What do you think?
Rate this book
Klima: Eine neue Perspektive
Der heute vorherrschende Konsens über unser Klima lässt wenig Raum für andere ökologische Anliegen. Taktiken und Ziele des Klimaschutzaktivismus folgen immer noch dem gleichen Muster, das überhaupt erst zu Klimawandel und Umweltzerstörung geführt hat: Probleme wie Genmanipulation, riesige Biosprit-Plantagen oder die Anlage von Staudämmen werden ignoriert oder sogar als Lösung angeboten, was zu einer weiteren Verschärfung der Entwicklungs- und Globalisierungsproblematik führt.
In seinem neuen Buch Klima plädiert Charles Eisenstein dafür, dass wir uns wieder dem Wasser, dem Boden, den Wäldern, der regenerativen Landwirtschaft und dem Naturschutz zuwenden, denn vieles, was Treibhausgasen und globaler Erwärmung zugeschrieben wird, ist in Wahrheit unserem separatistischen Weltbild geschuldet, das zur Krise unseres Planeten geführt hat. In Klima kommt Eisenstein zu dem Schluss, dass es nicht ausreicht, lediglich neue Formen der Energiegewinnung oder des Konsums einzuführen, um eine "nachhaltige Entwicklung" zu ermöglichen. Vielmehr bedarf es eines radikalen Umdenkens im Sinne von "Interbeing", einem ganzheitlichen Fühlen und Handeln, das die Verbundenheit aller Menschen, aber auch die Verbundenheit von Mensch und Natur ins Zentrum stellt, um einen positiven Wandel zu ermöglichen. Wir alle müssen lernen, Verantwortung für unser Tun zu übernehmen, und zur Heilung unseres Ökosystems beitragen; denn nur so können wir eine Heilung unserer klimatischen und sozialen Systeme erreichen.
In seinem neuen Buch Klima plädiert Charles Eisenstein dafür, dass wir uns wieder dem Wasser, dem Boden, den Wäldern, der regenerativen Landwirtschaft und dem Naturschutz zuwenden, denn vieles, was Treibhausgasen und globaler Erwärmung zugeschrieben wird, ist in Wahrheit unserem separatistischen Weltbild geschuldet, das zur Krise unseres Planeten geführt hat. In Klima kommt Eisenstein zu dem Schluss, dass es nicht ausreicht, lediglich neue Formen der Energiegewinnung oder des Konsums einzuführen, um eine "nachhaltige Entwicklung" zu ermöglichen. Vielmehr bedarf es eines radikalen Umdenkens im Sinne von "Interbeing", einem ganzheitlichen Fühlen und Handeln, das die Verbundenheit aller Menschen, aber auch die Verbundenheit von Mensch und Natur ins Zentrum stellt, um einen positiven Wandel zu ermöglichen. Wir alle müssen lernen, Verantwortung für unser Tun zu übernehmen, und zur Heilung unseres Ökosystems beitragen; denn nur so können wir eine Heilung unserer klimatischen und sozialen Systeme erreichen.
400 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 18, 2018
222 people are currently reading
2210 people want to read
About the author
Charles Eisenstein
27 books750 followersCharles Eisenstein is a teacher, speaker, and writer focusing on themes of civilization, consciousness, money, and human cultural evolution. His writings on the web magazine Reality Sandwich have generated a vast online following; he speaks frequently at conferences and other events, and gives numerous interviews on radio and podcasts. Writing in Ode magazine's "25 Intelligent Optimists" issue, David Korten (author of When Corporations Rule the World) called Eisenstein "one of the up-and-coming great minds of our time." Eisenstein graduated from Yale University in 1989 with a degree in Mathematics and Philosophy, and spent the next ten years as a Chinese-English translator. He currently lives in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and serves on the faculty of Goddard College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews
September 6, 2019
I wasn't going to review this book, because I like Charles Eisenstein and I appreciate what he's trying to do in general with his career, to integrate humans better with the natural world. With a spiritual bent, Eisenstein has also inspired people around the world to think more creatively, to open their hearts and to make positive changes in their personal lives. For that, he should be encouraged and applauded.
So, when I found his book on climate change frustrating, I was just going to let it go. But after reading this quote from respected historian of science Naomi Oreskes, I realized that I at least wanted to make a short comment on what I found most problematic about Eistenstein's climate book:
“Science … is not based on any individual, no matter how smart that individual may be. It’s based on the collective wisdom, the collective knowledge, the collective work of all of the scientists who have worked on a particular problem.”
This gets to Eisenstein's method, which is eccentric, in both the good and bad senses of the word.
It's good in that he offers original insights that just feel right on. For example, he comments that as a kid, when he took car rides, he noticed more bugs splattered on the windshield than he does today. This is a concrete sign that nature is dying, because insects are such ancient and important inhabitants of the land. This kind of simple but deep observation is where Eisenstein excels.
Where he excels less is in his long discussion of climate science. I understand why he devotes dozens of pages to questioning conventional science and listing footnotes of scholarly papers that few of his readers have heard of. The first reason is just wishful thinking on his part: Eisenstein wants to appeal to climate skeptics, who are probably not going to read this book anyway. His second reason is a stronger one and is essential to his whole approach of integrating humans with nature. He wants to show that we should care more about restoring water, landscape and animals than about cutting fossil fuels to fix the climate.
But Eisenstein's freelance act as a smart dude who can think for himself enough to argue with climate scientists (after all, as he points out, he did study math at Yale) falls flat. Eisenstein is not a qualified PhD climatologist, he doesn't play one on TV and he shouldn't try to play scientist in this book.
As Oreskes, a qualified expert on the history of science, points out, valid science is not just about one smart dude who can read research reports and then come up with his own conclusions that are equally valid with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example.
Of course, Eisenstein questions the scientific establishment, and doesn't seem to trust their conclusions. So, he seems to feel he's got as much right as anybody to correct the work of that establishment.
But I'm not sold. It's a lot to ask a reader to "take my word for it," even after presenting a bunch of arguments about science that the average reader won't be able or qualified to understand.
There's a reason why society leaves brain surgery to the brain surgeons, engineering to the engineers and climate science to the climatologists. Ordinary smart people with college degrees, whether from the Ivy League or the Big Ten, shouldn't be expected to question the conclusions of every technical field.
A large industrial civilization only works with a division of labor and trust in expertise. Of course, an ordinary citizen should think for herself and sometimes question experts. But you need to rely on alternative expertise to do that.
And listening to freelance, self-appointed experts who think they know better has already gotten the climate movement into enough trouble -- by giving science deniers, especially oil company PR flacks, more air-time than they deserve.
The public is confused enough about climate science. I wish that Eisenstein had submitted his whole footnoted section to a proper academic journal for peer review. If he really believes that his conclusions will stand the test of evidence, I hope he'll do that in the future. Then, I'll be more open to what he has to say about science.
In the meantime, I'm grateful for Eistenstein's creative philosophy and his good heart and I hope he will continue to inspire readers to live good lives with all species in mind.
So, when I found his book on climate change frustrating, I was just going to let it go. But after reading this quote from respected historian of science Naomi Oreskes, I realized that I at least wanted to make a short comment on what I found most problematic about Eistenstein's climate book:
“Science … is not based on any individual, no matter how smart that individual may be. It’s based on the collective wisdom, the collective knowledge, the collective work of all of the scientists who have worked on a particular problem.”
This gets to Eisenstein's method, which is eccentric, in both the good and bad senses of the word.
It's good in that he offers original insights that just feel right on. For example, he comments that as a kid, when he took car rides, he noticed more bugs splattered on the windshield than he does today. This is a concrete sign that nature is dying, because insects are such ancient and important inhabitants of the land. This kind of simple but deep observation is where Eisenstein excels.
Where he excels less is in his long discussion of climate science. I understand why he devotes dozens of pages to questioning conventional science and listing footnotes of scholarly papers that few of his readers have heard of. The first reason is just wishful thinking on his part: Eisenstein wants to appeal to climate skeptics, who are probably not going to read this book anyway. His second reason is a stronger one and is essential to his whole approach of integrating humans with nature. He wants to show that we should care more about restoring water, landscape and animals than about cutting fossil fuels to fix the climate.
But Eisenstein's freelance act as a smart dude who can think for himself enough to argue with climate scientists (after all, as he points out, he did study math at Yale) falls flat. Eisenstein is not a qualified PhD climatologist, he doesn't play one on TV and he shouldn't try to play scientist in this book.
As Oreskes, a qualified expert on the history of science, points out, valid science is not just about one smart dude who can read research reports and then come up with his own conclusions that are equally valid with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example.
Of course, Eisenstein questions the scientific establishment, and doesn't seem to trust their conclusions. So, he seems to feel he's got as much right as anybody to correct the work of that establishment.
But I'm not sold. It's a lot to ask a reader to "take my word for it," even after presenting a bunch of arguments about science that the average reader won't be able or qualified to understand.
There's a reason why society leaves brain surgery to the brain surgeons, engineering to the engineers and climate science to the climatologists. Ordinary smart people with college degrees, whether from the Ivy League or the Big Ten, shouldn't be expected to question the conclusions of every technical field.
A large industrial civilization only works with a division of labor and trust in expertise. Of course, an ordinary citizen should think for herself and sometimes question experts. But you need to rely on alternative expertise to do that.
And listening to freelance, self-appointed experts who think they know better has already gotten the climate movement into enough trouble -- by giving science deniers, especially oil company PR flacks, more air-time than they deserve.
The public is confused enough about climate science. I wish that Eisenstein had submitted his whole footnoted section to a proper academic journal for peer review. If he really believes that his conclusions will stand the test of evidence, I hope he'll do that in the future. Then, I'll be more open to what he has to say about science.
In the meantime, I'm grateful for Eistenstein's creative philosophy and his good heart and I hope he will continue to inspire readers to live good lives with all species in mind.
August 11, 2019
This has been both one of the most challenging and disturbing books and the most visionary, compassionate, and holistic writings on climate, environment, Humanity and our Species that I have ever read.
Having previously adopted a mechanistic and quantitative approach to climate change and global warming, Charles Eisenstein’s invitation to consider our world and relationships through a different narrative — one of Interbeing instead of Separation — challenged the very place from which I had found and believed there was hope of reversing global warming and saving our Planet and Species.
Eisenstein outlined many examples of climate change solutions and environmental action that perhaps we once believed were good for us and the world that later revealed unintended and harmful consequences. In other words, Eisenstein’s perspective reminds me of Newton’s third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, without knowing the full extent and consequences of our actions, we can do something intended for positive outcomes but be completely unaware that this action has even more harmful and detrimental effects that make the very situation we are attempting to improve even worse.
The mindset of Interbeing requires us to understand that nature is alive and a subject, not an object. “It means asking ‘What does the land want?’ ‘What does the river want?’ ‘What does the planet want?’ — questions that seem crazy from the perspective of nature-as-thing.” (Page 258)
Eisenstein goes on: “In that understanding, we can no longer cut down forests and drain the swamps, dam rivers and fragment ecosystems with roads, dig pit mines and drill gas wells, with impunity....To do so damages the whole body of nature, just as if you cut off a person’s limb or removed an organ. The well-being of all depends on the well-being of each. We cannot cut down one forest here and plant another there, assuring ourselves through the calculus of net CO2 that we have done no damage. How do we know we have not removed an organ?....Until we can know it, we’d best refrain from committing further ecocide on any scale. Each intact estuary, river, forest, and wetlands that remains to us, we must treat as sacred, while restoring whatever we can.” (Pages 258-259)
In the final pages of this book, Eisenstein lists almost 20 practical, bold, and far-reaching policy changes to promote and change our current system Story from one of Separation to a New Story of Interbeing.
He concludes: “The vision of a Green World is not fantasy; nor, however, is realistic. What it is, is possible. It requires each one of us to dedicate ourselves, unreasonably and with no guarantee of success, to our unique form of service. It requires that we trust our knowing that a healed world, a green world, a more beautiful world is truly possible.” (Page 278)
I highly recommend this book to anyone who is dreaming of and wants to participate in the transformation of our current society and world to the society and world of our highest future possibilities and potential.
Having previously adopted a mechanistic and quantitative approach to climate change and global warming, Charles Eisenstein’s invitation to consider our world and relationships through a different narrative — one of Interbeing instead of Separation — challenged the very place from which I had found and believed there was hope of reversing global warming and saving our Planet and Species.
Eisenstein outlined many examples of climate change solutions and environmental action that perhaps we once believed were good for us and the world that later revealed unintended and harmful consequences. In other words, Eisenstein’s perspective reminds me of Newton’s third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, without knowing the full extent and consequences of our actions, we can do something intended for positive outcomes but be completely unaware that this action has even more harmful and detrimental effects that make the very situation we are attempting to improve even worse.
The mindset of Interbeing requires us to understand that nature is alive and a subject, not an object. “It means asking ‘What does the land want?’ ‘What does the river want?’ ‘What does the planet want?’ — questions that seem crazy from the perspective of nature-as-thing.” (Page 258)
Eisenstein goes on: “In that understanding, we can no longer cut down forests and drain the swamps, dam rivers and fragment ecosystems with roads, dig pit mines and drill gas wells, with impunity....To do so damages the whole body of nature, just as if you cut off a person’s limb or removed an organ. The well-being of all depends on the well-being of each. We cannot cut down one forest here and plant another there, assuring ourselves through the calculus of net CO2 that we have done no damage. How do we know we have not removed an organ?....Until we can know it, we’d best refrain from committing further ecocide on any scale. Each intact estuary, river, forest, and wetlands that remains to us, we must treat as sacred, while restoring whatever we can.” (Pages 258-259)
In the final pages of this book, Eisenstein lists almost 20 practical, bold, and far-reaching policy changes to promote and change our current system Story from one of Separation to a New Story of Interbeing.
He concludes: “The vision of a Green World is not fantasy; nor, however, is realistic. What it is, is possible. It requires each one of us to dedicate ourselves, unreasonably and with no guarantee of success, to our unique form of service. It requires that we trust our knowing that a healed world, a green world, a more beautiful world is truly possible.” (Page 278)
I highly recommend this book to anyone who is dreaming of and wants to participate in the transformation of our current society and world to the society and world of our highest future possibilities and potential.
December 15, 2018
In my opinion, if you are concerned about the converging crises of the ecology and the economy, and the social and political ills that trouble the modern world, Charles Eisenstein is one of the most important voices out there.
In this book, he dares to expand the conversation around climate change from one that is increasingly ineffective because it is based on motivating us to act by using our fear of mortality and a horrible, climate-damaged world to one that recognizes that climate change is part of a larger picture concerning our disconnection from the environment and that we will best be motivated to act by appealing to our heart’s love and care for the natural world.
There is so much I can say about this book (and did in a series of blog posts, link below), but mostly I cherish it for moving me back to coming from the heart when I ponder what I can do to help.
In addition, Eisenstein also covers some fascinating science that I was unaware of, such as how deforestation and the water table may have much more to do with climate change than previously thought.
In conclusion, I can’t recommend this book highly enough.
In this book, he dares to expand the conversation around climate change from one that is increasingly ineffective because it is based on motivating us to act by using our fear of mortality and a horrible, climate-damaged world to one that recognizes that climate change is part of a larger picture concerning our disconnection from the environment and that we will best be motivated to act by appealing to our heart’s love and care for the natural world.
There is so much I can say about this book (and did in a series of blog posts, link below), but mostly I cherish it for moving me back to coming from the heart when I ponder what I can do to help.
In addition, Eisenstein also covers some fascinating science that I was unaware of, such as how deforestation and the water table may have much more to do with climate change than previously thought.
In conclusion, I can’t recommend this book highly enough.
November 26, 2018
Eisenstein’s greatest work to date.
Completely reframed my understanding of climate change.
So grateful for this book, and Charles’ work writing it.
Completely reframed my understanding of climate change.
So grateful for this book, and Charles’ work writing it.
April 27, 2019
I've been listening to Charles Eisenstein for a long time. I've read most of his books and feel pretty much the same way about this one as I do about all the others. Some of it is great and some is just really terrible. I honestly love about half of what he says. He really does get a lot of the things that everyone else is missing. Unfortunately, I can't stand the other half. And from my experience, it's the bad half that his readers seem to be most influenced by. I've been recommending Sacred Economics to people for the last 5 or 6 years, considering a lot of the ideas in there to be really important. I thought that people had enough common sense to ignore the dumber things in there, especially since I tend to share it with caveats about which parts of it I consider useful and which parts I consider ridiculous. I also tend to recommend reading counter-arguments from people like Derrick Jensen before making any big decisions. From my experience though, people that do decide to read his stuff just come to think of themselves as spiritually enlightened and never bother looking into the alternative explanations. This is making it really difficult for me to keep recommending his books.
On the good side, his ideas on regenerative agriculture, ecosystem restoration, the benefits of indigenous cultures and transitioning the global economic system away from infinite growth are all great. These are really important concepts and he does do a good job explaining them. On the bad side, he gets really carried away with these naive New Age ideas about the divine "purpose" of human existence and the supposed teleology of technological development. All people are good at heart, the universe loves us all, climate change deniers have just as many reasons to believe the things they believe as we do, those in positions of power sincerely believe that they're all doing what's best for the world, etc.
I can understand the argument that the mainstream scientific establishment has given people a lot of reasons to distrust them. We were told that cannabis is dangerous and that opioids are just safe pharmaceutical medicines. They told us not to worry about nuclear power plants. "DDT is good for me-e-e", etc. Clearly we should be a little skeptical. But people that listen to Fox News and who voted for Donald Trump are just making honest mistakes? Really!? They couldn't possibly be any more blatant with their lies. They literally contradict themselves within the same sentence sometimes! At some point you have to admit that there are people out there who can't be reached with rational arguments. A lot of them, in fact. They won't be persuaded or guilted into changing their minds no matter what you say. A big theme of this book is that there are other things to argue about than whether or not carbon in the atmosphere is going to kill us, and that's fine. There are a lot of other things killing us that are harder to deny than long-term global warming. Is there any reason to expect the Right to be moved by these other arguments though? And is Eisenstein even a good candidate to try reaching these people? I mean, even Left wingers with hippie leanings can get annoyed with the way he words things. Frankly, I can't think of anyone worse for that job than Eisenstein. Therefore, every word of this book spent on that subject is kind of a waste of time in my opinion. And there is a lot of that in here.
All that said, I still do kind of like this book. I wish I could just recommend certain chapters of it but even the better chapters have a lot of stupid ideas mixed in with them, which makes every part of this kind of hard to take seriously. It's unfortunate that he can't seem to restrain himself from trying to cram in every cute little cleverly-worded idea he thinks of when he writes. If he just took the best ideas from all his books and put them together without the annoying stuff he really could make something pretty great.
On the good side, his ideas on regenerative agriculture, ecosystem restoration, the benefits of indigenous cultures and transitioning the global economic system away from infinite growth are all great. These are really important concepts and he does do a good job explaining them. On the bad side, he gets really carried away with these naive New Age ideas about the divine "purpose" of human existence and the supposed teleology of technological development. All people are good at heart, the universe loves us all, climate change deniers have just as many reasons to believe the things they believe as we do, those in positions of power sincerely believe that they're all doing what's best for the world, etc.
I can understand the argument that the mainstream scientific establishment has given people a lot of reasons to distrust them. We were told that cannabis is dangerous and that opioids are just safe pharmaceutical medicines. They told us not to worry about nuclear power plants. "DDT is good for me-e-e", etc. Clearly we should be a little skeptical. But people that listen to Fox News and who voted for Donald Trump are just making honest mistakes? Really!? They couldn't possibly be any more blatant with their lies. They literally contradict themselves within the same sentence sometimes! At some point you have to admit that there are people out there who can't be reached with rational arguments. A lot of them, in fact. They won't be persuaded or guilted into changing their minds no matter what you say. A big theme of this book is that there are other things to argue about than whether or not carbon in the atmosphere is going to kill us, and that's fine. There are a lot of other things killing us that are harder to deny than long-term global warming. Is there any reason to expect the Right to be moved by these other arguments though? And is Eisenstein even a good candidate to try reaching these people? I mean, even Left wingers with hippie leanings can get annoyed with the way he words things. Frankly, I can't think of anyone worse for that job than Eisenstein. Therefore, every word of this book spent on that subject is kind of a waste of time in my opinion. And there is a lot of that in here.
All that said, I still do kind of like this book. I wish I could just recommend certain chapters of it but even the better chapters have a lot of stupid ideas mixed in with them, which makes every part of this kind of hard to take seriously. It's unfortunate that he can't seem to restrain himself from trying to cram in every cute little cleverly-worded idea he thinks of when he writes. If he just took the best ideas from all his books and put them together without the annoying stuff he really could make something pretty great.
January 2, 2025
Charles Eisenstein, Klimatas: naujasis pasakojimas, Hubris, 2023 m.
Bijojau šitos knygos. Nes klimatas gi, kas gi apie jį gali būti gero ar gražaus? Ir nustebau.
Kaip knygos pradžioje (o ne pabaigoje, kaip paprastai) rašo autorius – „knyga atsirado tik mano sveiką protą palaikančių draugų ir bendraminčių dėka.“
Ši knyga yra ... apie galvojimą. Ne apie panikavimą (planeta miršta!!!), ne apie radikalumą (nuo šiandien – jokių maišelių!!!), o apie ramų galvojimą. Ir meilę. Ne Amazonės miškams ar ledynams, o savo šalies, miesto, kvartalo gamtai. Ne todėl, kad taip liepia Greta, ne todėl, kad apima siaubas, o todėl, kad mylime tą konkretų mišką, upę, medį. Nes jie, kaip ir visa Žemė, yra šventi.
Knyga stora ir ją kartais pasidaro sunku skaityti. Dvylikoje skyriuje Eisensteinas kalba apie būties krizę, klimato fundamentalizmą, klimato spektrą, vandenį, anglies dvideginį iš ekosistemos perspektyvos, atšilimą, regeneraciją, energiją, pinigus ir širdį. O knygos pabaigoje pateikia aštuoniolika pasiūlymų – nuo plastiko atsisakymo, miškų atsodinimo, rūpesčio visomis rūšinis ir labiausiai vabzdžiais, vietinio maisto iki visuomenės demilitarizavimo.
„Aplinkos krizė ragina mus keisti prioritetus ir pirmenybę teikti Žemės gydymui, ekologinės ir visuomeninės sveikatos atkūrimą paverčiant pagrindiniu, kiekvieną politinį sprendimą formuojančiu parametru.“
O dabar pagalvokit apie Ukrainą. Apie sugriautas užtvankas, apie ilgiems metams užkrėstą žemę, sunaikintus miškus ir gyvūnus. Apie daugybei metų nuodingais likusius plotus aplink Černobilį.
Bet negi galima apie tai galvoti, kai žūsta žmonės?
Kai agresorė kaimynė gyvuoja naikindama?
Bet amerikietis Eisensteinas savo knygą baigia optimistiškai. „Žaliojo pasaulio vizija – tai ne fantazija, tačiau ir ne realybė. Tai galimybė. Iš kiekvieno mūsų ji reikalauja, kad savo išskirtiniam pašaukimui atsiduotume be racionalių paaiškinimų ir sėkmės garantijos. Ji reikalauja pasitikėti nuojauta, jog išgijęs pasaulis, žalias pasaulis ir gražesnis pasaulis tikrai įmanomas.“
Atleisk Eisensteinai. Kol kas tuo patikėti negaliu. Noriu. Bet negaliu.
Bijojau šitos knygos. Nes klimatas gi, kas gi apie jį gali būti gero ar gražaus? Ir nustebau.
Kaip knygos pradžioje (o ne pabaigoje, kaip paprastai) rašo autorius – „knyga atsirado tik mano sveiką protą palaikančių draugų ir bendraminčių dėka.“
Ši knyga yra ... apie galvojimą. Ne apie panikavimą (planeta miršta!!!), ne apie radikalumą (nuo šiandien – jokių maišelių!!!), o apie ramų galvojimą. Ir meilę. Ne Amazonės miškams ar ledynams, o savo šalies, miesto, kvartalo gamtai. Ne todėl, kad taip liepia Greta, ne todėl, kad apima siaubas, o todėl, kad mylime tą konkretų mišką, upę, medį. Nes jie, kaip ir visa Žemė, yra šventi.
Knyga stora ir ją kartais pasidaro sunku skaityti. Dvylikoje skyriuje Eisensteinas kalba apie būties krizę, klimato fundamentalizmą, klimato spektrą, vandenį, anglies dvideginį iš ekosistemos perspektyvos, atšilimą, regeneraciją, energiją, pinigus ir širdį. O knygos pabaigoje pateikia aštuoniolika pasiūlymų – nuo plastiko atsisakymo, miškų atsodinimo, rūpesčio visomis rūšinis ir labiausiai vabzdžiais, vietinio maisto iki visuomenės demilitarizavimo.
„Aplinkos krizė ragina mus keisti prioritetus ir pirmenybę teikti Žemės gydymui, ekologinės ir visuomeninės sveikatos atkūrimą paverčiant pagrindiniu, kiekvieną politinį sprendimą formuojančiu parametru.“
O dabar pagalvokit apie Ukrainą. Apie sugriautas užtvankas, apie ilgiems metams užkrėstą žemę, sunaikintus miškus ir gyvūnus. Apie daugybei metų nuodingais likusius plotus aplink Černobilį.
Bet negi galima apie tai galvoti, kai žūsta žmonės?
Kai agresorė kaimynė gyvuoja naikindama?
Bet amerikietis Eisensteinas savo knygą baigia optimistiškai. „Žaliojo pasaulio vizija – tai ne fantazija, tačiau ir ne realybė. Tai galimybė. Iš kiekvieno mūsų ji reikalauja, kad savo išskirtiniam pašaukimui atsiduotume be racionalių paaiškinimų ir sėkmės garantijos. Ji reikalauja pasitikėti nuojauta, jog išgijęs pasaulis, žalias pasaulis ir gražesnis pasaulis tikrai įmanomas.“
Atleisk Eisensteinai. Kol kas tuo patikėti negaliu. Noriu. Bet negaliu.
May 29, 2020
My partner suggested that I stop reading this book because I was bitching about reading it. I feel like this treads very familiar ground for most social justice- and nonwestern thought-aware people, especially if they pay attention to non-white points of view: we are connected to the earth, the earth is full of complex interdependent systems. There, now you don't have to read this self-important New Age faux-academic book by a privileged spiritualist. Read Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds instead.
Bonus points for mention of chemtrails and studying math as a Yale undergrad.
Bonus points for mention of chemtrails and studying math as a Yale undergrad.
February 25, 2020
Firstly, a warning: this is going to be a long review. In fact, this book has taken me (someone who can read two books a day with no problem) nine months to read. Why has it taken me this long? And why have I stuck at it? Simply because, like the climate change debate, this book is complicated, nuanced and fascinating, and it deserves to be carefully read and its discussions and conclusions properly considered. It reframes the whole climate change debate in different, non-binary terms. It tries as much as possible to be impartial. It questions everything and names its sources, inviting the reader to challenge and investigate further its claims. It isn’t afraid to challenge some of the underlying assumptions that we in a modern society don’t even think to question. In other words it’s a book for people who are fed up of being bludgeoned with contradictory information, who want to do something to help but feel helpless, and who don’t want ‘win’ a war against our changing environment but rather participate in a new narrative of collaboration, by understanding and accepting our place in the bigger whole. As you can see, this is a massive undertaking for a 300-page book. So how does the author go about presenting this?
Firstly, he does it by defining the issues. The central narrative is this book is simple, and despite its name, it’s not really about climate. Instead it’s this: the planet is dying. The biostructures of life on Earth are breaking down and, since they are all inter-connected, this doesn’t bode well for the continued existence of life on our planet. Climate and its rapid change is not the cause of this destruction but is in fact only one symptom. What does this mean? Here’s an example: climate change and subsequent droughts have been blamed for the large-scale migrations north from Central America. However, there are strong arguments that climate change is the symptom, not the cause, of massive deforestation (Guatemala lost 17% and Honduras 37% of their rainforests between 1990-2005. El Salvador has suffered 85% deforestation since 1960s). In fact, climate change is a scapegoat which keeps humanity’s attention focussed on only a few aspects of the environmental catastrophe we face.
Rising global temperatures are also often cited as climate change, but this too is a red herring in that the warming globe is also a symptom of the underlying problems, not the cause. Evidence suggest that the cause of much of these warmer temperatures is a combination of a growing number of urban heat islands/cities, coupled with massive deforestation/lack of vegetation which reduces vegetative transpiration and the cooling effect of cloud cover (and incidentally also mucks up the high and low pressure fronts that drive weather systems and deposit temperate, regular rainfall). Moreover, it is well to remember that without deforestation and subsequently less regular rainfall, rising temperatures would not be a problem: instead warmer climates would encourage forests to evolve into rain forests, rather than the current deforested areas evolving into sterile deserts.
The narrow parameters of ‘climate change’ are further narrowed and defined by taking a few areas of concern and elevating them to prime importance. One such is the burning of fossil fuels and rising carbon emissions. Our current obsession with burning fossil fuels and CO2 emissions reduces the problem to one of calculation and problem-solving – how we can plant more trees to act as carbon sinks, as well as create new technologies to solve the problems of energy. However, this again covers up the underlying cause; that of the wholesale destruction of natural carbon sinks which have little value to humans in terms of usage. These include wetlands and mangroves (of which an estimated 70% and 50% respectively have been destroyed in the last 100 years), swamps and rainforests. Not only are these habitats superlative carbon sinks, they also protect further carbon sinks such as coral reefs. Those natural carbon sinks such as steppes, prairie, pampas or veldts that do have some use to us (in terms of being relatively easy to convert to mass agriculture) are also being destroyed and, even worse, are often being converted to carbon emitters through heavy-duty crop cultivation.
So, if rising temperatures, CO2 emissions and fossil fuels are simply symptoms of a bigger problem that is buried under the term ‘climate change’, why then are we choosing to focus only on these few aspects rather than regarding our environment holistically and tackling the root causes behind why our planet is dying?
To see the rest of this review, please visit:
https://www.howaboutthis.co.uk/review...
Firstly, he does it by defining the issues. The central narrative is this book is simple, and despite its name, it’s not really about climate. Instead it’s this: the planet is dying. The biostructures of life on Earth are breaking down and, since they are all inter-connected, this doesn’t bode well for the continued existence of life on our planet. Climate and its rapid change is not the cause of this destruction but is in fact only one symptom. What does this mean? Here’s an example: climate change and subsequent droughts have been blamed for the large-scale migrations north from Central America. However, there are strong arguments that climate change is the symptom, not the cause, of massive deforestation (Guatemala lost 17% and Honduras 37% of their rainforests between 1990-2005. El Salvador has suffered 85% deforestation since 1960s). In fact, climate change is a scapegoat which keeps humanity’s attention focussed on only a few aspects of the environmental catastrophe we face.
Rising global temperatures are also often cited as climate change, but this too is a red herring in that the warming globe is also a symptom of the underlying problems, not the cause. Evidence suggest that the cause of much of these warmer temperatures is a combination of a growing number of urban heat islands/cities, coupled with massive deforestation/lack of vegetation which reduces vegetative transpiration and the cooling effect of cloud cover (and incidentally also mucks up the high and low pressure fronts that drive weather systems and deposit temperate, regular rainfall). Moreover, it is well to remember that without deforestation and subsequently less regular rainfall, rising temperatures would not be a problem: instead warmer climates would encourage forests to evolve into rain forests, rather than the current deforested areas evolving into sterile deserts.
The narrow parameters of ‘climate change’ are further narrowed and defined by taking a few areas of concern and elevating them to prime importance. One such is the burning of fossil fuels and rising carbon emissions. Our current obsession with burning fossil fuels and CO2 emissions reduces the problem to one of calculation and problem-solving – how we can plant more trees to act as carbon sinks, as well as create new technologies to solve the problems of energy. However, this again covers up the underlying cause; that of the wholesale destruction of natural carbon sinks which have little value to humans in terms of usage. These include wetlands and mangroves (of which an estimated 70% and 50% respectively have been destroyed in the last 100 years), swamps and rainforests. Not only are these habitats superlative carbon sinks, they also protect further carbon sinks such as coral reefs. Those natural carbon sinks such as steppes, prairie, pampas or veldts that do have some use to us (in terms of being relatively easy to convert to mass agriculture) are also being destroyed and, even worse, are often being converted to carbon emitters through heavy-duty crop cultivation.
So, if rising temperatures, CO2 emissions and fossil fuels are simply symptoms of a bigger problem that is buried under the term ‘climate change’, why then are we choosing to focus only on these few aspects rather than regarding our environment holistically and tackling the root causes behind why our planet is dying?
To see the rest of this review, please visit:
https://www.howaboutthis.co.uk/review...
April 29, 2025
Jei gaučiau iš džino vieną norą, tai paprašyčiau, kad pasaulis pasikeistų taip, kaip siūlo Eisensteinas. Jei jis teisus (o dėl pačios esmės beveik neabejoju, jog taip) tai pamatinių mūsų ryšio su pasauliu problemų sprendimas atvestų ir prie sprendimų simptomams - karams, emisijoms, ekonominei nelygybei ir aibei kitų.
Viena vertus, jo vizija įkvepia - štai autorius, kuris nebijo užduoti tikrai esminių klausimų pasauliui ir, maža to, tiki, kad įmanoma žengti labai rimtus žingsnius į priekį. Kita vertus, klimato kova ir taip atrodo beviltiškai pralaimėta, o Eisensteino siūlomi pokyčiai nepalyginamai radikalesni - baisu, kad jiems niekuomet neatsiras vietos niekur kitur, kaip tik knygose. Norisi tikėti, kaip siūlo autorius, jog esame taške, kur senasis modelis net norėdamas ilgai tarnauti nebegalės, o radikalūs pokyčiai ilgai atrodys neįmanomi, kol staiga ims atrodytų neišvengiami. Kaip Trumpas, tik į gera.
Viena vertus, jo vizija įkvepia - štai autorius, kuris nebijo užduoti tikrai esminių klausimų pasauliui ir, maža to, tiki, kad įmanoma žengti labai rimtus žingsnius į priekį. Kita vertus, klimato kova ir taip atrodo beviltiškai pralaimėta, o Eisensteino siūlomi pokyčiai nepalyginamai radikalesni - baisu, kad jiems niekuomet neatsiras vietos niekur kitur, kaip tik knygose. Norisi tikėti, kaip siūlo autorius, jog esame taške, kur senasis modelis net norėdamas ilgai tarnauti nebegalės, o radikalūs pokyčiai ilgai atrodys neįmanomi, kol staiga ims atrodytų neišvengiami. Kaip Trumpas, tik į gera.
May 13, 2019
This is a visionary work and very different from most of what I’ve been reading on climate change and sustainability in the last years.
Without trying to adjust to any mainstream view on how to deal with the incredibly complex issues we have created as a society, he invites us to totally change the questions we’ve been asking ourselves in order to get to the root of the problem.
While walking through the different views and nuances around our current state of unsustainability, we are invited to a courageous journey of letting go of the temptation to find the right side to be on the war that has been framed for us on climate change.
This book has helped me restore the trust that we can create a more beautiful world, but at the same time it didn’t give any easy answer or false hopes. I am glad I read it while I was taking his online course “Living in the Gift”, as they complemented each other very well. I feel now more connected to the Earth, more capable of empathy end less fatalistic about the future. Thank you Charles!
Without trying to adjust to any mainstream view on how to deal with the incredibly complex issues we have created as a society, he invites us to totally change the questions we’ve been asking ourselves in order to get to the root of the problem.
While walking through the different views and nuances around our current state of unsustainability, we are invited to a courageous journey of letting go of the temptation to find the right side to be on the war that has been framed for us on climate change.
This book has helped me restore the trust that we can create a more beautiful world, but at the same time it didn’t give any easy answer or false hopes. I am glad I read it while I was taking his online course “Living in the Gift”, as they complemented each other very well. I feel now more connected to the Earth, more capable of empathy end less fatalistic about the future. Thank you Charles!
January 12, 2021
4.5/5
Eisenstein flips conventional climate change narrative on its head by proposing ecological conservation and regenerative practices instead of focusing all our energy on fossil fuels. He links the destruction of ecosystems to what we call climate change. Counting CO2 distracts us from the real problem; destruction of natural systems as we know them.
He is an advocate of ‘Interbeing’ a belief that earth is a living being and all animals, birds, plants in addition to water, soil, clouds, and air and linked to each other. Our well being is inextricably linked.
Eisenstein eases you into this theory while giving you practical ways to change the way we live, work and consume to live in harmony with nature.
Eisenstein flips conventional climate change narrative on its head by proposing ecological conservation and regenerative practices instead of focusing all our energy on fossil fuels. He links the destruction of ecosystems to what we call climate change. Counting CO2 distracts us from the real problem; destruction of natural systems as we know them.
He is an advocate of ‘Interbeing’ a belief that earth is a living being and all animals, birds, plants in addition to water, soil, clouds, and air and linked to each other. Our well being is inextricably linked.
Eisenstein eases you into this theory while giving you practical ways to change the way we live, work and consume to live in harmony with nature.
January 27, 2024
Huh. Das war eine ambivalente Leseerfahrung. Eisensteins Grundthese, dass sich Klimaschutz nicht auf CO2 fixieren darf, dass es um Umweltschutz gehen muss und wir Natur und Umwelt nicht einfach nur als Ressource betrachten dürfen, teile ich. Ich habe aber den Eindruck - vielleicht ist es auch die amerikanische Perspektive - dass die Klimabewegung da sehr viel weiter ist, als er ihr zugesteht. Auch wenn es um die Verknüpfung von ökologischer Transformation und sozialen wie wirtschaftlichen (anti-kapitalistischen) Aspekten geht. Hinzu kommt, dass Teile des Buches für mich einfach zu sehr in ein spirituell-esoterisches Feld abgedriftet sind, in das ich so nicht folgen wollte.
September 22, 2019
The climate crisis isn't new and there isn't a one-fits-all cure or a miraculous technological solution (if not there wouldn't be a crisis). But Eisenstein's holistic perspectives in this book serve as urgent reminders of why every facet of society has to work towards the same goal. A lot of drive has to start organically from ground up, and I'm appreciative of his views on the commercial aspects.
August 8, 2022
Kui mõtled, et viitsid ainult ühe raamatu oma elus kliimamuutusest lugeda, palun loe seda raamatut!!!
Kliimaraamatute ampluaas suutis see raamat mind päriselt puudutada. Jah, olukord maailmas on väga kurb. Jah, on olemas lahendusi ning nende saavutamine pole kerge. Aga kuidagi on mul lootus ja ind suurem kui mistahes teise raamatu lugemise lõpus. Ma päriselt tahan olla osa lahendusest, mitte lihtsalt jätta see mingite tehnoloogia arendajate, poliitikute, aktivistide vms tegelaste kätesse, (kes sageli võivad unustada suures võitluses selle mis tegelikult oluline).
Kliimaraamatute ampluaas suutis see raamat mind päriselt puudutada. Jah, olukord maailmas on väga kurb. Jah, on olemas lahendusi ning nende saavutamine pole kerge. Aga kuidagi on mul lootus ja ind suurem kui mistahes teise raamatu lugemise lõpus. Ma päriselt tahan olla osa lahendusest, mitte lihtsalt jätta see mingite tehnoloogia arendajate, poliitikute, aktivistide vms tegelaste kätesse, (kes sageli võivad unustada suures võitluses selle mis tegelikult oluline).
March 21, 2025
Ši knyga kalba ne tik apie klimato kaitą, bet ir apie tai, kaip mes patys mąstome, kas mums svarbu. Norint keisti pasaulį, reikia keisti ne tik veiksmus, bet ir požiūrį.
August 31, 2019
Charles Eisenstein’s book Climate: A New Story is full of compassion and insight about human alienation from the natural world that has led to our current climate crisis. His is fundamentally a book of philosophy that challenges readers to reevaluate many widely-held cultural beliefs and assumptions that could very well end up killing us and everything on the planet. Philosophy books are not easy to read. Readers must be willing to read carefully and to do some serious self-reflection to fully understand this book. Only then can we begin to make the changes that must be made.
At root, Eisenstein is asking us to recognize the different stories we tell ourselves and how these stories are not working. The Story of Separation from the natural world is leading to disaster. We focus on fear rather than on what we love. He takes to task the global warming narrative that is yet another us vs. them narrative. He makes a strong argument that fear won’t work in the end. Only love works. “We work to save what we love,” and that’s why protecting local ecosystems usually work much better than abstract larger-scale projects. He calls for a Story of Interbeing.
Everything is connected. It makes no sense to worry only about the death of kelp forests which suck up CO2 if we don’t also be concerned about the threats to sea otters which keep sea urchins under control which wipe out kelp forests. Instead of a love of nature and the recognition that all living things are connected, he says we focus on fear of our survival. He takes on at length our very dysfunctional economic system which measures quantity to the detriment of living things. He asks us instead to measure quality.
This is not a book of only what doesn’t work. Eisenstein has plenty of great examples of Interbeing, a recognition of how to live within and love the natural world and how to act on that. He points out the many ways in which the planet is suffering that has nothing to do with the climate crisis. Our overuse and misuse of plastics is one example. Another is our methods of agriculture which involve deforestation, monocropping, pesticide use, and a resulting insect holocaust. He gives us ways out of this human-caused disaster through regenerative agriculture methods.
“Human well-being and planetary health are inextricably connected.” That’s why we have to stop thinking of ourselves as separate from nature. “The world is a living being,” and we are a part of that living being. “The earth is still alive,” he tells us. “Now is the time to choose life. It’s not too late.”
At root, Eisenstein is asking us to recognize the different stories we tell ourselves and how these stories are not working. The Story of Separation from the natural world is leading to disaster. We focus on fear rather than on what we love. He takes to task the global warming narrative that is yet another us vs. them narrative. He makes a strong argument that fear won’t work in the end. Only love works. “We work to save what we love,” and that’s why protecting local ecosystems usually work much better than abstract larger-scale projects. He calls for a Story of Interbeing.
Everything is connected. It makes no sense to worry only about the death of kelp forests which suck up CO2 if we don’t also be concerned about the threats to sea otters which keep sea urchins under control which wipe out kelp forests. Instead of a love of nature and the recognition that all living things are connected, he says we focus on fear of our survival. He takes on at length our very dysfunctional economic system which measures quantity to the detriment of living things. He asks us instead to measure quality.
This is not a book of only what doesn’t work. Eisenstein has plenty of great examples of Interbeing, a recognition of how to live within and love the natural world and how to act on that. He points out the many ways in which the planet is suffering that has nothing to do with the climate crisis. Our overuse and misuse of plastics is one example. Another is our methods of agriculture which involve deforestation, monocropping, pesticide use, and a resulting insect holocaust. He gives us ways out of this human-caused disaster through regenerative agriculture methods.
“Human well-being and planetary health are inextricably connected.” That’s why we have to stop thinking of ourselves as separate from nature. “The world is a living being,” and we are a part of that living being. “The earth is still alive,” he tells us. “Now is the time to choose life. It’s not too late.”
July 5, 2021
Netreba byť ani sociológom ani biológom, aby si človek všimol, že naša civilizácia dnes viac ako kedykoľvek v minulosti žije „príbehom oddelenosti“, ako ho nazval Charles Eisenstein vo svojej knihe Klíma – nový príbeh. Veríme v izolované JA v strede cudzieho sveta, kde je moje blaho oddelené od blaha iných. Tým pádom si navzájom konkurujeme s inými ľuďmi, národmi, ale aj s prírodou. Niektoré staré kultúry mali však iný naratív. Žili „príbehom spolubytia“, kde sa kládol dôraz na prepojenosť (prírody a ľudí, jednotlivých zložiek prírody, ľudí navzájom). Príbeh oddelenosti nám prekáža vo vnímaní súvislostí a v pokornom porozumení tomu, že nikdy nie sme schopní kontrolovať všetky súvislosti.
Naučili sme sa riešiť problémy izolovaním jednej príčiny, ktorú pochopíme, vyriešime, porazíme. Baktéria, závislosť, Al-Khaída, uhlík... Dnes však omnoho viac ako v nedávnej minulosti aj veda priznáva, že planéta aj ľudská spoločnosť tvoria natoľko komplexné systémy s tak zložitými závislosťami a vzťahmi, že žiadny jav nemá jednu hlavnú príčinu. A napriek tomu stále devastujeme ekosystémy výrobou bionafty a tešíme sa, že bojujeme proti klimatickej zmene. Horúčkovito vyvíjame vakcínu a tešíme sa, ako už čoskoro navždy vyhráme nad pandémiou. Sme zavretí doma pri obrazovke počítača a je nám pod psa. Prečo asi? Naša globálna civilizácia je v hodnotovej kríze, ktorá spočíva v príbehu oddelenosti. Uverili sme, že všetko môžeme. Uverili sme, že na všetko máme právo. Uverili sme, že veci sa dajú do poriadku bez toho, aby sme sa my museli zmeniť.
Viac na https://www.pdcs.sk/blog/post/korona-...
Naučili sme sa riešiť problémy izolovaním jednej príčiny, ktorú pochopíme, vyriešime, porazíme. Baktéria, závislosť, Al-Khaída, uhlík... Dnes však omnoho viac ako v nedávnej minulosti aj veda priznáva, že planéta aj ľudská spoločnosť tvoria natoľko komplexné systémy s tak zložitými závislosťami a vzťahmi, že žiadny jav nemá jednu hlavnú príčinu. A napriek tomu stále devastujeme ekosystémy výrobou bionafty a tešíme sa, že bojujeme proti klimatickej zmene. Horúčkovito vyvíjame vakcínu a tešíme sa, ako už čoskoro navždy vyhráme nad pandémiou. Sme zavretí doma pri obrazovke počítača a je nám pod psa. Prečo asi? Naša globálna civilizácia je v hodnotovej kríze, ktorá spočíva v príbehu oddelenosti. Uverili sme, že všetko môžeme. Uverili sme, že na všetko máme právo. Uverili sme, že veci sa dajú do poriadku bez toho, aby sme sa my museli zmeniť.
Viac na https://www.pdcs.sk/blog/post/korona-...
April 28, 2024
This book shook me. Not because of anything in particular in the book, but something else: about halfway through reading it, I got curious about the author, and I learned that he was considered by many to be an anti-science conspiracy theorist. There's even several episodes dedicated to him on the podcast Conspirituality, which describes its purpose as "dismantling New Age cults, wellness grifters, and conspiracy-mad yogis. At best, the conspirituality movement attacks public health efforts in times of crisis. At worst, it fronts and recruits for the fever-dream of QAnon." Eek! And here I'd been enjoying the book. Was I being duped? Was this a big con?
The next time I picked up the book after making this discovery, I felt a bit sick to my stomach while reading. Everything he was saying resonated deeply. I found myself questioning everything he said, questioning myself, and worrying... Was I foolish?
So I decided to put the book on pause, and dig a bit more deeply into Eisenstein. I learned that he was a senior campaign advisor for RFK, jr., which troubled me a bit... But honestly, I didn't know much about RFK, jr. other than his place within the Kennedy political dynasty and the fact that he exacerbated vaccine skepticism during COVID... Neither of those sit well with me, but I also spent a year during the pandemic providing workshops on how to have conversations with people who have a different perspective on vaccinations than you (importantly, with people you actually are in meaningful relation with, not strangers or barely-acquaintances on the internet)... so I've got more experience than most pro-vaxxers do in having deep conversations with people who are against vaccination or skeptical about vaccination, and I don't believe in writing them off. And I've learned it's important to avoid assuming that just because you disagree strongly with one thing a person says, that you have nothing you'll agree on or - even more importantly - that you have nothing to learn from that person. So I spent some time looking into RFK, jr.'s policy positions and history, and I found a reasonable amount I liked. I also found a lot that disturbed me... but hey, Obama "tortured some folks" and yet I would still be thrilled to get to have dinner with the guy. I won't be voting for RFK, jr. but I also won't write off his supporters just for being adjacent to him.
Then I looped back to learning about Eisenstein. I listened to the Conspirituality podcast episodes, and I noted that the "damning" evidence against him mostly centered around three things: (1) who he has worked with, and their damning beliefs, (2) his openness to engaging with fringe belief systems generally, and (3) his unwillingness to accept prevailing scientific orthodoxies. His detractors often talk about the "vague" and "general" language he uses to keep his own views empty enough for others to impute their own beliefs onto his discourse... Having read this book and quite a few essays from his Substack, I don't think his language is vague or general at all. Rather, I would say he is radically transparent about his own uncertainties, and he is unwilling to push certainty in cases where he has none.
That unwillingness to push certainty where he doesn't have it does result in a strange openness to fringe beliefs, which can be unnerving at times. If you watch him interact with audience members during his talks, you'll see him contend openly with people who ask about concentration camps for the unvaccinated or regular alien/human interactions. We're so used to such fringe beliefs being met with derision, or at the very least an explicit argument against, that his willingness to contend with the ideas almost feels like an endorsement. BUT empathy is not endorsement. Without arguing against them, he redirects their energy towards an entirely different question. His detractors pointed to these moments in recorded conversations as reasons to be concerned about him, but I found those moments to be inspiring examples of conversational jiujitsu. No one changes anyone's mind by making them feel foolish in front of a public audience, so why respond that way? The Conspirituality podcast suggests that people like Eisenstein, at worst, recruit for the fever-dream of QAnon. But what I saw in those moments was Eisenstein recruiting them away from that fever-dream, away from the pleasing sense of having an "answer" from the conspiracy story and towards the much less comfortable space of broad uncertainty.
Of course, Eisenstein's philosophy isn't all uncertainty: he does have a strong point of view about a few things... with what he calls "the Story of Interbeing" at the center of those certainties. Essentially, Eisenstein promotes the idea that we cannot separate ourselves from nature and the universe, that we are all part of the same system/organism, and that when we do harm to anything, we do harm to ourselves.
When he suggests that science is like religion, he is referring to the underlying assumption within our particular culture of science that we are separate from our world... this is an underlying premise of most Christian sects as well... It is the cultural air we breathe, it's hard to know anything else.
He acknowledges that his belief in the Story of Interbeing is not really "provable" any more than the corresponding "Myth of Separation" can be proved. It is a matter of first principles. It either resonates or it doesn't. In this way, it too is like religion. When Eisenstein says something is "like a religion," he is not smearing it because he does not think religions are inherently bad. They are merely beyond the realm of proof or disproof.
It's not hard to find people who resonate with these ideas, but it is hard to find people who truly live in a way that aligns with them. I certainly don't. Eisenstein's most radical belief is that THIS question - the question of interbeing v. separation - is more important than any other, more important than the questions science can answer... which is why he seems to find himself surrounded by a lot of people who distrust science despite being a mathematician who clearly spends a lot of time learning about science and reading up on scientific research. He cares more about whether you believe the Story of Interbeing than whether you believe in science... And he cares more about whether you act in a way in alignment with the Story of Interbeing than whether you get vaccinated.
Eventually, I stopped reading *about* Eisenstein, and I returned to his book, more comfortable with my own ability to navigate any potential brainwashing. 'Twas an interesting journey.
The next time I picked up the book after making this discovery, I felt a bit sick to my stomach while reading. Everything he was saying resonated deeply. I found myself questioning everything he said, questioning myself, and worrying... Was I foolish?
So I decided to put the book on pause, and dig a bit more deeply into Eisenstein. I learned that he was a senior campaign advisor for RFK, jr., which troubled me a bit... But honestly, I didn't know much about RFK, jr. other than his place within the Kennedy political dynasty and the fact that he exacerbated vaccine skepticism during COVID... Neither of those sit well with me, but I also spent a year during the pandemic providing workshops on how to have conversations with people who have a different perspective on vaccinations than you (importantly, with people you actually are in meaningful relation with, not strangers or barely-acquaintances on the internet)... so I've got more experience than most pro-vaxxers do in having deep conversations with people who are against vaccination or skeptical about vaccination, and I don't believe in writing them off. And I've learned it's important to avoid assuming that just because you disagree strongly with one thing a person says, that you have nothing you'll agree on or - even more importantly - that you have nothing to learn from that person. So I spent some time looking into RFK, jr.'s policy positions and history, and I found a reasonable amount I liked. I also found a lot that disturbed me... but hey, Obama "tortured some folks" and yet I would still be thrilled to get to have dinner with the guy. I won't be voting for RFK, jr. but I also won't write off his supporters just for being adjacent to him.
Then I looped back to learning about Eisenstein. I listened to the Conspirituality podcast episodes, and I noted that the "damning" evidence against him mostly centered around three things: (1) who he has worked with, and their damning beliefs, (2) his openness to engaging with fringe belief systems generally, and (3) his unwillingness to accept prevailing scientific orthodoxies. His detractors often talk about the "vague" and "general" language he uses to keep his own views empty enough for others to impute their own beliefs onto his discourse... Having read this book and quite a few essays from his Substack, I don't think his language is vague or general at all. Rather, I would say he is radically transparent about his own uncertainties, and he is unwilling to push certainty in cases where he has none.
That unwillingness to push certainty where he doesn't have it does result in a strange openness to fringe beliefs, which can be unnerving at times. If you watch him interact with audience members during his talks, you'll see him contend openly with people who ask about concentration camps for the unvaccinated or regular alien/human interactions. We're so used to such fringe beliefs being met with derision, or at the very least an explicit argument against, that his willingness to contend with the ideas almost feels like an endorsement. BUT empathy is not endorsement. Without arguing against them, he redirects their energy towards an entirely different question. His detractors pointed to these moments in recorded conversations as reasons to be concerned about him, but I found those moments to be inspiring examples of conversational jiujitsu. No one changes anyone's mind by making them feel foolish in front of a public audience, so why respond that way? The Conspirituality podcast suggests that people like Eisenstein, at worst, recruit for the fever-dream of QAnon. But what I saw in those moments was Eisenstein recruiting them away from that fever-dream, away from the pleasing sense of having an "answer" from the conspiracy story and towards the much less comfortable space of broad uncertainty.
Of course, Eisenstein's philosophy isn't all uncertainty: he does have a strong point of view about a few things... with what he calls "the Story of Interbeing" at the center of those certainties. Essentially, Eisenstein promotes the idea that we cannot separate ourselves from nature and the universe, that we are all part of the same system/organism, and that when we do harm to anything, we do harm to ourselves.
When he suggests that science is like religion, he is referring to the underlying assumption within our particular culture of science that we are separate from our world... this is an underlying premise of most Christian sects as well... It is the cultural air we breathe, it's hard to know anything else.
He acknowledges that his belief in the Story of Interbeing is not really "provable" any more than the corresponding "Myth of Separation" can be proved. It is a matter of first principles. It either resonates or it doesn't. In this way, it too is like religion. When Eisenstein says something is "like a religion," he is not smearing it because he does not think religions are inherently bad. They are merely beyond the realm of proof or disproof.
It's not hard to find people who resonate with these ideas, but it is hard to find people who truly live in a way that aligns with them. I certainly don't. Eisenstein's most radical belief is that THIS question - the question of interbeing v. separation - is more important than any other, more important than the questions science can answer... which is why he seems to find himself surrounded by a lot of people who distrust science despite being a mathematician who clearly spends a lot of time learning about science and reading up on scientific research. He cares more about whether you believe the Story of Interbeing than whether you believe in science... And he cares more about whether you act in a way in alignment with the Story of Interbeing than whether you get vaccinated.
Eventually, I stopped reading *about* Eisenstein, and I returned to his book, more comfortable with my own ability to navigate any potential brainwashing. 'Twas an interesting journey.
September 20, 2019
After reading 'The Uninhabitable Earth' I needed some way to see a way forward. 'Climate: A New Story' is the antidote to the overwhelming crisis we face. I appreciate it is not a silver bullet but a shift in our world view and consciousness. Charles Eisenstein taps into our innate intuition and draws out the essence of life as a way to heal our past and create a path where all life flourishes in an abundant matrix of inter related ecosystems. A must read if you are looking for answers and ways to live now.
February 1, 2019
This book gives a really interesting and insightful perspective on how we should look and tackle climate change. Eisenstein has such an awe and a love for the earth and it’s ecology which is hugely inspiring for the reader. Despite the challenges we face with global warming it’s his optimism in providing and focussing on solutions which makes this book one worth reading!
November 7, 2021
one of the most engrossing and heart-breaking books i have ever read. i feel as part of something big and want this book to be my compass as i navigate through my life, connecting to earth as she is me and i am her.
November 16, 2020
Thought provoking and intriguing potential for a new future. Roots of the current story challenged against changing social agreements. What do we choose next?
February 16, 2021
This is a transformative book. It calls for a wholesale change in how we think about climate change and environmentalism - putting love for the earth as a living organism at the center of our actions, rather than techno-utopian talk of emissions targets.
October 25, 2021
The deepest book I’ve come across about climate change, but also so much more. Probably my favourite book ever. The holism, compassion, and connection to a felt sense of truth is refreshing and missing in current public debates. This is the way forwad!
June 17, 2020
I first found out about Charles Eisenstein through his amazing essay The Coronation (audio version read by him here), where he looked at the coronavirus pandemic crisis as a crisis of humanity, its collectively pernicious relationship with death and its obsession with safety.
Then I listened to this discussion with Rebel Wisdom on roughly the same topic, and his appearance on the Rune Soup podcast where he presented his new book, Climate: A New Story.
What can I say? I'm positively stunned by this man. Very clear writing, solid arguments, a real plan, a holistic, systems-thinking worldview... and a love for nature I didn't think was possible outside people who usually cannot express themselves in writing as concisely as Mr. Eisenstein.
As far as I'm concerned, if you consider yourself an ecologist, you must give Climate: A New Story a read. It will rock your world and make your question how much of a true ecologist you really are. And I'm leaving this with you in as positive and empowering a way as possible.
I've gathered together many of my clippings from my Kindle read and added headlines. I hope they give you an idea of what to expect.
Why ecosystems and ecology are intrinsically interlinked:
Then I listened to this discussion with Rebel Wisdom on roughly the same topic, and his appearance on the Rune Soup podcast where he presented his new book, Climate: A New Story.
What can I say? I'm positively stunned by this man. Very clear writing, solid arguments, a real plan, a holistic, systems-thinking worldview... and a love for nature I didn't think was possible outside people who usually cannot express themselves in writing as concisely as Mr. Eisenstein.
As far as I'm concerned, if you consider yourself an ecologist, you must give Climate: A New Story a read. It will rock your world and make your question how much of a true ecologist you really are. And I'm leaving this with you in as positive and empowering a way as possible.
I've gathered together many of my clippings from my Kindle read and added headlines. I hope they give you an idea of what to expect.
Why ecosystems and ecology are intrinsically interlinked:
The crucial role of living systems in maintaining climate stability presents us with good news and bad news. The good news is that our world can survive, that it can potentially adapt to higher levels of greenhouse gases.On why renewables won't save us and definitely not the planet:
The bad news is that the ecosystems that can do this are in steep decline all over the world. That means, given positive feedback loops that are already releasing large amounts of carbon and methane from nonhuman sources, climate instability will continue to worsen even if we cut fossil fuel use to zero, unless we also heal and protect the forests, mangroves, seagrass, and so on. [...]
To me the prospect of humanity persisting on a dead, denuded planet is more alarming than a future without humans.
Conceivably, we could find another fuel source and maintain the addiction to a system of economics and production that consumes the world.On love:
Love is the expansion of self to include another, whose well-being becomes part of one’s own.On compassion to our adversaries:
Does this mean we might as well give up on change? No. It means we need to ask, What are the circumstances that give birth to the choices that are harming the world? Engaging other people, we have to ask the question that defines compassion: What is it like to be you? The more we understand, the more we live in reality and the less we inhabit a fantasy world populated by our projections.On the futility of quantifying the world:
The totalizing quest to capture the world in number never succeeds. Something always escapes the metrics and the models: the unmeasurable, the qualitative, and what seems irrelevant. Usually, the judgment as to what is relevant encodes the intellectual biases of those doing the measuring, and often the economic and political biases too. You might say that what is left out is our shadow. Like many things we ignore or suppress, it roars back in the form of perverse, unforeseeable consequences. Thus, although it is the epitome of rationality to make decisions by the numbers, the results often appear to be insane.Is data really objective?
Thus, what we observe to be happening in the world says as much about ourselves as it does about the world.On fatalism:
What does it matter, when one party disengages because they think there is no problem, and the other disengages because they think there’s no solution? [...] Indeed fatalism is a mind-set that strengthens the trends that generate it by fostering compliance to those very trends. The compliance that fatalism effects is invisible to the fatalistic thinker, who does not regard him or herself as a conformist, but simply as a realist.On scientific orthodoxy:
Dissidents complain about the difficulty they have obtaining research funding, getting published in journals, and getting their arguments taken seriously. Meanwhile, the defenders of orthodoxy cite the self-same lack of peer-reviewed journal publication as reason not to take unorthodox theories seriously. Their logic is basically: “These theories are not accepted; therefore they are not acceptable.” That is confirmation bias in a nutshell.On why just measuring emissions is a really bad idea:
It isn’t only forests whose living complexity far exceeds our ability to measure, quantify, and reduce to data. What number should we give the climate contribution of sea otters? They don’t sequester carbon—but they keep down populations of sea urchins, which when unchecked destroy kelp forests that do absorb carbon and alkalize seawater, allowing shellfish to absorb even more carbon.Wildlife in the current paradigm:
Lucky thing for the fish that they are saving us money. Lucky thing for the employees that they are more profitable healthy than sick. Lucky thing for the honeybees that they provide such economically valuable services. But too bad for anything or anyone whose value registers low on our meter. Do you know that feeling of enchantment on seeing a rare bird or on having a close encounter with an animal, seeing an eagle over the water, a whale spouting in the sea? Can you quantify how much poorer you would be without those beings? Come on, give me a number. Then we will know whether these are worth protecting.Taking the sacredness of nature seriously:
If a forest is sacred to you, then how much would I have to pay you to cut it down? No amount would be enough, just as no amount of money would be enough to induce you to offer your mother or child for extermination.On holistic medicine and verifiability:
The same point applies to holistic medicine. Because each body is unique, true holistic medicine is resistant to validation through controlling variables across standard diagnostic and therapeutic categories.On aborigines in Australia exercising creative non-violence to protect their habitat, and winning:
As tensions were reaching their peak, Dan proposed an idea to a group of aborigines at the site. Everyone felt the foreboding that they were entering a losing battle, so why not try something else? Since they knew media helicopters were coming, why not make giant art installations visible from the air for them to film, instead of the usual script of police arresting activist hippies? The aborigines loved the idea, brought out their dreaming stories, and soon had sketched designs for two-hundred-foot giant rainbow serpents and other figures to be drawn on the ground with sacred ochre. They also planned to greet the police ceremonially, with giant fires making sacred eucalyptus smoke, and five hundred men painted in ceremonial colors with clapping sticks and didgeridoos. The next morning Dan got a phone call. The government had canceled the fracking license.On why luck favors the bold:
Have you ever noticed in life that the most striking synchronicities seem to happen in times of uncertainty? When one moves to a new city without a plan, or travels without an itinerary, or does something out of the ordinary with no idea of what will happen, then quite often an amazing (sometimes life-changing) things happens.Pesticides in a nutshell, and why they need to be banned now:
[...] It is not enough to “send positive energy.” A sacrifice of some sort is required, something that involves risk or loss. It might be the sacrifice of time, energy, and money. It could be a sacrifice of certainty or control, an act that feels like a step into the true unknown. It could be a demonstration of commitment that feels real to you.
We have basically conducted an eighty-year experiment to see what happens to the biosphere when we constantly dump poison into it. Life is resilient, so the effects were hard to notice at first, but they have gathered now to critical mass.Ending on a hopeful note, on imagining what's possible, not what's realistic:
All of the policies and practices I have described are within reach right now. The vision of a Green World is not fantasy; nor, however, is it realistic. What it is, is possible. It requires each one of us to dedicate ourselves, unreasonably and with no guarantee of success, to our unique form of service. It requires that we trust our knowing that a healed world, a greened world, a more beautiful world is truly possible. I hope this book has amplified that calling and trued you to that possibility.
March 16, 2024
Among its core ideas, the book highlights our interconnection with the Earth, the imperative to challenge our prevailing assumptions, and the value of local, grassroots action—truly inspirational. However, the writing style and foundation of some arguments occasionally made me want to launch the book at a wall.
July 12, 2020
This book is a revolutionary deep dive into how we think about climate, the Earth and our role as humans. I was lucky to see Charles speak just as the book was being published and he blew my mind with his eloquent description of how the Earth is a living being, the rainforests, rivers, wetlands, oceans and more are all the glands, tissues and veins of a system that is alive, and yes, conscious. That we can perhaps tap into that consciousness and join as partners with our beautiful planet gives me great hope that this human presence may not quite be done for, yet. But it is not a spiritual read only. There are concrete steps for reviving our dying world and living in (as another book of Charles' is titled) "The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible".
The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible
The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible
February 13, 2019
There is a story of a drunk man who lost his keys in a middle of a night and decided to search under a street lamp because it was too dark in the place where he has actually dropped them. The main argument of 'Climate: A New Story' states that we are following the same pattern when we reduce the mind-boggling complexity of the environmental issues into a single metric - the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In this book Charles argues that focusing on a single factor is not only reducing our capacity to respond to the issue in any meaningful way, it actually makes our responses counter-productive and leads to further and more complicated problems.
Giving many examples Charles dissects multiple sides of the climate change debate exposing intellectual and emotional shortcuts that keep us believing one of the sides more than another, with all of them being essentially inadequate in trying to explain what's going on, where we are heading, and what can be done about it. The author argues that not only the climate models are hopelessly simple to be adequate but that any model we can possibly come up with is going to omit more than enough detail to make the model useless at best.
And then Charles offers a way for each of us to palpate our way towards an approach that can meaningfully contribute to the repair of the damage done by us and to cultivate more life around us. It's not going to be one-size-fits-all approach, it's not something that can be figured out, and it's going to be more tangible than fighting a gas that cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted. In a nutshell it is about making the place where one lives more liveable and Charles does a good job showing how a multitude of little actions from each one of us can bring a response to the current calamities that is beyond our imagination.
As usual with Charles Eisenstein, it's difficult to give any justice to his work in one little review. He goes deep and he covers a lot of ground. His books are of the kind that are worth rereading every now and then and 'Climate' is not an exception.
Giving many examples Charles dissects multiple sides of the climate change debate exposing intellectual and emotional shortcuts that keep us believing one of the sides more than another, with all of them being essentially inadequate in trying to explain what's going on, where we are heading, and what can be done about it. The author argues that not only the climate models are hopelessly simple to be adequate but that any model we can possibly come up with is going to omit more than enough detail to make the model useless at best.
And then Charles offers a way for each of us to palpate our way towards an approach that can meaningfully contribute to the repair of the damage done by us and to cultivate more life around us. It's not going to be one-size-fits-all approach, it's not something that can be figured out, and it's going to be more tangible than fighting a gas that cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted. In a nutshell it is about making the place where one lives more liveable and Charles does a good job showing how a multitude of little actions from each one of us can bring a response to the current calamities that is beyond our imagination.
As usual with Charles Eisenstein, it's difficult to give any justice to his work in one little review. He goes deep and he covers a lot of ground. His books are of the kind that are worth rereading every now and then and 'Climate' is not an exception.
February 12, 2019
It’s a fresh new look on the climate change. What is climate change after all? Is it all about CO2, the Arctic methane monster, solar panels, sustainable development and Tesla’s mission to save the world through more consumption? Not really, the author claims. It’s all about us, humans, destroying our habitat, our forests and lakes and wetlands, the whole web of life. The book itself feels quite repetitive and meandering, if you have read the other books by the author you pretty much know what he is going to say. Still, it’s an important, urgent message to us thinking tool-wielding iPhone-loving apes. But, ugh, well, who cares really? I personally know exactly zero people who give a slightest damn about the future on the planet and its biosphere, everyone is knee-deep in this ultra competitive race against everybody else for necesseties and comforts and pleasures of life (mind you, I am no exception). Guess, I am totally in the fatalist/catastrophist camp. There is hope yet: the bacteria shall live no matter what.
January 23, 2023
Esoterisch und schwarz-weiß, obwohl er genau das kritisiert. Ich stimme Eisenstein in vielen Punkten zu, die allerdings auch keine neuen Erkenntnisse sind. Immer und immer wieder wirft er aber Dinge zusammen, die einfach nicht zusammen gehören, egal wie offen man für eine ganzheitliche Sicht auf die Welt auch sein mag. Dazu kommt, dass er so tut, als gäbe es nur zwei Extreme: man sieht die Welt "richtig" oder man ist ein zahlengetriebener Kapitalist. Es gibt tatsächlich Menschen, die für eine Reduktion von THG sind und *gleichzeitig* für die Integrität von Ökosysteme werben, so unvorstellbar das für seine persönliche Erfahrung sein mag. Zuletzt biedert er sich mit so vielen Aussagen völlig bewusst bei all jenen an, die wissenschaftlichen Konsens zu Grundsatzfragen der Umweltforschung pauschal ablehnen, nur um das mit einer dünnen wissenschaftsphilosophischen Kritik zu rechtfertigen und dann wieder für die Wissenschaft zu werben? Alles sehr konfus. Das Buch nennt viele wichtige Punkte aber verbaut sich selbst so viel, dass es mich regelmäßig wütend gemacht hat. Schade.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews