should be used because the Lord was due back soon and they won't be needed after that. Other Christians argue what is meant by taking dominion over the earth -- plunder or stewardship.
Hamilton brings philosophy into the mix citing Marx, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Kant are all used to examine man's actions. Technological industrialization is given the lion's share of the blame. Even as the West cleans up its act to prevent destruction, the destruction continues. The West now blames China and other countries for damaging the earth system. That blame comes right back as China manufactures goods for the West. It is still the same planet. Moving industry from one spot to another does not make it disappear.
All in all, Defiant Earth is a difficult read. It is much more an academic level text than a general public reading. It does feel like a lecture like I mentioned before and certain items, phrases, and themes seem to repeat to the point I was not sure my Kindle was actually saving my place in the book. "You knew you were wrong since the 1990s yet chose to keep destroying the earth and destroying it at an accelerated rate." Perhaps this is the shock we need, or more precisely, the realization that we need.
April 6, 2023
Do you think that:
-We are living in the Anthropocene
-it is a distinct period of time from previous eras and ages
-the anthropocene characterized by human's extreme impact on the Earth's environment
-humans as a species are having too much of an impact on the environment since the Industrial Revolution (and are ruining our planet)
-adverse natural disasters are becoming more frequent as a result
-we should do something about it because we got Earth into this mess and we're the only species who can
Well so does Clive Hamilton! Great! Well no, he thinks you're totally Wrong, and he will spend a whole book telling you the exact things above that you already thought because you just don't get it. I cannot in good conscience give this more than a 2 because of how frustrating it was to read even though it was written alright, there are much better (more informative as well as less time-consuming) things you can read on the same topic, I've added the only quotes that I thought were worth reading in this format.
The author spends 85% of the time ripping into anyone who doesn't 100% agree with him, even when they're on the same side or largely agreeing if they don't use the same words he does, or anyone using any slightly different lens to Earth system science (which he barely explains, but of course it is better than all the other disciplines, whatever happened to a multi-disciplinary approach), except certain philosophers, those guys are valid, but everyone else is grossly misinterpreting the Anthropocene and science.
Remember guys, the Anthropocene is "the very recent rupture in Earth history arising from the impact of human activity on the Earth System as a whole." I had to quote that because if I use one different word I am Wrong, and he repeated asserts this and all of his thoughts as fact with little to no backing besides repetition and proving every other perspective irrevocably wrong. This book won't convince a climate change denier of anything, or provide anything practical (or barely meaningful) for someone who does believe in climate science to think or do, if anything it will only put them offside, so I don't know what its doing or who its for, it could just be an essay online at most a journal article, not a whole book, that at least would save some trees.
-We are living in the Anthropocene
-it is a distinct period of time from previous eras and ages
-the anthropocene characterized by human's extreme impact on the Earth's environment
-humans as a species are having too much of an impact on the environment since the Industrial Revolution (and are ruining our planet)
-adverse natural disasters are becoming more frequent as a result
-we should do something about it because we got Earth into this mess and we're the only species who can
Well so does Clive Hamilton! Great! Well no, he thinks you're totally Wrong, and he will spend a whole book telling you the exact things above that you already thought because you just don't get it. I cannot in good conscience give this more than a 2 because of how frustrating it was to read even though it was written alright, there are much better (more informative as well as less time-consuming) things you can read on the same topic, I've added the only quotes that I thought were worth reading in this format.
The author spends 85% of the time ripping into anyone who doesn't 100% agree with him, even when they're on the same side or largely agreeing if they don't use the same words he does, or anyone using any slightly different lens to Earth system science (which he barely explains, but of course it is better than all the other disciplines, whatever happened to a multi-disciplinary approach), except certain philosophers, those guys are valid, but everyone else is grossly misinterpreting the Anthropocene and science.
Remember guys, the Anthropocene is "the very recent rupture in Earth history arising from the impact of human activity on the Earth System as a whole." I had to quote that because if I use one different word I am Wrong, and he repeated asserts this and all of his thoughts as fact with little to no backing besides repetition and proving every other perspective irrevocably wrong. This book won't convince a climate change denier of anything, or provide anything practical (or barely meaningful) for someone who does believe in climate science to think or do, if anything it will only put them offside, so I don't know what its doing or who its for, it could just be an essay online at most a journal article, not a whole book, that at least would save some trees.
April 6, 2019
A lucid account of the recent literature, sets the stage and stakes of the current scenario appropriately, and is one of the most comprehensive critical assessments I've read of ecomodernist and post-humanist ideas. While I don't entirely agree with all of the points made, they are well-considered and written with clarity. I can't help but feel that a lot of authors are writing the same Anthropocene book over and over these days; this one is a good read and unlike many others, Hamilton is clear about the ideological territory he understands to be in play and what type of response is warranted. I'm not sure if I agree with his humanism but it's refreshing to read when so many other commentaries either don't fully consider the critiques of the humanist paradigm (e.g. post-humanism, new materialism, animism) or end up tacitly embracing some sort of implicit misanthropy or nihilism.
April 30, 2018
There are a host of books on the subject of Climate Change, and possibly even more on the definition of the ' Anthropocene ' why it is called so, how it is defined, and by whom.
In this riveting work, Clive Hamilton, with great patience and enormous knowledge walks the reader through the various opinions and arguments, and the dire consequences that the Anthropocene represents.The world is in desperate need to fully comprehend just what this new ' epoch ' means; how human activity has disrupted Earth Systems to the point that we are now entering completely new territory and with world climate systems becoming increasingly unstable and violent.
The future is not clear, but we should all be concerned, whatever our point of view, for the continuity of life on planet Earth.
In this riveting work, Clive Hamilton, with great patience and enormous knowledge walks the reader through the various opinions and arguments, and the dire consequences that the Anthropocene represents.The world is in desperate need to fully comprehend just what this new ' epoch ' means; how human activity has disrupted Earth Systems to the point that we are now entering completely new territory and with world climate systems becoming increasingly unstable and violent.
The future is not clear, but we should all be concerned, whatever our point of view, for the continuity of life on planet Earth.
August 23, 2022
In 'de provocerende aarde' gaat Clive Hamilton fel van leer tegen iedereen die de negatieve impact van de mens op de aarde onderschat én tegen iedereen die deze niet onderschat maar er andere conclusies uittrekt. Het boekt begint met een lange uiteenzetting over de definitie van het begrip 'antropoceen' gevolgd door een langdradige filosofische kijk op de mentaliteitsgeschiedenis van de relatie van de mens met de aarde. De auteur, overtuigd van het keerpunt dat de mens veroorzaakt, levert geen enkel wetenschappelijk bewijs voor zijn felste adagium: de mens zijn invloed is enorm. Dit gemengd met wat 'woke'-begrippen zoals 'Europees mannelijk heteroseksueel koloniaal kapitalisme en 'wit' ipv 'blank' maken het werk ook al niet aangenamer om te lezen.
January 5, 2025
Läste boken som kurslitteratur före kursens start. Jag hoppas att kursen är bättre än boken. Efter att, efter de två första kapitlen, ha förstått att författaren vill lyfta begreppen antropocen, antropocentrism, människan som agent och jordsystemvetenskap så blev det bara upprepningar. Ju längre boken led, desto mer snurrade författaren in sig, och mig, i filosofiska resonemang som jag inte tyckte tillförde något.
Dock, att tänka på människan som en agent, någon som kan VÄLJA, att påverka men också välja att backa är en mycket intressant tanke tycker jag.
Dock, att tänka på människan som en agent, någon som kan VÄLJA, att påverka men också välja att backa är en mycket intressant tanke tycker jag.
September 4, 2024
Interesting and worth a read if this is in your field of interest (ecological philosophy would probably be the appropriate genre), but it seems like a newspaper or magazine article that got out of hand. Lengthy, repetitive and losing its thread halfway through, for a small book it needed more cuts to get to the point.
March 23, 2018
Interesting argument. I’m still processing whether I buy it, but regardless, it was presented well.
October 7, 2018
This was a binge read. It is a pretty good exploration of the term Anthropocene and links back to the climate change hyperobject. Repetitive but that doesn’t stop it from being readable.
April 9, 2020
Dense and urgent. Loses a star for being a tad self absorbed and overusing the words Earth System.
Certainly puts things in perspective.
Certainly puts things in perspective.
March 9, 2021
Could this book not be written as a 15 page paper and convey the same message?
July 4, 2024
Realistische visie op de planetaire toekomst, nuchtere kritiek op het idee dat de techniek ons nog kan redden. Seculiere visie, maar realistische antropologie in de lijn van de catechismus: de mens heeft een sterke neiging tot het kwaad, egoïsme en kortetermijndenken. Auteur is ook, zij het beperkt, met theologen in gesprek: Barth, Bonhoeffer, paus Franciscus; en met filosofen als Hegel en Zizek.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews