What do you think?
Rate this book
An Idea Can Go Extinct
In twenty short books, Penguin brings you the classics of the environmental movement.An Idea Can Go Extinct is Bill McKibben's impassioned, groundbreaking account of how, by changing the earth's entire atmosphere, the weather and the most basic forces around us, 'we are ending nature.'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.
72 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 26, 2021
9 people are currently reading
348 people want to read
About the author
Bill McKibben
201 books811 followersBill McKibben is the author of Eaarth, The End of Nature, Deep Economy, Enough, Fight Global Warming Now, The Bill McKibben Reader, and numerous other books. He is the founder of the environmental organizations Step It Up and 350.org, and was among the first to warn of the dangers of global warming. In 2010 The Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's leading environmentalist," and Time magazine has called him "the world's best green journalist." He studied at Harvard, and started his writing career as a staff writer at The New Yorker. The End of Nature, his first book, was published in 1989 and was regarded as the first book on climate change for a general audience. He is a frequent contributor to magazines and newspapers including The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, Orion Magazine, Mother Jones, The New York Review of Books, Granta, Rolling Stone, and Outside. He has been awarded Guggenheim Fellowship and won the Lannan Prize for nonfiction writing in 2000. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College and lives in Vermont with his wife, the writer Sue Halpern, and their daughter.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/billmc...
http://us.macmillan.com/author/billmc...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
December 22, 2021
A nicely crafted, elegant meditation on nature and what it means that we (humans) have, alas, irrevocably, changed nature (and not for the better).
The author is a powerful voice in the ongoing discussion of climate change, and his short riff provides excellent food for thought, particularly since the content (of this repackaged product) was originally published in 1989, which makes it all the more painful reading it today, in the closing days of 2021, at which point we appear to have learned nothing (positive), done nothing (constructive), ignored every conceivable warning sign and ... and .. on it goes...
This slight, pocket/bite-sized essay (or, think of it as a standalone chapter) is volume 5 in the Penguin Green Ideas collection, which, apparently, is not available for sale (in the slipcase collection) in the U.S. (but it's not that difficult to order it from a UK supplier).
The author is a powerful voice in the ongoing discussion of climate change, and his short riff provides excellent food for thought, particularly since the content (of this repackaged product) was originally published in 1989, which makes it all the more painful reading it today, in the closing days of 2021, at which point we appear to have learned nothing (positive), done nothing (constructive), ignored every conceivable warning sign and ... and .. on it goes...
This slight, pocket/bite-sized essay (or, think of it as a standalone chapter) is volume 5 in the Penguin Green Ideas collection, which, apparently, is not available for sale (in the slipcase collection) in the U.S. (but it's not that difficult to order it from a UK supplier).
April 20, 2022
No. 5 in Penguin’s Green Ideas series. Ok, but too much God talk.
August 9, 2023
Nature, while often fragile in reality, is durable in our imaginations.
McKibben starts his contribution to the Green Ideas by Penguin of by talking about the fact that there is no real wilderness anymore today.
Quite the shocking introduction. But he is right.
With our current way of living, with all its polluting conveniences, we have altered the environment in a way which we can’t simply take back.
Simply put: we screwed up. Big time.
And the sooner we come to terms with that, the sooner we can start working on ways which ensure we don’t make the situation worse than it already is.
When changing nature means changing everything, then we have a crisis.
We are in charge now, like it or not.
So, while overall I agree whole-heartedly with him and his ideas, I am, however, here to judge, I mean review the book itself.
First of the structure: in the beginning McKibben mentions explorers from centuries gone and other important environmental writing. He then goes on to talk about God and ends with science.
All in all, a good structure that the reader can follow easily.
The writing is bleak and doesn’t sugar coat anything. Which is important with that kind of topic and when you want the reader to actually change his ways.
However, because of course something had to bug me, I am no fan of much talk about God. Especially in a non-fiction about the environment and climate change. Because firstly we can’t just hope a mighty entity will magically save us all at the last second. And secondly because not everyone believes in Christianity or religion for that matter and we, therefore, must make books more inclusive and not assume western “normalcy” for everyone.
—> 3 stars
McKibben starts his contribution to the Green Ideas by Penguin of by talking about the fact that there is no real wilderness anymore today.
Quite the shocking introduction. But he is right.
With our current way of living, with all its polluting conveniences, we have altered the environment in a way which we can’t simply take back.
Simply put: we screwed up. Big time.
And the sooner we come to terms with that, the sooner we can start working on ways which ensure we don’t make the situation worse than it already is.
When changing nature means changing everything, then we have a crisis.
We are in charge now, like it or not.
So, while overall I agree whole-heartedly with him and his ideas, I am, however, here to judge, I mean review the book itself.
First of the structure: in the beginning McKibben mentions explorers from centuries gone and other important environmental writing. He then goes on to talk about God and ends with science.
All in all, a good structure that the reader can follow easily.
The writing is bleak and doesn’t sugar coat anything. Which is important with that kind of topic and when you want the reader to actually change his ways.
However, because of course something had to bug me, I am no fan of much talk about God. Especially in a non-fiction about the environment and climate change. Because firstly we can’t just hope a mighty entity will magically save us all at the last second. And secondly because not everyone believes in Christianity or religion for that matter and we, therefore, must make books more inclusive and not assume western “normalcy” for everyone.
—> 3 stars
March 20, 2024
3.5 stars!
This novella had some pretty unique views to the climate catastrophe.
The way the ideas were presented was different.
This novella had some pretty unique views to the climate catastrophe.
The way the ideas were presented was different.
April 6, 2022
I completely disagree with the thesis of this text that 'nature' is extinct. In many ways I would have agreed if the word 'nature' were changed with the word 'wilderness,' but the author interchanged these words himself throughout making me feel as if he did not truly know the distinction between the two. I also was not expecting this book to dive so deeply into theology. Overall, I had many thoughts as I read this. There were a couple of good quotes throughout, but I did not find his argument valid in the end.
September 24, 2022
the god bits snuck up out of nowhere (why), but this was a resonant and transformative read that i really did enjoy.
just some summative notes:
- “we have deprived nature of its independence, and that is fatal to its meaning. nature’s independence is its meaning; without it there is nothing but us.”
- “the rain bore a brand; it was a steer, not a deer. and that was where the loneliness came from. there’s nothing here except us.”
- “we have built a greenhouse, a human creation, where once bloomed a sweet and wild garden.”
just some summative notes:
- “we have deprived nature of its independence, and that is fatal to its meaning. nature’s independence is its meaning; without it there is nothing but us.”
- “the rain bore a brand; it was a steer, not a deer. and that was where the loneliness came from. there’s nothing here except us.”
- “we have built a greenhouse, a human creation, where once bloomed a sweet and wild garden.”
March 29, 2023
A well written, coherent essay. Simply not my take on the environmental movement- the idea that nature can only exist separate from humans is not how I view it.
April 15, 2023
I’m a longtime choir member for McKibben’s preaching, but this essay constantly irritated me.
I disagree with the essay’s ridiculous title, and with McKibben’s claims that humans are now the creators of the world — that “Nature’s independence *is* its meaning; without it there is nothing but us.”
What is the essay even trying to accomplish? It surely isn’t a call to action. It’s not an attempt to win anyone to the cause of environmental protection. Is it a lament, a wail of loss? It feels like raw grief, painful and all-consuming, contradictory and illogical.
It’s taken from his book The End of Nature, which I have not read, and perhaps the remainder of that book tempers this essay.
I disagree with the essay’s ridiculous title, and with McKibben’s claims that humans are now the creators of the world — that “Nature’s independence *is* its meaning; without it there is nothing but us.”
What is the essay even trying to accomplish? It surely isn’t a call to action. It’s not an attempt to win anyone to the cause of environmental protection. Is it a lament, a wail of loss? It feels like raw grief, painful and all-consuming, contradictory and illogical.
It’s taken from his book The End of Nature, which I have not read, and perhaps the remainder of that book tempers this essay.
July 31, 2024
I realised post writing this review, that this essay was written in 1989. Which explains away pretty neatly all the issues I had with it, which I detail below. *facepalm* Ah well...
One man's personal crisis of faith due to his inability to reconcile the Christian neoplatonic/ Enlightenment based concept of "Nature" (as in opposition to "Man") with the ongoing destruction of the natural world and humanity's impact within it.
You're correct Bill, these ideas ARE incompatible. So why the hell are you clinging on to them? Instead of questioning the basis of his assumptions, or seeking answers and alternatives, Bill inaccurately tries to universalise his experience, and argues himself into a reductionist point of existential despair.
Bill's thesis is that "Nature" is "Extinct" and everything that happens from here on out is "not natural". Whilst I recognise that this generalisation comes mostly from a place of anguish, stymied hopes, and bitter despair (all reasonable and necessary responses to the climate crisis) given that "Nature" as Bill defines it doesn't exist in the first place, I don't think this statement stands up to any scrutiny when examined critically, on an intellectual and historical level.
Bill can't conceive of divinity as being something that isn't immutably, hierarchically Outside and Separate to him. This is another hangover of Christian monotheism that he's not self-aware too. So then, we get the argument that Man has killed Nature so therefore Man has killed God, where do we go from here? Well plenty of places Bill, if you were willing to engage with the critical conversation around the concepts of God, Man, and Nature.
Bill states that Nature has been made extinct, whilst never acknowledging the fact that his very definition of "Nature" as this pure, unblemished sphere that exists in binary opposition to Man and Civilisation is a social and cultural construct. Cultural historians have clearly demonstrated that it is a product of Western (and particularly, Enlightenment) thought. This isn't niche, any ecological historian can tell you this. The Invention of Nature was a bestseller. But Bill doesn't engage with or even acknowledge this at all?????
There is a growing canon of western ecological thought which has uncoupled itself from the Western Enlightenment binary of man vs nature, and threw off Christian monotheism/ Platonic binary concepts of God a long time ago. This canon draws heavily on thriving indigenous societies that have successfully used their more animist / co-constructive / co-ecreative concepts of spirituality to protect, nurture, and thrive in and with the natural world.
Not only is this growing philosophy far from niche in the ecology space, there are many ecological thinkers around who specifically address this question from a devotional Christian perspective. And have answered it! Which should be right up Bill's street! The Wild Dart Church and the notable influence of (often quite elderly) Christian clergy within XR spring to mind as British manifestations of this phenomenon. What about Bob Brown's entire career of faith based co-stewardship in concert with Aboriginal Tasmanians? What about the deep and powerful history of Māori Christian syncretism within indigenous ecology and land activism?
These are people of faith. Bill's faith. And of his generetion, and older. I absolutely refuse to believe there are no equivalent USAmerican examples for him to draw on. Has Bill never exposed himself to any of these ideas? Or did he just start reading at Thoreau and stop at Silent Spring?
I get that Bill is clearly of a different generation, but really? Says things like "man has never affected nature before" makes me think, you are literally a naturalist my dude, are indigenous cultures a fucking joke to you? Have you literally not even read the abstract of Dark Emu? Or more pertinently to someone so steeped in US American naturalistic canon -- Braiding Sweetgrass anyone? I kind of feel like this essay was written in the 90s, then he moved to his lakehouse, and checked out of the conversation forever. Consequently this book asks a lot of questions that are already been answered, so I was mostly writing things like "That's not true? Why do you care?" in the margins.
Other complaints I shall address later:
-- Bill really fetishsises the Purity Of The Wilderness in a way that smacks of conservationism and completely disregards urbanity and the reality of grappling with systemic restructuring for a global population of 8 billion peoples.
-- Every time he's like "oh there's a nasty nasty street light and someone else's chair by my nice lake which I think of to be for me alone because I can afford to live in a big lakehouse in the middle of the wilderness" I'm like "bruh".
-- Anyone who aims for Job apologia is aiming high, you gotta give it to them. But why my dude why
-- Why did he take eight pairs of socks to walk in a stream? Just have wet socks! Jesus Christ man!
I am predisposed to not have sympathy for Bill because I too was raised with a strongly rooted sense of Christian "God as the Creator and Ruler of Nature". I guess I was lucky enough to go searching for different ideas much younger. I'm well over what I view as historically fallacious and ecologically unconstructive ways of conceptualising "man and nature" so I don't have a lot of patience for those who aren't.
I don't want to discount Bill's grief, which is valid. It's good to read conflicting ideas that make you annoyed so I'm not mad I read it. But it did annoy the heck out of me.
One man's personal crisis of faith due to his inability to reconcile the Christian neoplatonic/ Enlightenment based concept of "Nature" (as in opposition to "Man") with the ongoing destruction of the natural world and humanity's impact within it.
You're correct Bill, these ideas ARE incompatible. So why the hell are you clinging on to them? Instead of questioning the basis of his assumptions, or seeking answers and alternatives, Bill inaccurately tries to universalise his experience, and argues himself into a reductionist point of existential despair.
Bill's thesis is that "Nature" is "Extinct" and everything that happens from here on out is "not natural". Whilst I recognise that this generalisation comes mostly from a place of anguish, stymied hopes, and bitter despair (all reasonable and necessary responses to the climate crisis) given that "Nature" as Bill defines it doesn't exist in the first place, I don't think this statement stands up to any scrutiny when examined critically, on an intellectual and historical level.
Bill can't conceive of divinity as being something that isn't immutably, hierarchically Outside and Separate to him. This is another hangover of Christian monotheism that he's not self-aware too. So then, we get the argument that Man has killed Nature so therefore Man has killed God, where do we go from here? Well plenty of places Bill, if you were willing to engage with the critical conversation around the concepts of God, Man, and Nature.
Bill states that Nature has been made extinct, whilst never acknowledging the fact that his very definition of "Nature" as this pure, unblemished sphere that exists in binary opposition to Man and Civilisation is a social and cultural construct. Cultural historians have clearly demonstrated that it is a product of Western (and particularly, Enlightenment) thought. This isn't niche, any ecological historian can tell you this. The Invention of Nature was a bestseller. But Bill doesn't engage with or even acknowledge this at all?????
There is a growing canon of western ecological thought which has uncoupled itself from the Western Enlightenment binary of man vs nature, and threw off Christian monotheism/ Platonic binary concepts of God a long time ago. This canon draws heavily on thriving indigenous societies that have successfully used their more animist / co-constructive / co-ecreative concepts of spirituality to protect, nurture, and thrive in and with the natural world.
Not only is this growing philosophy far from niche in the ecology space, there are many ecological thinkers around who specifically address this question from a devotional Christian perspective. And have answered it! Which should be right up Bill's street! The Wild Dart Church and the notable influence of (often quite elderly) Christian clergy within XR spring to mind as British manifestations of this phenomenon. What about Bob Brown's entire career of faith based co-stewardship in concert with Aboriginal Tasmanians? What about the deep and powerful history of Māori Christian syncretism within indigenous ecology and land activism?
These are people of faith. Bill's faith. And of his generetion, and older. I absolutely refuse to believe there are no equivalent USAmerican examples for him to draw on. Has Bill never exposed himself to any of these ideas? Or did he just start reading at Thoreau and stop at Silent Spring?
I get that Bill is clearly of a different generation, but really? Says things like "man has never affected nature before" makes me think, you are literally a naturalist my dude, are indigenous cultures a fucking joke to you? Have you literally not even read the abstract of Dark Emu? Or more pertinently to someone so steeped in US American naturalistic canon -- Braiding Sweetgrass anyone? I kind of feel like this essay was written in the 90s, then he moved to his lakehouse, and checked out of the conversation forever. Consequently this book asks a lot of questions that are already been answered, so I was mostly writing things like "That's not true? Why do you care?" in the margins.
Other complaints I shall address later:
-- Bill really fetishsises the Purity Of The Wilderness in a way that smacks of conservationism and completely disregards urbanity and the reality of grappling with systemic restructuring for a global population of 8 billion peoples.
-- Every time he's like "oh there's a nasty nasty street light and someone else's chair by my nice lake which I think of to be for me alone because I can afford to live in a big lakehouse in the middle of the wilderness" I'm like "bruh".
-- Anyone who aims for Job apologia is aiming high, you gotta give it to them. But why my dude why
-- Why did he take eight pairs of socks to walk in a stream? Just have wet socks! Jesus Christ man!
I am predisposed to not have sympathy for Bill because I too was raised with a strongly rooted sense of Christian "God as the Creator and Ruler of Nature". I guess I was lucky enough to go searching for different ideas much younger. I'm well over what I view as historically fallacious and ecologically unconstructive ways of conceptualising "man and nature" so I don't have a lot of patience for those who aren't.
I don't want to discount Bill's grief, which is valid. It's good to read conflicting ideas that make you annoyed so I'm not mad I read it. But it did annoy the heck out of me.
January 16, 2025
I picked this up not realizing it was an excerpt from The End of Nature, which I'd read several years ago. I'd been planning on revisiting that book, but this scratched that itch.
I think his thesis is correct - that we've crossed a line where the natural world is so impacted by human behavior that it is no longer larger than us. And this is going have a real tole on our psyche.
Some of these reviews criticize McKibben for his mention of God and religious feeling, and I think that has more to say about the reviewers than of McKibben. McKibben is a Methodist, a people not known for being bible-thumpers, and that is not what he does here. He talks about a feeling of smallness that we should feel in the face of nature, and that we don't anymore- and ties that back into ideas about God and Nature in the Western tradition. The "end of nature" is a philosophical/aesthetic argument, not a scientific one.
I read a Barry Lopez book last year on a whim, not know anything about him other than it was a collection of nature writing essays. I realized that he was someone I should have known already, and thought that I probably saw his name in a dozen books without it ever meaning anything to me. McKibben mentions Lopez in this book!
I think his thesis is correct - that we've crossed a line where the natural world is so impacted by human behavior that it is no longer larger than us. And this is going have a real tole on our psyche.
Some of these reviews criticize McKibben for his mention of God and religious feeling, and I think that has more to say about the reviewers than of McKibben. McKibben is a Methodist, a people not known for being bible-thumpers, and that is not what he does here. He talks about a feeling of smallness that we should feel in the face of nature, and that we don't anymore- and ties that back into ideas about God and Nature in the Western tradition. The "end of nature" is a philosophical/aesthetic argument, not a scientific one.
I read a Barry Lopez book last year on a whim, not know anything about him other than it was a collection of nature writing essays. I realized that he was someone I should have known already, and thought that I probably saw his name in a dozen books without it ever meaning anything to me. McKibben mentions Lopez in this book!
December 11, 2022
2,5
To me the author is a bit gullible.
As if we, the human species, can survive the loss of nature. He still muses about the Thoreau's and Muir's as a romantic, thinks God created nature for us.
But he is apparently not aware of what is coming at us if we do not fix this problem within 10 years. Natural disasters, millions of refugees, wars for space and much more. Apparently the only, he does not mention any other, effect of our behaving as nature-destroyer will be "the sadness of losing something we've begun to fight for, and the added sadness, or shame of realizing how much more we could have done"
And when he says: "when changing nature means making a small modification in what we have found - a dam across a river - it presents few philosophical problems. It presents some, especially when the river is a beautiful one, but they tend not to be ultimate problems". Well, let him read Erased by Marixa Lasso. Overall this author sounds a bit naive to me.
But let us remember he too wants us to stop destroying nature
To me the author is a bit gullible.
As if we, the human species, can survive the loss of nature. He still muses about the Thoreau's and Muir's as a romantic, thinks God created nature for us.
But he is apparently not aware of what is coming at us if we do not fix this problem within 10 years. Natural disasters, millions of refugees, wars for space and much more. Apparently the only, he does not mention any other, effect of our behaving as nature-destroyer will be "the sadness of losing something we've begun to fight for, and the added sadness, or shame of realizing how much more we could have done"
And when he says: "when changing nature means making a small modification in what we have found - a dam across a river - it presents few philosophical problems. It presents some, especially when the river is a beautiful one, but they tend not to be ultimate problems". Well, let him read Erased by Marixa Lasso. Overall this author sounds a bit naive to me.
But let us remember he too wants us to stop destroying nature
April 12, 2025
I have to disagree with some people reviewing this book bc I don't see it as him saying nature can't exist with humanity around. I saw it more as healthy nature can't exist with humanity as it is now. also, I felt like his religious musings were more general and less about his specific beliefs. he seemed very willing to question his beliefs. idk 🤷♀️ honestly tho, it feels a bit like a manifestation of his hopelessness around climate change bc man was this depressing
July 10, 2025
Mit das beeindruckendste ist, dass dieser Text nur vor etwas über 35 Jahren geschrieben wurde und sich darum dreht, dass es keine, vom Menschen unberührte Wildnis mehr gibt. Zu grossen Teilen ein schmerzhaftes, kummervolles Klagelied, das mich vor allem neugierig gemacht hat, wie er die Welt heute sieht, wo wir Jahrzehnte später immer noch auf dem gleichen Weg sind, nur noch schneller. Erzählt nichts Neues und gab mir vor allem das Gefühl von «I feel you». Zu viel Gelaber über Gott.
June 23, 2022
I did not read this book to get new info about CC. But it was great, because it resonated deeply with how i think about the world. Nature - the idea of it, the idea that there is something independent of and untouched by human activity, human degradation, something dependable and continuous and wild - is over. What we have left is something that anthropogenic CC has transformed.
September 3, 2024
Throwback to Theology and Ecology. Reminded me how cool Saint Francis is. Don’t really agree with the concept that nature is dead, but he addressed my initial counterpoints pretty well so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ also he ain’t wrong that there are literally no corners of the earth that humans haven’t fucked up unforch
December 1, 2021
This book basically focuses on 'what is nature, what does it mean, and does it even really exist anymore'.
Very interesting - and its publiction in 1989 (in a different form) means that nobody can really say, we were not told.
Recommended.
Very interesting - and its publiction in 1989 (in a different form) means that nobody can really say, we were not told.
Recommended.
March 16, 2022
I think there are far better books in this series. I broadly agree with the points made but the book is so philosophical and esoteric that it is very difficult to penetrate what the point being made actually is. It also offers no hope or advice for change as other books in this series do.
November 10, 2024
About how nature is no longer nature as it used to be, being highly influenced by human activity. It has truly become a "green house" where it was a wild garden before.
Philosophical, touches on man's relationship with nature throughout history as well as what God could've been.
Philosophical, touches on man's relationship with nature throughout history as well as what God could've been.
April 17, 2022
Impassioned and thought-provoking. Excellent and varied quotes throughout the essay.
December 4, 2022
Cool title
December 11, 2022
Great idea about ideas going extinct.... Hopefully the idea that goes extinct will be organized religion and not pristine nature.
January 8, 2025
The idea is 'nature' in the sense of 'separate to human', and it isn't just the idea that is threatened with extinction.
June 13, 2025
powerful, beautiful and heartbreaking
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews