What do you think?
Rate this book
Every Species is a Masterpiece
In twenty short books, Penguin Classics brings you the ideas that have changed the way we think and talk about the living Earth.
Over the past 75 years, a new canon has emerged. As life on Earth has become irrevocably altered by humans, visionary thinkers around the world have raised their voices to defend the planet, and affirm our place at the heart of its restoration. Their words have endured through the decades, becoming the classics of a movement. Together, these books show the richness of environmental thought, and point the way to a fairer, saner, greener world.
This book brings together some of Edward O. Wilson's most profound and significant writings on the rich diversity of life on Earth, our place in it, and our obligation to conserve the planet's fragile ecosystems.
Over the past 75 years, a new canon has emerged. As life on Earth has become irrevocably altered by humans, visionary thinkers around the world have raised their voices to defend the planet, and affirm our place at the heart of its restoration. Their words have endured through the decades, becoming the classics of a movement. Together, these books show the richness of environmental thought, and point the way to a fairer, saner, greener world.
This book brings together some of Edward O. Wilson's most profound and significant writings on the rich diversity of life on Earth, our place in it, and our obligation to conserve the planet's fragile ecosystems.
Paperback
Published February 25, 2021
About the author
Edward O. Wilson
209 books2,541 followersEdward Osborne Wilson, sometimes credited as E.O. Wilson, was an American biologist, researcher, theorist, and author. His biological specialty is myrmecology, a branch of entomology. A two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, Wilson is known for his career as a scientist, his advocacy for environmentalism, and his secular-humanist ideas pertaining to religious and ethical matters. He was the Pellegrino University Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
February 2, 2022
I think I was expecting either a beautiful paean or a complex argument about humans and ecology; instead this series of essays contains some old basic arguments about people and how we fit into the natural world. He advances a lot of old arguments, many of which have been credibly challenged by science. For example, the idea that our carbon footprint will shrink proportionally to our population (with declining birth rates in many countries) is an appealing one if you believe overpopulation is to blame for the destruction of the earth's ecosystems-- but we know this idea isn't true because individuals' contributions to greenhouse gas emissions vary dramatically based on their income, where they live, etc. So an overall decline in birth rates may not reduce total emissions at all.
I was surprised and a little sad, at the end, that E. O. Wilson's hope for the future was that the human population would start to shrink, technology would reduce our collective carbon footprint, and that the potential utility of all the world's biodiversity for things like medicines and fuel would be the thing that convinced humanity to save it.
Maybe I need to read it more closely, but there is something sad and limited underneath the above set of ideas: that we are destructive by nature, and that the tools capitalism has used to break down complex ecosystems and sell the parts will somehow be our salvation in a disastrous future. I just don't buy it.
Addendum: Holy shit, I just went on an article bender about E.O. Wilson's relationship to scientific racism and wow! Now I understand why his perspectives seemed.... suspicious. There is almost always a relationship between scientists who think "overpopulation" is a primary conservation issue, and racism. You don't usually have to look too hard to find it. So anyway! If you've reached this point in the review, anytime you see someone griping about overpopulation (instead of, e.g., the rampant production of plastics from fossil fuel products), look them up and dig a lil deeper.
A couple articles if you're interested:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
https://magazine.scienceforthepeople....
I was surprised and a little sad, at the end, that E. O. Wilson's hope for the future was that the human population would start to shrink, technology would reduce our collective carbon footprint, and that the potential utility of all the world's biodiversity for things like medicines and fuel would be the thing that convinced humanity to save it.
Maybe I need to read it more closely, but there is something sad and limited underneath the above set of ideas: that we are destructive by nature, and that the tools capitalism has used to break down complex ecosystems and sell the parts will somehow be our salvation in a disastrous future. I just don't buy it.
Addendum: Holy shit, I just went on an article bender about E.O. Wilson's relationship to scientific racism and wow! Now I understand why his perspectives seemed.... suspicious. There is almost always a relationship between scientists who think "overpopulation" is a primary conservation issue, and racism. You don't usually have to look too hard to find it. So anyway! If you've reached this point in the review, anytime you see someone griping about overpopulation (instead of, e.g., the rampant production of plastics from fossil fuel products), look them up and dig a lil deeper.
A couple articles if you're interested:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
https://magazine.scienceforthepeople....
March 23, 2022
A powerful punch packed into a petite package?
An important voice - largely before its time - on some of the greatest challenges of our era (and our future) - climate change, species extinction, etc. Well worth reading.
I can't get the following passage - originally published in 1993 - out of my head:
The human species is, in a word, an environmental hazard. It is possible that intelligence in the wrong kind of species was foreordained to be a fatal combination for the biosphere. Perhaps a law of evolution is that intelligence usually extinguishes itself.
This admittedly dour scenario is based on what can be termed the juggernaut theory of human nature, which holds that people are programmed by their genetic heritage to be so selfish that a global sense of responsibility will come too late.
More importantly, when I'm not utterly despondent about climate change and our (cumulative) failure to address it (or even make a good faith effort to change our behavior), what troubles me most is how much we've known for how long, and yet ... and yet ... how little we've done (or are doing - or continuing not to do - about it).
Wilson writes beautifully (and powerfully), and his arguments are as compelling as they are depressing.
This content assembled here was originally published elsewhere, at different times. Republished as a standalone here, this slender volume is installment 15 - and, frankly, one of the stronger offerings - in the Penguin Green Ideas collection, which I'm finding well worth the investment ... and the minor hassle of acquiring it... Sadly, as my local independent bookstore confirmed, it is not available for sale (in the slipcase collection) in the U.S. What a shame! (Fortunately, thanks to our modern, global economy, it's not that difficult to order it from a UK supplier). Having now reached the three-quarter point, I'm ecstatic that I found and bought it. Well worth the effort, money, and time. Frankly, I can't recommend the collection (warts and imperfections and all) enough.
An important voice - largely before its time - on some of the greatest challenges of our era (and our future) - climate change, species extinction, etc. Well worth reading.
I can't get the following passage - originally published in 1993 - out of my head:
The human species is, in a word, an environmental hazard. It is possible that intelligence in the wrong kind of species was foreordained to be a fatal combination for the biosphere. Perhaps a law of evolution is that intelligence usually extinguishes itself.
This admittedly dour scenario is based on what can be termed the juggernaut theory of human nature, which holds that people are programmed by their genetic heritage to be so selfish that a global sense of responsibility will come too late.
More importantly, when I'm not utterly despondent about climate change and our (cumulative) failure to address it (or even make a good faith effort to change our behavior), what troubles me most is how much we've known for how long, and yet ... and yet ... how little we've done (or are doing - or continuing not to do - about it).
Wilson writes beautifully (and powerfully), and his arguments are as compelling as they are depressing.
This content assembled here was originally published elsewhere, at different times. Republished as a standalone here, this slender volume is installment 15 - and, frankly, one of the stronger offerings - in the Penguin Green Ideas collection, which I'm finding well worth the investment ... and the minor hassle of acquiring it... Sadly, as my local independent bookstore confirmed, it is not available for sale (in the slipcase collection) in the U.S. What a shame! (Fortunately, thanks to our modern, global economy, it's not that difficult to order it from a UK supplier). Having now reached the three-quarter point, I'm ecstatic that I found and bought it. Well worth the effort, money, and time. Frankly, I can't recommend the collection (warts and imperfections and all) enough.
February 5, 2023
Heel bevlogen boek, waarin de waarde voor mij vooral lag in de wijze waarop Wilson de basis principes en inzichten van conservation biology/natuurbehoud gebruikt om de status van de biodiversiteitscrisis op een gedreven manier te beschrijven. Zijn concrete argumenten om biodiversiteit te behouden zijn misschien wat verouderd, maar het karakter dat in het boek is gelegd is alleszins zalig motiverend om in actie te schieten.
March 25, 2022
The essay selection on this one was interesting. I get why they did it. It shows the evolution of Wilson’s biophilia, a core concept in his writings. But it did mean all of these essays had a sameness. And not just in their topics, but even in the specifics. For example:
“We run the risk…of beaching ourselves upon alien shores like a great confused pod of pilot whales.”
and then from an essay 3 years later, but only 20 pages in book time:
“We will have become like the pilot whales that inexplicably beach themselves on New England shores.”
It left me with quite the deja view when it happened the first time. But regardless, I enjoyed the collection. And it was really neat to see that evolution across all five essays. For example, in the first essay he spends a lot of time talking about the value of the environment through an anthropocentric lens, like the value of resources, medecine, etc. But by the third essay, he’s expanding into more philosophical concepts on the rights of species and their inherent value outside what they can do for us.
“We run the risk…of beaching ourselves upon alien shores like a great confused pod of pilot whales.”
and then from an essay 3 years later, but only 20 pages in book time:
“We will have become like the pilot whales that inexplicably beach themselves on New England shores.”
It left me with quite the deja view when it happened the first time. But regardless, I enjoyed the collection. And it was really neat to see that evolution across all five essays. For example, in the first essay he spends a lot of time talking about the value of the environment through an anthropocentric lens, like the value of resources, medecine, etc. But by the third essay, he’s expanding into more philosophical concepts on the rights of species and their inherent value outside what they can do for us.
June 21, 2026
Wilson's discussion of environmental destruction would find gainful use in a critique of capitalist exploitation, yet this is something that his essays here lack utterly, to their detriment.
▹ Is Humanity Suicidal? [1993] The sentence "Now ... the human species has doubled to 5.5 billion" made me quick-age and shrivel up like a bunch of ripe grapes next to a wasp nest.
Bizzarely, in the gesture of instinctive inefficacious disavowal familiar to anyone invested in some vital cause, E. O. Wilson is quick to delineate himself as somewhat apart from an implicitly unreasonable, irrational, too-radical species of environmentalists who may speak of the rights of and reverence due to Mother Gaia, or who might engage in eco-sabotage. Now, androcentrism wouldn't make it into my top 10 criticisms of the environmental crisis — but a complete and compulsive dismissal is a) overly hurried, therefore, damningly, potentially politically counterproductive, b) intellectually dubious, and c) deeply personally suspicious.
Apropos untimely meditations: some of the hope Wilson expresses as to the arc of environmnetalism in politics — There are reasons ... to believe that we have entered what might someday be generously called the Century of the Environment — strike one as bittersweet, retrospectively hopelessly optimistic. The pragmatic impetus and security rationale for preservation and renewable energy seems to have gotten pushed to the shadows— until now, when USA aggression upon Iran has brought out into stark focus the price of globalized fossil-burning economy. One hopes, too, that some brighter path forward might be in the process of being chartered by the example Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels conference's "coalition of the willing", assembled in the wake of the frustrations of COP30.
▹ The Environmental Ethic [1996] Engages in a kind of attempt at anthropology that seeks to — this is a motif of Wilson's writing — underline human embeddedness within the ecosystems that made us, that we co-evolved with. We cannot know ourselves, even, unless dwelling within nature. The argument for environmental preservation here – and in Biophilia – becomes a humanistic one.
Yet a human-nature connection is pre-supposed, and in this only vaguely articulated. There is little consideration of how urbanized humanity has lost knowledge of engaging of the world. There is little consideration even for the necessity of broader implementation of something like the right to roam. There is, gallingly, little mention of human-nature connections that are being, presently, violently torn.
That would be a good time, perhaps, to speak of the rights of indigenous communities - as modern environmental activism has mostly learned the necessity of doing - whose historical socio-mythical connection with the ecosystems they grew alongside of in many cases may remain preserved as practice or at least be accessible to historical study — but that might have put Wilson too-close to worshippers of Mother Earth and such. And we can't have that.
▹ Biophilia and the Environmental Ethic [1993] The biophilia Wilson defines - that is, the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms - is, amusingly enough, evidenced through the hereditary phobia of snakes. Apropos heredity: Wilson's consideration of humanity as inextricable from the biosphere is valuable, but his precise articulation is married to a kind of genetic imperialism which privileges - as if heredity is not the matter of generational somato-social reproduction, as if DNA lies coiled sequestered in hermitage away from the influences of epigenetics, of pre- and post-natal environmental chemistry, of socialisation, as if the urbanized Homo sapiens lacks only access to birds and woodland for kinship with Ötzi. This is pernicious and unhelpful dichotomy, which philosophers of science such as S. Oyama rightly aim at dismantling.
▹ Vanishing Before Our Eyes [2000] Recapitulates arguments brought forward elsewhere: the incalculable utility, the vast molecular riches of species that may be lost and all the potential medical therapies with them; the direct correlation between habitat area loss and species extinctions; the hardness of the task, and the necessity of it.
Repetitiveness is fine, as long related essays are not printed side-by-side in a book short enough to be read in a single sitting (and yet this is exactly what Every Species is a Masterpiece does.)
▹ Half-Earth [2016] In the twenty-ish years between writing 'Is Humanity Suicidal?' and 'Half-Earth' Wilson has already fallen into 'moving ahead as though scientific and entrepreneurial genius will solve each crisis', placing his hopes in that the environmental footprint of a multiplying humanity's rising need may be shrunk by intensification of agricultural by techno-scientific means, inter alia AI. Lacking, too, is any consideration of a blueprint for partitioning out his proposed half-of-Earth given over to wilderness: there, the kind of ethical considerations that views a Mother Earth as endowed with divine/natural rights, or the kind of bioterroristic* activism impulse that drives people to drive metal spikes into Douglas firs might actually be needed.
____
* It is terrorism, bc. it involves property and (future, unrealised, potential, therefore very much real in the stock portfolio evaluation) profit damage.
▹ Is Humanity Suicidal? [1993] The sentence "Now ... the human species has doubled to 5.5 billion" made me quick-age and shrivel up like a bunch of ripe grapes next to a wasp nest.
Bizzarely, in the gesture of instinctive inefficacious disavowal familiar to anyone invested in some vital cause, E. O. Wilson is quick to delineate himself as somewhat apart from an implicitly unreasonable, irrational, too-radical species of environmentalists who may speak of the rights of and reverence due to Mother Gaia, or who might engage in eco-sabotage. Now, androcentrism wouldn't make it into my top 10 criticisms of the environmental crisis — but a complete and compulsive dismissal is a) overly hurried, therefore, damningly, potentially politically counterproductive, b) intellectually dubious, and c) deeply personally suspicious.
Apropos untimely meditations: some of the hope Wilson expresses as to the arc of environmnetalism in politics — There are reasons ... to believe that we have entered what might someday be generously called the Century of the Environment — strike one as bittersweet, retrospectively hopelessly optimistic. The pragmatic impetus and security rationale for preservation and renewable energy seems to have gotten pushed to the shadows— until now, when USA aggression upon Iran has brought out into stark focus the price of globalized fossil-burning economy. One hopes, too, that some brighter path forward might be in the process of being chartered by the example Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels conference's "coalition of the willing", assembled in the wake of the frustrations of COP30.
In its neglect of the rest of life, exemptionalism fails definitively. To move ahead as though scientific and entrepreneurial genius will solve each crisis that arises implies that the declining biosphere can be similarly manipulated. But the world is too complicated to be turned into a garden. There is no biological homeostat that can be worked by humanity; to believe otherwise is to risk reducing a large part of Earth to a wasteland.
▹ The Environmental Ethic [1996] Engages in a kind of attempt at anthropology that seeks to — this is a motif of Wilson's writing — underline human embeddedness within the ecosystems that made us, that we co-evolved with. We cannot know ourselves, even, unless dwelling within nature. The argument for environmental preservation here – and in Biophilia – becomes a humanistic one.
Yet a human-nature connection is pre-supposed, and in this only vaguely articulated. There is little consideration of how urbanized humanity has lost knowledge of engaging of the world. There is little consideration even for the necessity of broader implementation of something like the right to roam. There is, gallingly, little mention of human-nature connections that are being, presently, violently torn.
That would be a good time, perhaps, to speak of the rights of indigenous communities - as modern environmental activism has mostly learned the necessity of doing - whose historical socio-mythical connection with the ecosystems they grew alongside of in many cases may remain preserved as practice or at least be accessible to historical study — but that might have put Wilson too-close to worshippers of Mother Earth and such. And we can't have that.
▹ Biophilia and the Environmental Ethic [1993] The biophilia Wilson defines - that is, the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms - is, amusingly enough, evidenced through the hereditary phobia of snakes. Apropos heredity: Wilson's consideration of humanity as inextricable from the biosphere is valuable, but his precise articulation is married to a kind of genetic imperialism which privileges - as if heredity is not the matter of generational somato-social reproduction, as if DNA lies coiled sequestered in hermitage away from the influences of epigenetics, of pre- and post-natal environmental chemistry, of socialisation, as if the urbanized Homo sapiens lacks only access to birds and woodland for kinship with Ötzi. This is pernicious and unhelpful dichotomy, which philosophers of science such as S. Oyama rightly aim at dismantling.
▹ Vanishing Before Our Eyes [2000] Recapitulates arguments brought forward elsewhere: the incalculable utility, the vast molecular riches of species that may be lost and all the potential medical therapies with them; the direct correlation between habitat area loss and species extinctions; the hardness of the task, and the necessity of it.
Repetitiveness is fine, as long related essays are not printed side-by-side in a book short enough to be read in a single sitting (and yet this is exactly what Every Species is a Masterpiece does.)
▹ Half-Earth [2016] In the twenty-ish years between writing 'Is Humanity Suicidal?' and 'Half-Earth' Wilson has already fallen into 'moving ahead as though scientific and entrepreneurial genius will solve each crisis', placing his hopes in that the environmental footprint of a multiplying humanity's rising need may be shrunk by intensification of agricultural by techno-scientific means, inter alia AI. Lacking, too, is any consideration of a blueprint for partitioning out his proposed half-of-Earth given over to wilderness: there, the kind of ethical considerations that views a Mother Earth as endowed with divine/natural rights, or the kind of bioterroristic* activism impulse that drives people to drive metal spikes into Douglas firs might actually be needed.
____
* It is terrorism, bc. it involves property and (future, unrealised, potential, therefore very much real in the stock portfolio evaluation) profit damage.
July 9, 2022
A bit repetitive and I don’t share his faith in the free market, but eloquent on the importance of biodiversity.
September 28, 2023
It was okay... the depressing thing about this penguin series is that all these books and essays were published years and years ago and nothing has gotten better, it has all become worse.
His theories were also sort of just meh, and not really based in too much science - the thing about naturephile or whatever it was... yes nature is incredible beneficial to our wellbeing and mental health.
Also I know this is pretentious but he used the term poisonous snakes and from there he lost credibility for me. Snakes are venomous not poisonous.
There were some interesting points about why we are the way we are.... but also we are sentient beings capable of conscious thought, and can make decisions... referring to "our species retains hereditary traits that add greatly to our destructive impact. We are tribal and aggressively territorial, intent on private space beyond minimal requirements, and oriented by selfish sexual and reproductive drives. Cooperation beyond the family and tribal levels comes hard"... Is this a product of our genes or the way we have created society (we have just made shit up, we can remake shit up)
🌿🌿🌿🌿
In the forest patch live legions of species: perhaps 300 birds, 500 butterflies, 200 ants, 50,000 bettles, 1000 trees, 5000 fungi, tens of thousands of bacteria.... each species occupies a precise niche, demanding a certain place, an exact microclimate, particular nutrients and temperature and humidity cycles with specified timing to trigger phases of the life cycle.... biologists could not put the community back together again
Only in the last moment of human history has the delusion arisen that people can flourish apart from the rest of the living world... the imprint of nature cannot be erased in a few generations of urban existence....[parapharse] why are do so many people have unfound phobias of natural things.. heights, snakes, spiders when they should have phobias of guns, cars, knives?
If species are to be judged by their potential material value, they can be priced, traded off against other sources of wealth and - when the price is right- discardeed
His theories were also sort of just meh, and not really based in too much science - the thing about naturephile or whatever it was... yes nature is incredible beneficial to our wellbeing and mental health.
Also I know this is pretentious but he used the term poisonous snakes and from there he lost credibility for me. Snakes are venomous not poisonous.
There were some interesting points about why we are the way we are.... but also we are sentient beings capable of conscious thought, and can make decisions... referring to "our species retains hereditary traits that add greatly to our destructive impact. We are tribal and aggressively territorial, intent on private space beyond minimal requirements, and oriented by selfish sexual and reproductive drives. Cooperation beyond the family and tribal levels comes hard"... Is this a product of our genes or the way we have created society (we have just made shit up, we can remake shit up)
🌿🌿🌿🌿
In the forest patch live legions of species: perhaps 300 birds, 500 butterflies, 200 ants, 50,000 bettles, 1000 trees, 5000 fungi, tens of thousands of bacteria.... each species occupies a precise niche, demanding a certain place, an exact microclimate, particular nutrients and temperature and humidity cycles with specified timing to trigger phases of the life cycle.... biologists could not put the community back together again
Only in the last moment of human history has the delusion arisen that people can flourish apart from the rest of the living world... the imprint of nature cannot be erased in a few generations of urban existence....[parapharse] why are do so many people have unfound phobias of natural things.. heights, snakes, spiders when they should have phobias of guns, cars, knives?
If species are to be judged by their potential material value, they can be priced, traded off against other sources of wealth and - when the price is right- discardeed
February 8, 2024
Badly put together. Every chapter repeats the same 3-4 core argument, sometimes verbatim.
March 6, 2025
''Like it or not, and prepared or not, we are the mind and stewards of the living world...'' Wow. Through university, I always knew and revered Wilson as a great conservationist, yet this collection of his most famous writings really solidified my opinion of him. As he states, Every Species is a Masterpiece, and there becomes little purpose on Earth for Humans if these species continue to decline at rapid rates. We ourselves are animals, and our genes and souls are connected to the species around us more than some people would like to think (the snake/ natural phobia theory blew my mind!).
I really liked that this book was a collection of Wilson's books/commentaries, as you could see the shift in what conservation/biodiversity truly is and has become across 15-20 years. Given this, his essay 'Half-Earth' (the most recently written one) resonated most closely with my views on biodiversity and conservation: every species has an innate right to be on this planet, and humans have a duty to protect every species we can.
Although hope and empathy are paramount when it comes to conservation and the state of Earth, I think Edward O. Wilson perfectly balances these with a warning to all humans (including myself): We have more than enough knowledge to make great difference and positive change - But are we willing to make this change?
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this book and I honestly feel even more inspired to explore/spend my life delving into the world of conservation biology. Now is the time to act and (for those who don't) start caring. Whether we have the time to or not.
I really liked that this book was a collection of Wilson's books/commentaries, as you could see the shift in what conservation/biodiversity truly is and has become across 15-20 years. Given this, his essay 'Half-Earth' (the most recently written one) resonated most closely with my views on biodiversity and conservation: every species has an innate right to be on this planet, and humans have a duty to protect every species we can.
Although hope and empathy are paramount when it comes to conservation and the state of Earth, I think Edward O. Wilson perfectly balances these with a warning to all humans (including myself): We have more than enough knowledge to make great difference and positive change - But are we willing to make this change?
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this book and I honestly feel even more inspired to explore/spend my life delving into the world of conservation biology. Now is the time to act and (for those who don't) start caring. Whether we have the time to or not.
December 12, 2024
A lot of the arguments presented here are at best old hat and at worst (dare I even say it?) Problematic. They are also repeated across all of the mini-essays here, making the read quite a slog. Two stars because I really looked up to Wilson in my undergrad.
July 10, 2022
While important to the development of our current biological knowledge and exploration of ethics, it was overly simplistic for our current understanding of the climate catastrophe. I wonder if Penguin could have chosen another text that demonstrates the beauty and importance of biodiversity but which goes beyond the now disproven concept that human population growth is the main threat to our planet.
September 17, 2022
Edward O. Wilson: the grumpy old man of environmentalism. There was a time when his work deeply resonated with me. I now chalk this up to myself requiring a battery of data to aid me in assembling my early thoughts on the Earth and its inevitable human-caused destruction. Data may prove one’s point, but it’s also overwhelming and can feel combative. I’m much more interested now in understanding how to change a mindset that is so deeply rooted anthropocentrism. Its insidious. Example: the way we talk about cutting down a tree, or improving our landscaping. Did anyone think to ask the tree or the plants what they wanted? Was there a negotiation? Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But even Wilson admits this is a necessity by inversely arguing: “Without attempting to resolve the issue of the innate rights of species, I will argue the necessity of a robust and richly textured anthropocentric ethic…based on the hereditary needs of our own species.” I think this is where he goes wrong however. Never give up on focusing on achieving empathy for non-human species, especially when it would favor a naval-gazing bipedal ape.
.
.
.
.
#edwardowilson #everyspeciesisamasterpiece #penguin #greenideas #environments #nature #ecology #globalwarming
.
.
.
.
#edwardowilson #everyspeciesisamasterpiece #penguin #greenideas #environments #nature #ecology #globalwarming
January 27, 2023
This is not a real review, just some thoughts I like to write down.
Das ist keine richtige Bewertung, nur ein paar Gedanken, die ich aufschreiben wollte.
Da es quasi eine Auswahl seiner Essays ist, macht das Ganze sehr repetitiv, da teilweise ganze Sätze exakt wiedergegeben werden. Auch kann ich mich mit seinen Ansätzen nicht wirklich identifizieren. Eine genetisch codierte Biophilia macht am Ende keinen Sinn. Wir sind Teil der Natur und haben im Vergleich zu allen anderen Arten keine spezifischen Gene, die uns in die Natur ziehen. Dann der Punkt mit der Umweltöknomie, der mir persönlich aufstösst. Ich bin nicht der Meinung, dass wir allen Teilen der Natur einen entsprechenden Geldwert zuweisen müssen um deren Nutzen kommunizieren zu können. Wir sollten den Ansporn haben, die Natur um der Natur willen zu erhalten und nicht, weil wir etwas daraus gewinnen wollen. Der letzte Punkt ist der bedauernswerte Korrelation von Wissenschaftlern, die die Ansicht vertreten, dass Überbevölkerung ein Hauptproblem sei und rassistischen Ansichten. Die Erde kann die momentane Bevölkerung problemlos beherbegen, insofern wir verantwortungsvoll mit ihr umgehen würden.
Am Ende kein Input, der mich irgendwie weitergebracht hätte.
Das ist keine richtige Bewertung, nur ein paar Gedanken, die ich aufschreiben wollte.
Da es quasi eine Auswahl seiner Essays ist, macht das Ganze sehr repetitiv, da teilweise ganze Sätze exakt wiedergegeben werden. Auch kann ich mich mit seinen Ansätzen nicht wirklich identifizieren. Eine genetisch codierte Biophilia macht am Ende keinen Sinn. Wir sind Teil der Natur und haben im Vergleich zu allen anderen Arten keine spezifischen Gene, die uns in die Natur ziehen. Dann der Punkt mit der Umweltöknomie, der mir persönlich aufstösst. Ich bin nicht der Meinung, dass wir allen Teilen der Natur einen entsprechenden Geldwert zuweisen müssen um deren Nutzen kommunizieren zu können. Wir sollten den Ansporn haben, die Natur um der Natur willen zu erhalten und nicht, weil wir etwas daraus gewinnen wollen. Der letzte Punkt ist der bedauernswerte Korrelation von Wissenschaftlern, die die Ansicht vertreten, dass Überbevölkerung ein Hauptproblem sei und rassistischen Ansichten. Die Erde kann die momentane Bevölkerung problemlos beherbegen, insofern wir verantwortungsvoll mit ihr umgehen würden.
Am Ende kein Input, der mich irgendwie weitergebracht hätte.
April 2, 2025
Interesting but a bit repetitive. The information in here about earth's astonishing biodiversity loss from the 90s is devastating when you extrapolate it up to today -- the rate is only growing more extreme.
argument as to why we should celebrate and protect biodiversity "relies too much on "but what about the untapped resources!!" before taking the much more interesting and vital step of positing a thesis for an environmental aesthetic/morality, which he links to "biophilia". Sadly this little tome only scratches the surface of what humanity's co-evolutionary relationship with nature could mean for our neuropsychology and socioemotional and spiritual development.
Overall I was onboard until this unforgiveable NONSENSE that he reels out right at the end:
And what of per-capita consumption? The footprint will evolve, not to claim more and more space, as you might at first suppose, but less. The reason lies in the evolution of the free market system, and the way it is increasingly shaped by high technology.
I beg your FUCKING pardon???
The products that win are those that cost less to manufacture and advertise, need less frequent repair and replace-ment, and give highest performance with a minimum amount of energy. Just as natural selection drives organic evolution by competition... raising benefit-to-cost of production drives the evolution of the economy. ... All of these amenities will yield more and better results with less per-capita material and energy, and thereby will reduce the size of the ecological footprint.
WHAT????????
The year Wilson wrote this? 2016. TWENTY SIXTEEN!!!!
Wilson: and then i told them the free hand of the market was going to solve the climate crisis
Me: *choking on CO2* okay grandpa let's get you back to your Tesla sponsored retirement labour camp...
argument as to why we should celebrate and protect biodiversity "relies too much on "but what about the untapped resources!!" before taking the much more interesting and vital step of positing a thesis for an environmental aesthetic/morality, which he links to "biophilia". Sadly this little tome only scratches the surface of what humanity's co-evolutionary relationship with nature could mean for our neuropsychology and socioemotional and spiritual development.
Overall I was onboard until this unforgiveable NONSENSE that he reels out right at the end:
And what of per-capita consumption? The footprint will evolve, not to claim more and more space, as you might at first suppose, but less. The reason lies in the evolution of the free market system, and the way it is increasingly shaped by high technology.
I beg your FUCKING pardon???
The products that win are those that cost less to manufacture and advertise, need less frequent repair and replace-ment, and give highest performance with a minimum amount of energy. Just as natural selection drives organic evolution by competition... raising benefit-to-cost of production drives the evolution of the economy. ... All of these amenities will yield more and better results with less per-capita material and energy, and thereby will reduce the size of the ecological footprint.
WHAT????????
The year Wilson wrote this? 2016. TWENTY SIXTEEN!!!!
Wilson: and then i told them the free hand of the market was going to solve the climate crisis
Me: *choking on CO2* okay grandpa let's get you back to your Tesla sponsored retirement labour camp...
May 20, 2024
A nice, short read of a collection of essays about the human-nature connection and the big issues that are threatening it. The book did feel outdated and incredibly repetitive between chapters. I enjoyed how religion and the scientific community were tied together throughout the book, but his focus lay in stating the issues at hand at a global scale so it wasn't solutions-oriented. While I feel like this book would've made a larger impact on me had I read it closer to its release date, I did think it touched on crucial and still relevant elements of the conservation topic.
August 30, 2025
“If humanity continues its suicidal ways to change the global climate, eliminate ecosystems, and exhaust earth’s natural resources, our species will very soon find itself forced into making a choice … shall we be existential conservatives … or shall we use our new technology to accommodate the changes important solely to our own species, while letting the rest of life slip away? We have only a short time to decide.”
September 13, 2022
This book defined the word biophilia:
biophilia
/bʌɪə(ʊ)ˈfɪlɪə/
noun
(according to a theory of the biologist E. O. Wilson) an innate and genetically determined affinity of human beings with the natural world.
~Oxford languages
This book is thought provoking and well written. We are in the midst of a mass extinction and no one is moving a muscle.
biophilia
/bʌɪə(ʊ)ˈfɪlɪə/
noun
(according to a theory of the biologist E. O. Wilson) an innate and genetically determined affinity of human beings with the natural world.
~Oxford languages
This book is thought provoking and well written. We are in the midst of a mass extinction and no one is moving a muscle.
May 29, 2022
Incredibly interesting and passionately written book on our place in connection to the natural world, as part of it. It serves as an introduction of the workings of ecosystems and biodiversity, reminding the reader that we are connected and dependent on other species for our own survival.
December 27, 2022
5 short essays on biodiversity and the need for change. Whilst I don't agree entirely with his views on biophilia they evoke a powerful image and are well thought out. However, he can tend towards over-intellectualising some of his points which detracts slightly from the emotion of his argument.
March 28, 2023
This book offers an interesting bio-philosophical reading of the 'right of species'. Although valid in its conservation science, in the context of what we know about Anthropogenic climate collapse, Wilson's human-centric philosophy reads a little dated.
December 28, 2024
Didn’t like his perspective on population - essentially blamed women and certain countries?? Chapters were repetitive and lacked credibility to me. Maybe he made an impact during his time but there’s much better lit today.
March 2, 2025
Fantastic! It’s disheartening looking at his predictions and seeing how far we’ve already fallen short. E. O. Wilson was far ahead of his time considering the scope of his arguments, and as such this is probably a good entry-level book for conservation and environmental ethics.
May 8, 2022
A fantastic evidence based reminder that our ecosystems are important, that nature should be taken care of and that every species is a masterpiece with its own unique contribution.
August 15, 2022
it was well written and organized, but somewhat forgettable. nothing really stood out to me to make this book itself unique.
August 17, 2022
Published in 2022 with essays on ecology from like the 90s or something. Nothing new here, folks. Pretty dated read, don't bother.
May 8, 2023
About ecosystems, their scale and size, how many species of life we don't know about and what we should do in the future.
November 4, 2023
disappointed..
March 24, 2024
A wonderful, thought provoking work by Edward Wilson.
October 5, 2024
Lovely
January 13, 2025
Short but eye-opening
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews