What do you think?
Rate this book
The Revenge of Gaia
James Lovelock, originator of the idea of Gaia, makes an argued plea that we must change our way of life - before it is too late. Illustrated with examples drawn from his experiences around the world, he draws many radical conclusions, most controversially a passionate advocacy of nuclear energy.
177 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2006
136 people are currently reading
3281 people want to read
About the author
James E. Lovelock
29 books311 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 142 reviews
November 10, 2008
I read The Revenge of Gaia in order to understand Lovelock's analysis of climate change and what's in store for our future, and for that I am not sorry I read it. I found the middle section of the book, the part on climate, compelling and informative. So it gets two stars. There is SOMEthing of value in these pages.
But his *sociology* got my blood boiling. I was absolutely seething, and ready to tear my hair out. I felt very strong hate and disgust for some of his uninformed claims, for his formulaic regurgitation of our society's most dangerous myths of cultural hegemony.
In one of the most distressing passages, he blames globalized society's inability to take decisive action to care for the environment on... get this .... our "tribal natures." But indigenous tribes have NOTHING to do with industrial pollution in the first place. Globalized society cannot act in cohesion and come to a consensus decision on the environment because it is NOT locally grounded and tribally organized---not the other way around! Tribal people are intelligent, resourceful, sensitive, vivacious, and creative, and they have strong social cohesion.... and you can trace the roots of every human being alive today to a tribal social organization, roots which extend back in time for about a million years. I read Lovelock's dismissal of our genetic/social inheritance as an easy (not to mention racist) shot at "uncivilized" people who are marginalized in political discourse, who have no means or support for getting up to the proverbial podium to defend themselves.
Indigenous tribes did not make the Earth sick. Civilization Did.
Furthermore, Lovelock himself can't seem to make up his mind whether he loves or hates civilization. He blames it for its vicious cycle of wholesale destruction on one page, and on the next page he preaches that we must save it by all means possible because "it is the greatest asset we bring to the Earth." In some chapters he sounds downright schizophrenic.
Examples of passages that were met with nothing but disgust, astonishment, and concerned perplexity on my end:
p. 4... "I think that we reject the evidence that our world is changing because we are still, as that wonderfully wise biologist E. O. Wilson reminded us, tribal carnivores. We are programmed by our inheritance to see other living things as mainly something to eat..."
But Professor Lovelock, I don't see any "tribal carnivores" caging up animals on farms, feeding them s**t, cutting off their beaks so they can't peck each other to death in prison, changing their genetic makeup, processing their bodies in slaughterhouses while they're not yet dead, and dumping their waste into rivers. In fact, I know of more than one tribe of people who revere the animals that they eat, who are endlessly thankful for their bodies as gifts, and who create special places in their mythological pantheons to the spirits of those animals.
No, we are not programmed by genetic inheritance to be selfish and sadistic. Rather, we are programmed by American Idol to turn a blind eye to our misdeeds. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. That's what you get when you have a complex society worshipping endless growth coupled with that handy lubricant to "progress" called economic specialization.
p. 9... "Terrorism and genocide both result from our tribal natures. Tribal behaviour is surely written in the language of our genetic code, or why else would we as a mob or a crowd do the evil things that only psychopaths would do alone. ... Civilzation has only slightly sanitized these awful trends and called them war."
Lovelock misses the news that tribes are NOT "mobs" or "crowds." They are FAMILIES and COMMUNITIES. Not a mob of strangers. And civilization did not "sanitize" genocide, terrorism and war, it created them. (This is not to say that tribal people are never violent. Of course they are. Violence has its place in nature. However, there is a marked difference between a singular act of violence and a systemic flaw in social structure that allows for destruction on a pathological scale.)
p. 10... "in some ways the human species is like a planetary disease"...
Just civilized society--leave indigenous groups out of it!!
..."but through civilization we redeem ourselves and have become a precious asset for the Earth."
(Right, because I've never heard of indigenous people taking the opportunity to learn about the ecosystem they are a part of, and deliberately helping it to flourish. Oh wait, yes I have. But I've never heard of a civilized institution doing that. Hmm.)
Not only that, but if we "redeem ourselves" through civilization (as though humans are born bad... is it really scientific to believe in original sin?), well then... why do you write the following?:
p. 6 "We as a civilization are all too much like someone addicted to a drug"
and
p. 8 "We need most of all to renew that love and empathy for nature that we lost when we first began our love affair for city life"
and
p. 7 "We are so obsessed with the idea of progress and with the betterment of humanity that we regard retreat as a dirty word, something to be ashamed of. The philosopher and historian of ideas John Gray observed in his book Straw Dogs that only rarely do we see beyond the needs of humanity, and he linked this blindness to our Christian and humanist infrastructure. It arose 2000 years ago and was then benign, and we were no significant threat to Gaia. Now that we are over six billion hungry and greedy individuals, all aspiring to a first-world lifestyle, our urban way of life encroaches upon the domain of the living Earth. We are taking so much that it is no longer able to sustain the familiar and comfortable world we have taken for granted."
Christian and humanist infrastructure made civilization what it is. So how does civilization redeem us, if its very infrastructure may be our own demise?
We are in a state of dependency on civilization, kept infantilized, and no matter how fickle and merciless it is, we must profess to love that which we are dependent upon, or face the insanity of cognitive dissonance.
p. 134 "Whatever form future society takes it will be tribal, and hence there will be the privileged and the poor."
Right, because tribal groups all use currency, think of the land as property, and have hierarchical structures.
--------
I can't believe a *scientist* would not do his research before making such claims. To my mind, it is VERY clear that Lovelock is perpetuating the kind of propaganda that rationalized literal and cultural genocide, as well as ecocide, in the Western Hemisphere and the continent of Africa in the 18th/19th centuries. Does this represent "progress"? Is this an "enlightened" scientific viewpoint? The "age of enlightenment" resulted in exploitation, reductionism, industrial pollution, phrenology (the scientific validation of racial superiority), live vivisection (even on dogs), "objective" (static and rigid) classification (often hierarchical), and vast other examples of numb cruelty (e.g., purposefully driving chimpanzees insane) in the name of science and of commercial gain. This insane, disassociated, demented behavior was rationalized by intellectual proponents who believed that they had (or could find out) "all the answers." To that I can only respond - Stupid is as Stupid does. Judging from these historical roots, modern science looks more and more like an organized religion, albeit one without spirituality, and its superstition is that humans have the brain-given right to do whatever dumb, callous s**t they want as long as they can't foresee how it could harm *them* in any way. In other words, science's founding superstition is not that there is a god in the sky, but rather, that humans can be all-knowing, all-controlling gods on Earth. If they are not, they are not "living up to their potential" and are "savage animals." Lovelock himself writes on p. 137, "When I was a child I was marinated in Christian belief, and still it unconsciously guides my thinking and behavior." No S**t.
Actually, I recant the first sentence of the preceding paragraph.
Tangents aside, I have one further point of criticism: Lovelock's solutions are Euro-centric and require economic investments which "developing" nations simply can't muster.
Lovelock's "prescription" for what we "should" do is authoritarian in the worst degree. His anthropology/sociology is amateur at its very best. One of the dangers of professional science in general is that it claims to have all the answers. It doesn't.
But his *sociology* got my blood boiling. I was absolutely seething, and ready to tear my hair out. I felt very strong hate and disgust for some of his uninformed claims, for his formulaic regurgitation of our society's most dangerous myths of cultural hegemony.
In one of the most distressing passages, he blames globalized society's inability to take decisive action to care for the environment on... get this .... our "tribal natures." But indigenous tribes have NOTHING to do with industrial pollution in the first place. Globalized society cannot act in cohesion and come to a consensus decision on the environment because it is NOT locally grounded and tribally organized---not the other way around! Tribal people are intelligent, resourceful, sensitive, vivacious, and creative, and they have strong social cohesion.... and you can trace the roots of every human being alive today to a tribal social organization, roots which extend back in time for about a million years. I read Lovelock's dismissal of our genetic/social inheritance as an easy (not to mention racist) shot at "uncivilized" people who are marginalized in political discourse, who have no means or support for getting up to the proverbial podium to defend themselves.
Indigenous tribes did not make the Earth sick. Civilization Did.
Furthermore, Lovelock himself can't seem to make up his mind whether he loves or hates civilization. He blames it for its vicious cycle of wholesale destruction on one page, and on the next page he preaches that we must save it by all means possible because "it is the greatest asset we bring to the Earth." In some chapters he sounds downright schizophrenic.
Examples of passages that were met with nothing but disgust, astonishment, and concerned perplexity on my end:
p. 4... "I think that we reject the evidence that our world is changing because we are still, as that wonderfully wise biologist E. O. Wilson reminded us, tribal carnivores. We are programmed by our inheritance to see other living things as mainly something to eat..."
But Professor Lovelock, I don't see any "tribal carnivores" caging up animals on farms, feeding them s**t, cutting off their beaks so they can't peck each other to death in prison, changing their genetic makeup, processing their bodies in slaughterhouses while they're not yet dead, and dumping their waste into rivers. In fact, I know of more than one tribe of people who revere the animals that they eat, who are endlessly thankful for their bodies as gifts, and who create special places in their mythological pantheons to the spirits of those animals.
No, we are not programmed by genetic inheritance to be selfish and sadistic. Rather, we are programmed by American Idol to turn a blind eye to our misdeeds. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. That's what you get when you have a complex society worshipping endless growth coupled with that handy lubricant to "progress" called economic specialization.
p. 9... "Terrorism and genocide both result from our tribal natures. Tribal behaviour is surely written in the language of our genetic code, or why else would we as a mob or a crowd do the evil things that only psychopaths would do alone. ... Civilzation has only slightly sanitized these awful trends and called them war."
Lovelock misses the news that tribes are NOT "mobs" or "crowds." They are FAMILIES and COMMUNITIES. Not a mob of strangers. And civilization did not "sanitize" genocide, terrorism and war, it created them. (This is not to say that tribal people are never violent. Of course they are. Violence has its place in nature. However, there is a marked difference between a singular act of violence and a systemic flaw in social structure that allows for destruction on a pathological scale.)
p. 10... "in some ways the human species is like a planetary disease"...
Just civilized society--leave indigenous groups out of it!!
..."but through civilization we redeem ourselves and have become a precious asset for the Earth."
(Right, because I've never heard of indigenous people taking the opportunity to learn about the ecosystem they are a part of, and deliberately helping it to flourish. Oh wait, yes I have. But I've never heard of a civilized institution doing that. Hmm.)
Not only that, but if we "redeem ourselves" through civilization (as though humans are born bad... is it really scientific to believe in original sin?), well then... why do you write the following?:
p. 6 "We as a civilization are all too much like someone addicted to a drug"
and
p. 8 "We need most of all to renew that love and empathy for nature that we lost when we first began our love affair for city life"
and
p. 7 "We are so obsessed with the idea of progress and with the betterment of humanity that we regard retreat as a dirty word, something to be ashamed of. The philosopher and historian of ideas John Gray observed in his book Straw Dogs that only rarely do we see beyond the needs of humanity, and he linked this blindness to our Christian and humanist infrastructure. It arose 2000 years ago and was then benign, and we were no significant threat to Gaia. Now that we are over six billion hungry and greedy individuals, all aspiring to a first-world lifestyle, our urban way of life encroaches upon the domain of the living Earth. We are taking so much that it is no longer able to sustain the familiar and comfortable world we have taken for granted."
Christian and humanist infrastructure made civilization what it is. So how does civilization redeem us, if its very infrastructure may be our own demise?
We are in a state of dependency on civilization, kept infantilized, and no matter how fickle and merciless it is, we must profess to love that which we are dependent upon, or face the insanity of cognitive dissonance.
p. 134 "Whatever form future society takes it will be tribal, and hence there will be the privileged and the poor."
Right, because tribal groups all use currency, think of the land as property, and have hierarchical structures.
--------
I can't believe a *scientist* would not do his research before making such claims. To my mind, it is VERY clear that Lovelock is perpetuating the kind of propaganda that rationalized literal and cultural genocide, as well as ecocide, in the Western Hemisphere and the continent of Africa in the 18th/19th centuries. Does this represent "progress"? Is this an "enlightened" scientific viewpoint? The "age of enlightenment" resulted in exploitation, reductionism, industrial pollution, phrenology (the scientific validation of racial superiority), live vivisection (even on dogs), "objective" (static and rigid) classification (often hierarchical), and vast other examples of numb cruelty (e.g., purposefully driving chimpanzees insane) in the name of science and of commercial gain. This insane, disassociated, demented behavior was rationalized by intellectual proponents who believed that they had (or could find out) "all the answers." To that I can only respond - Stupid is as Stupid does. Judging from these historical roots, modern science looks more and more like an organized religion, albeit one without spirituality, and its superstition is that humans have the brain-given right to do whatever dumb, callous s**t they want as long as they can't foresee how it could harm *them* in any way. In other words, science's founding superstition is not that there is a god in the sky, but rather, that humans can be all-knowing, all-controlling gods on Earth. If they are not, they are not "living up to their potential" and are "savage animals." Lovelock himself writes on p. 137, "When I was a child I was marinated in Christian belief, and still it unconsciously guides my thinking and behavior." No S**t.
Actually, I recant the first sentence of the preceding paragraph.
Tangents aside, I have one further point of criticism: Lovelock's solutions are Euro-centric and require economic investments which "developing" nations simply can't muster.
Lovelock's "prescription" for what we "should" do is authoritarian in the worst degree. His anthropology/sociology is amateur at its very best. One of the dangers of professional science in general is that it claims to have all the answers. It doesn't.
September 28, 2009
An interesting book with some scary and memorable passages. Lovelock invented the Gaia hypothesis (the idea that the whole biosphere is essentially one living organism). Here, he's addressing the problems of climate change, and what we can do about it. "I'm a doctor," he says. "The Earth is my patient, and it's running a temperature." Lovelock used to be against nuclear power, but now he thinks it's our only chance. We have to bring down CO2 emissions fast, and we can't quickly wean ourselves off our energy dependence. This was another analogy I liked. We're in a 747 over the Atlantic, and we're running out of fuel. We somehow need to find enough to make a powered descent. If we just turn off the engines, we'll crash, and everyone will die.
So, nuclear power. But isn't that horribly dangerous? How will we look after all that deadly radioactive waste? The Greens have been asking these questions for two or three decades. Now, confusingly, I read that radioactivity isn't so bad for you after all. We were told that Chernobyl caused thousands of deaths. But, at least according to Lovelock in this book, that was damned lies and statistics. Apart from a few brave engineers and fire-fighters who were killed sealing up the reactor, it's just a miniscule reduction in life expectancy, averaging a few hours per person, but multiplied by most of Europe. That comes out as thousands of person-lifetimes, but who really minds giving up three hours of their life? And we hear that the area around Chernobyl, which I'd pictured as a kind of radioactive desert filled with mutant lizards and road warriors, is a lush, green paradise. People don't dare go there, so plants and animals can flourish undisturbed. Another story he tells is the massive accidental release of radioactivity from Windscale in the UK. There was no following spike in cancers.
Well, it sounds plausible, but then so did the last version. The US is once again being managed by a smart person who believes in science and actually looking at the facts. It would be great if Obama could put together a balanced commission of suitably chosen experts who were required to report quickly, weighing up the competing views and rating the arguments for and against. As a layman, I read a book like this and feel seriously confused. All our lives could depend on making the right decisions over the next ten years, and we still don't know what's going on. Now that's scary.
______________________________
Luckily, the guy on the next street was thinking the same thing, and actually did something about it. David MacKay's Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air presents exactly the kind of quantitative analysis that I was looking for. I can't recommend this book too highly.
So, nuclear power. But isn't that horribly dangerous? How will we look after all that deadly radioactive waste? The Greens have been asking these questions for two or three decades. Now, confusingly, I read that radioactivity isn't so bad for you after all. We were told that Chernobyl caused thousands of deaths. But, at least according to Lovelock in this book, that was damned lies and statistics. Apart from a few brave engineers and fire-fighters who were killed sealing up the reactor, it's just a miniscule reduction in life expectancy, averaging a few hours per person, but multiplied by most of Europe. That comes out as thousands of person-lifetimes, but who really minds giving up three hours of their life? And we hear that the area around Chernobyl, which I'd pictured as a kind of radioactive desert filled with mutant lizards and road warriors, is a lush, green paradise. People don't dare go there, so plants and animals can flourish undisturbed. Another story he tells is the massive accidental release of radioactivity from Windscale in the UK. There was no following spike in cancers.
Well, it sounds plausible, but then so did the last version. The US is once again being managed by a smart person who believes in science and actually looking at the facts. It would be great if Obama could put together a balanced commission of suitably chosen experts who were required to report quickly, weighing up the competing views and rating the arguments for and against. As a layman, I read a book like this and feel seriously confused. All our lives could depend on making the right decisions over the next ten years, and we still don't know what's going on. Now that's scary.
______________________________
Luckily, the guy on the next street was thinking the same thing, and actually did something about it. David MacKay's Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air presents exactly the kind of quantitative analysis that I was looking for. I can't recommend this book too highly.
December 31, 2022
Interesting book. Lovelock wrote it when he was 86 and when the population of the world was six billion where it is now 8 billion. The hypothesis of Gaia as a self regulating entity is original. Everything is interconnected and he aptly states that us humans are We are no more qualified to be the stewards or developers of the Earth than are goats to be gardeners.’
Since the book was published little has changed. Politicians prevaricate. The addiction to fossil fuel has increased with the Ukraine War increasing fossil fuel use and a rush to LNG. I think nuclear could be an option but not the large scale plants. Smaller would be more suitable.
His tirade about Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring failed to acknowledge the danger DDT has to the web of life or the safer alternatives now used. Population is the elephant in the room and always will be. Fusion is still decades if not longer away. Renewables have their place but until storage of their energy is developed they will only have limited use.
Any change has to come from the ground up or local community level and then that will only work in democratic countries. Which is flawed with self interest and the wealthy most influential. Change does happen and Gaia will be around to see it.
The book is thought provoking and well written. The statistics used cherry picked to fit the author’s belief’s. His fixation on tribalism I do not see as an attack on indigenous tribes but as how people group together with shared values, culture and beliefs.
Since the book was published little has changed. Politicians prevaricate. The addiction to fossil fuel has increased with the Ukraine War increasing fossil fuel use and a rush to LNG. I think nuclear could be an option but not the large scale plants. Smaller would be more suitable.
His tirade about Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring failed to acknowledge the danger DDT has to the web of life or the safer alternatives now used. Population is the elephant in the room and always will be. Fusion is still decades if not longer away. Renewables have their place but until storage of their energy is developed they will only have limited use.
Any change has to come from the ground up or local community level and then that will only work in democratic countries. Which is flawed with self interest and the wealthy most influential. Change does happen and Gaia will be around to see it.
The book is thought provoking and well written. The statistics used cherry picked to fit the author’s belief’s. His fixation on tribalism I do not see as an attack on indigenous tribes but as how people group together with shared values, culture and beliefs.
October 30, 2011
I was greatly anticipating this book. Back in Southern California growing up in the 1970's, I heard about the Theory or Concept of Gaia and it appealed to my nascent earth based philosophy. The Gaia Concept postulates that the Earth is a living organism with interdependent systems. Picture if you will, the atmosphere as Her lungs, the oceans as her circulatory system and you get the idea.
This idea neatly dove tailed with my personal philosophy (still intact) that everything and everyone is related.
The activities of nasty greedy humans with tunnel vision in gun-ho pursuit of short term profits have thrown all of this out of balance (all too true). We pack on her back a city the size of Pittsburgh every year seemingly without being aware that there is simply not enough food or materials to support a burgeoning population of this magnitude.
Empowered by the Christian concept that we are stewards of the planet and it is our God given right to have dominion over the plants, and animals, the Earth has become a possession, ours to own and sell, mine, pollute and blast the tops off of mountains to get at deep coal.
I never believed this and never believed in the private ownership of land. And, no I am not a Communist, the government shouldn't own the land, no one should. It is presumptuous in the extreme to think that man can presume to OWN a piece of the planet. We were born on the Earth and have a right to live on the Earth, but not to pollute and ruin the air, the oceans and the rivers and streams.
Naturally, believing as I do, or did--I am just not sure anymore...I was looking forward, savoring reading the words of who I had perceived as an intellectual kindred soul.
Instead, I found the ravings of a madman--psychotic at best, or worse--sociopathic.
The book is chauvinistically Anglo-centric. Right away claxons sounded in my mind. He crows that his "Queen" opened the first nuclear power plant in the 1950's. How quaint. He then proceeds to divulge that there was a rather large radiation leak, but no worries, no cancer! This leak was kept secret and never told, until, presumably, now. Of course it would be difficult to perform retro-research after so many years to see if any bizarre cancers clustered downwind from the leak. But he assures us that there were none. Ok...
The way I see it is that tribal thinking, short term greed, and fanatical patriotism put blinders on us and enhanced our tunnel vision. As long as MY TRIBE gets what it needs, gets the good stuff, has the best weapons arsenal, gets to the moon first and has AAA credit rating and we are a First World Nation, then if our acid rain or choking miasmas float over your village, too bad! And it is not just the USA with this world view. Every industrial country operates this way, starting with England's Colonialism and Industrial Revolution, and continuing on to this day with China.
He lost me by page 97 and I started howling shortly after that.
He debunks Rachel Carson and her seminal book ("The Silent Spring") on the adverse effect of DDT on bird eggs. He lamented the cessation of use of DDT on a limited basis as it was so "useful". Sure there is collateral damage to bird eggs, but not enough for Rachel Carson to write about. Ok...And I guess, today, it is ok that some bees are dying off?
Lovelock advocates that the only way to save our planet is to generate electricity by nuclear power. What? Does he mean nuclear power plants built by the lowest bidder? Where to build them? Along the San Andreas Fault? Near shorelines where Tsunamis can strike? And where are we to dispose of nuclear waste? What about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? Not that bad, he says. Ok...He justifies that low level radiation, the equivalent of Europe receiving x-rays only decreases our life span by a few days at best and aren't European Nations wondering how to pay pensions to "ancient citizens" anyway?
He bristled that his beloved England was censored by the Nordic Nations over acid rain falling on their land in the 1970's, but then goes on a bizarre tangent and says that acid rain clouds stagnantly hovering over European cities is a good thing because the presence of these clouds cools the earth.
Lovelock wants to recreate the disastrous Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippine Islands in 1991. (I personally saw some of the displaced, the refugees, did you Mr. Lovelock?--Apparently not). He advocates requiring airliners to release sulphur as they fly to decrease global warming. (The atmosphere of Venus, anyone?).
He finally states that as Gaia nears her end of being able to support the creatures (and yes, his compassion justifies my use of this term), that we synthesize our food. (Soylent Green, anyone?). Sure we will be tribal and the elite will eat real meat cooked with sauces, but hey, what the heck... right?
In a bizarre atavistic conclusion to save his beloved England (which he thinks can survive the coming cataclysm) he advocates once again, dividing 'All of Gaul into Three Parts': 1. cities, roads and airports, 2. Farmland 3. Gaia Space--off limits to humans.
I agree that the earth is reaching a point where it cannot sustain life as we know it any longer. But I think that humans . My compassion and humanism is too strong to be able to swallow his notion of shunting aside humans to save the earth at all costs. He is completely devoid of compassion and thinks nothing of saving the earth, at the expense of humans.
Have we reached the point of no return? Judging by the political rhetoric coming from world leaders, the pessimist in me says absolutely; the romantic, naive Southern California 1970's beach chick surely hopes not. But what is a given is that our climate is changing, the earth is ailing and cannot continue to support the machinations of corporate greed, rampant consumerism, and untrammeled pollution, rape and pillage. We are all in this together, everyone and everything is related. The earth is not ours to own and exploit, it never was. But what to do, hopefully before it is too late? Nuclear power--is this REALLY OUR BEST solution? Beam me up Scotty....Or give me a Yurt to plunk down somewhere in the Arctic, the only place that may be able to support human life in the near future.
This idea neatly dove tailed with my personal philosophy (still intact) that everything and everyone is related.
The activities of nasty greedy humans with tunnel vision in gun-ho pursuit of short term profits have thrown all of this out of balance (all too true). We pack on her back a city the size of Pittsburgh every year seemingly without being aware that there is simply not enough food or materials to support a burgeoning population of this magnitude.
Empowered by the Christian concept that we are stewards of the planet and it is our God given right to have dominion over the plants, and animals, the Earth has become a possession, ours to own and sell, mine, pollute and blast the tops off of mountains to get at deep coal.
I never believed this and never believed in the private ownership of land. And, no I am not a Communist, the government shouldn't own the land, no one should. It is presumptuous in the extreme to think that man can presume to OWN a piece of the planet. We were born on the Earth and have a right to live on the Earth, but not to pollute and ruin the air, the oceans and the rivers and streams.
Naturally, believing as I do, or did--I am just not sure anymore...I was looking forward, savoring reading the words of who I had perceived as an intellectual kindred soul.
Instead, I found the ravings of a madman--psychotic at best, or worse--sociopathic.
The book is chauvinistically Anglo-centric. Right away claxons sounded in my mind. He crows that his "Queen" opened the first nuclear power plant in the 1950's. How quaint. He then proceeds to divulge that there was a rather large radiation leak, but no worries, no cancer! This leak was kept secret and never told, until, presumably, now. Of course it would be difficult to perform retro-research after so many years to see if any bizarre cancers clustered downwind from the leak. But he assures us that there were none. Ok...
The way I see it is that tribal thinking, short term greed, and fanatical patriotism put blinders on us and enhanced our tunnel vision. As long as MY TRIBE gets what it needs, gets the good stuff, has the best weapons arsenal, gets to the moon first and has AAA credit rating and we are a First World Nation, then if our acid rain or choking miasmas float over your village, too bad! And it is not just the USA with this world view. Every industrial country operates this way, starting with England's Colonialism and Industrial Revolution, and continuing on to this day with China.
He lost me by page 97 and I started howling shortly after that.
He debunks Rachel Carson and her seminal book ("The Silent Spring") on the adverse effect of DDT on bird eggs. He lamented the cessation of use of DDT on a limited basis as it was so "useful". Sure there is collateral damage to bird eggs, but not enough for Rachel Carson to write about. Ok...And I guess, today, it is ok that some bees are dying off?
Lovelock advocates that the only way to save our planet is to generate electricity by nuclear power. What? Does he mean nuclear power plants built by the lowest bidder? Where to build them? Along the San Andreas Fault? Near shorelines where Tsunamis can strike? And where are we to dispose of nuclear waste? What about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? Not that bad, he says. Ok...He justifies that low level radiation, the equivalent of Europe receiving x-rays only decreases our life span by a few days at best and aren't European Nations wondering how to pay pensions to "ancient citizens" anyway?
He bristled that his beloved England was censored by the Nordic Nations over acid rain falling on their land in the 1970's, but then goes on a bizarre tangent and says that acid rain clouds stagnantly hovering over European cities is a good thing because the presence of these clouds cools the earth.
Lovelock wants to recreate the disastrous Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippine Islands in 1991. (I personally saw some of the displaced, the refugees, did you Mr. Lovelock?--Apparently not). He advocates requiring airliners to release sulphur as they fly to decrease global warming. (The atmosphere of Venus, anyone?).
He finally states that as Gaia nears her end of being able to support the creatures (and yes, his compassion justifies my use of this term), that we synthesize our food. (Soylent Green, anyone?). Sure we will be tribal and the elite will eat real meat cooked with sauces, but hey, what the heck... right?
In a bizarre atavistic conclusion to save his beloved England (which he thinks can survive the coming cataclysm) he advocates once again, dividing 'All of Gaul into Three Parts': 1. cities, roads and airports, 2. Farmland 3. Gaia Space--off limits to humans.
I agree that the earth is reaching a point where it cannot sustain life as we know it any longer. But I think that humans . My compassion and humanism is too strong to be able to swallow his notion of shunting aside humans to save the earth at all costs. He is completely devoid of compassion and thinks nothing of saving the earth, at the expense of humans.
Have we reached the point of no return? Judging by the political rhetoric coming from world leaders, the pessimist in me says absolutely; the romantic, naive Southern California 1970's beach chick surely hopes not. But what is a given is that our climate is changing, the earth is ailing and cannot continue to support the machinations of corporate greed, rampant consumerism, and untrammeled pollution, rape and pillage. We are all in this together, everyone and everything is related. The earth is not ours to own and exploit, it never was. But what to do, hopefully before it is too late? Nuclear power--is this REALLY OUR BEST solution? Beam me up Scotty....Or give me a Yurt to plunk down somewhere in the Arctic, the only place that may be able to support human life in the near future.
July 25, 2022
I found this book very easy to read considering the subjects content and being a Prose reader. It is depressing, but insightful, scary, but practical, pessimistic, but hopeful. It was an education for myself and in my opinion should be part of the school syllabus and sent out to every household on earth to read. Read this book now.
July 31, 2018
A useful introduction to the various environmental problems threatening the planet, I'm not sure I have much of a leg to stand on in criticising Lovelock's science - which seems rigorous and well-explained, although I did notice a slightly mischievous manipulation of life-expectancy statistics.
Still, it's Lovelock's science - or, rather, his scientism - which really holds the book back. The whole thing is riddled with transhistorical, typically biological, assumptions about the world - a lot of quite basic evo-psych, some quite reactionary statements about sex (and a truly baffling number of inappropriate comments on race), and above all a totally uncritical notion of 'nature' for which (brace yourselves) the immediate remedy would be to read some fucking Raymond Williams.
Lovelock is caught between an unreflective scientism - a powerful optimism in the possibilities of technological change, a faith in (at least some) expertise, a detached seriousness about the value of human life - and a very conservative sentimentality about rural/wild/natural aesthetics and respect for 'civilisation'. For every comment about cancer being blown out of proportion and the importance of Gaia trumping human interests, there is a comment about how important it is to protect Gaia for humans and the dangers that climate change (or banning DDT) poses to human life. Caught between technological utopianism (nuclear fusion, gigantic airships, synthesised food and a man-made ocean mist) and gloomy apocalypticism (deep ecology, every-cure-will-kill-us-and-especially-wind-farms), a cynic might suggest that Lovelock took the easy way out in the 1980s and started being paid by nuclear power companies and Big Aerosol. For what it's worth, I don't think that was the case - but he is deeply marked by the company he keeps (mostly high-profile scientists, many of them working for companies, and the NIMBYs he encounters in his beleaguered south-west) and the tension he articulates is a real storm within him. A lot of his controversial defences (of nuclear power, or pesticides, or aerosols) probably carry some weight, but his total refusal to consider the cost of nuclear fission (having waxed lyrical about the impracticality of solar) is not a point in favour of his blessed scientific objectivity. And the inconsistencies this provokes can be jarring - pages after recognising that densely populated cities are much friendlier to Gaia than suburban sprawl (and surely for that matter, rural sprawl), Lovelock starts to denounce city-dwellers and all they represent for being out-of-touch with 'nature'. But how much more in touch with 'nature' is he, sat amongst line after line of man-made hedgerows, than those in urban areas who are but a short walk from parks which do include approximately 'wild' spaces? Worth noting, to be fair, is the book's publication date (2006), which probably influences Lovelock's optimism about nuclear power and scepticism about renewables - although it doesn't really excuse them.
Of course, whether in his optimistic or cynical stance, Lovelock's vision remains confined to science and technology. Engagement with the masses is limited to an educational exercise (admittedly quite an ambitious one - writing a Bible-cum-Encyclopaedia, in a single volume!) and the possibility of societal change is foreclosed. As Lovelock argues, "Whatever form future society takes it will be tribal, and hence there will be the privileged and the poor". It is worth quoting at length Lovelock's description of the place of electricity in contemporary society:
"Electric power is extraordinary in the way it insinuates itself dendritically throughout society. The wires that carry it extend to every home like nerves in our bodies. It is always there at a wonderfully constant level, yet hardly anyone of the millions who work in the industry worldwide has more than the vaguest notion of what it is or how it is made and regulated. We are just like the termites who, without thought, build their spacious air-conditioned skyscraper communities. The electricity system exists as a communal, but almost wholly unconscious, activity. No wonder we took it for granted; at least we did until it stopped."
How close is this to a description of capital, and of the capitalist system?! But instead, any possibility of socialist change - or any change at all, for environmental problems are genetic and technological rather than societal - is totally avoided. Truly, it is easier to imagine a return to sail than the end of capitalism.
Focused on technology, but never wholly convinced that it will save us, Lovelock lurches between gross inhumanity and romantic surrender. With few options to reconcile his two halves, Lovelock reaches for the solution seemingly beloved by every prominent biologist of a certain age - controls on population growth. Though himself acknowledging that population growth isn't the sole or even main cause of environmental change, that the problem isn't how many people there are but how they live, and that at the present moment there is tremendous inequality in what those lives look like - without anywhere else to turn (perhaps a turn to socialism would upset the Goldsmiths and Lovelock's neighbours), he joins Attenborough and others in calling for population to be limited, in Lovelock's case to between a billion and half a billion people. The choice could not be clearer - not just socialism or barbarism, but socialism or barbarisms of two types. The barbarism of human extinction and planetary ruin, or the 'barbarism' of Lovelock's vision: the rule of the scientists and experts, the crushing of democracy, and the elimination of all but the few.
Still, it's Lovelock's science - or, rather, his scientism - which really holds the book back. The whole thing is riddled with transhistorical, typically biological, assumptions about the world - a lot of quite basic evo-psych, some quite reactionary statements about sex (and a truly baffling number of inappropriate comments on race), and above all a totally uncritical notion of 'nature' for which (brace yourselves) the immediate remedy would be to read some fucking Raymond Williams.
Lovelock is caught between an unreflective scientism - a powerful optimism in the possibilities of technological change, a faith in (at least some) expertise, a detached seriousness about the value of human life - and a very conservative sentimentality about rural/wild/natural aesthetics and respect for 'civilisation'. For every comment about cancer being blown out of proportion and the importance of Gaia trumping human interests, there is a comment about how important it is to protect Gaia for humans and the dangers that climate change (or banning DDT) poses to human life. Caught between technological utopianism (nuclear fusion, gigantic airships, synthesised food and a man-made ocean mist) and gloomy apocalypticism (deep ecology, every-cure-will-kill-us-and-especially-wind-farms), a cynic might suggest that Lovelock took the easy way out in the 1980s and started being paid by nuclear power companies and Big Aerosol. For what it's worth, I don't think that was the case - but he is deeply marked by the company he keeps (mostly high-profile scientists, many of them working for companies, and the NIMBYs he encounters in his beleaguered south-west) and the tension he articulates is a real storm within him. A lot of his controversial defences (of nuclear power, or pesticides, or aerosols) probably carry some weight, but his total refusal to consider the cost of nuclear fission (having waxed lyrical about the impracticality of solar) is not a point in favour of his blessed scientific objectivity. And the inconsistencies this provokes can be jarring - pages after recognising that densely populated cities are much friendlier to Gaia than suburban sprawl (and surely for that matter, rural sprawl), Lovelock starts to denounce city-dwellers and all they represent for being out-of-touch with 'nature'. But how much more in touch with 'nature' is he, sat amongst line after line of man-made hedgerows, than those in urban areas who are but a short walk from parks which do include approximately 'wild' spaces? Worth noting, to be fair, is the book's publication date (2006), which probably influences Lovelock's optimism about nuclear power and scepticism about renewables - although it doesn't really excuse them.
Of course, whether in his optimistic or cynical stance, Lovelock's vision remains confined to science and technology. Engagement with the masses is limited to an educational exercise (admittedly quite an ambitious one - writing a Bible-cum-Encyclopaedia, in a single volume!) and the possibility of societal change is foreclosed. As Lovelock argues, "Whatever form future society takes it will be tribal, and hence there will be the privileged and the poor". It is worth quoting at length Lovelock's description of the place of electricity in contemporary society:
"Electric power is extraordinary in the way it insinuates itself dendritically throughout society. The wires that carry it extend to every home like nerves in our bodies. It is always there at a wonderfully constant level, yet hardly anyone of the millions who work in the industry worldwide has more than the vaguest notion of what it is or how it is made and regulated. We are just like the termites who, without thought, build their spacious air-conditioned skyscraper communities. The electricity system exists as a communal, but almost wholly unconscious, activity. No wonder we took it for granted; at least we did until it stopped."
How close is this to a description of capital, and of the capitalist system?! But instead, any possibility of socialist change - or any change at all, for environmental problems are genetic and technological rather than societal - is totally avoided. Truly, it is easier to imagine a return to sail than the end of capitalism.
Focused on technology, but never wholly convinced that it will save us, Lovelock lurches between gross inhumanity and romantic surrender. With few options to reconcile his two halves, Lovelock reaches for the solution seemingly beloved by every prominent biologist of a certain age - controls on population growth. Though himself acknowledging that population growth isn't the sole or even main cause of environmental change, that the problem isn't how many people there are but how they live, and that at the present moment there is tremendous inequality in what those lives look like - without anywhere else to turn (perhaps a turn to socialism would upset the Goldsmiths and Lovelock's neighbours), he joins Attenborough and others in calling for population to be limited, in Lovelock's case to between a billion and half a billion people. The choice could not be clearer - not just socialism or barbarism, but socialism or barbarisms of two types. The barbarism of human extinction and planetary ruin, or the 'barbarism' of Lovelock's vision: the rule of the scientists and experts, the crushing of democracy, and the elimination of all but the few.
June 21, 2023
Polémica, pero necesaria, esta visión que nos puede costar a los que no sabemos nada de ciencia por su insistencia en algo distinto a lo difundido en medios (como su insistencia en la Tierra como ser vivo y en su defensa de la energía nuclear). Y por las sorpresas que trae descubrir tantas cosas que ignoramos o que no nos hemos cuestionado como porqué eliminamos la urea mediante la orina y no por exhalación, los peligros del oxígeno o lo inefable de la física cuántica que obliga a expresarla solo con lenguaje matemático. Lo claro es que estamos destruyendo el clima y matando al planeta. También propone algunas medidas tecnológicas que podrían ayudar, además de criticar cierta visión ecologista ingenua y apoyarse en muchos otros colegas e investigaciones, con lenguaje asequible y hasta literario (se citan a varios escritores, como Ibsen, Crichton o William Golding). El final es excelente, tranquilamente podría ser el inicio de una saga de ciencia ficción (de hecho creo que ya lo ha sido). El texto es del 2006, así que mucho de los sostenido aquí debe haber sido actualizado, mayor razón para seguir leyendo al autor.
February 19, 2010
If consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, then Lovelock is surely a giant here. A true visionary and a wonderful writer with the ability both to analyze data and convey scientific understandings metaphorically to the lay reader, he sadly seems to have become the 21st century schizoid man through his love for two wholly incompatible entities: Gaia, the living planet he first (in modern times) identified as such, and British "civilization" which has been one of the forces most destructive of the whole relationship to Gaia he sees as essential to human survival.
So to keep the lovely British countryside free of ugly, awful wind farms, and still give Brits the power I guess to listen to Purcell concerts and read books on tape? he advocates--nuclear reactors? Leaving aside the bomb and waste threats (which he utterly dismisses) whose farm are they going to beautify? He talks about cellphones and the internet being good things because they keep us from getting on planes and in cars, in the absence of any evidence to this effect, and the presence of much evidence that they further disconnect us from any sense of ourselves as part of the natural world. Oh, and the third world has somehow unfairly been denied the DDT that's what Africa really needs to develop, by elitist liberals in the north.
His presentation of the science behind global heating and his knowledge of how Earth's ecosystems function are solid and compelling. But his fundamental flaw is in not seeing that it's not British civilization he ought to be trying to preserve at all costs but the lifeways of millions of people who actually have a knowledge and understanding of Gaia that extends back far before Lovelock and William Golding took their now-famous walk through that English village. The rest of us in the global north, including Lovelock, ought to be learning from their example. Then maybe we could produce the knowledge-book he advocates (one of his only good suggestions in my view) as a kind of farmer's almanac for the future, that could help every household reacquire at least some of the basic skills of how to live with instead of against nature.
So to keep the lovely British countryside free of ugly, awful wind farms, and still give Brits the power I guess to listen to Purcell concerts and read books on tape? he advocates--nuclear reactors? Leaving aside the bomb and waste threats (which he utterly dismisses) whose farm are they going to beautify? He talks about cellphones and the internet being good things because they keep us from getting on planes and in cars, in the absence of any evidence to this effect, and the presence of much evidence that they further disconnect us from any sense of ourselves as part of the natural world. Oh, and the third world has somehow unfairly been denied the DDT that's what Africa really needs to develop, by elitist liberals in the north.
His presentation of the science behind global heating and his knowledge of how Earth's ecosystems function are solid and compelling. But his fundamental flaw is in not seeing that it's not British civilization he ought to be trying to preserve at all costs but the lifeways of millions of people who actually have a knowledge and understanding of Gaia that extends back far before Lovelock and William Golding took their now-famous walk through that English village. The rest of us in the global north, including Lovelock, ought to be learning from their example. Then maybe we could produce the knowledge-book he advocates (one of his only good suggestions in my view) as a kind of farmer's almanac for the future, that could help every household reacquire at least some of the basic skills of how to live with instead of against nature.
July 13, 2016
There was a lot about this which made a lot of sense - Lovelock's discussions of energy generation (esp. with regards nuclear power and the flaws of several 'renewable' sources) and pollution was interesting and intelligent, and the author writes engagingly without oversimplifying. I would recommend much of this message to be read by a great many folks too ignorant of the impact of human activity on our planet.
I was however rather less enamoured by the central 'Gaia' hypothesis, and by a number of other slightly nonsensical analogies used by an author - to me these simplifications added little and in fact raised numerous questions which weakened his generally reasonable points. The conflict between writing such a 'human-centric' (and oft 'Britain-centric') book warning against our current lifestyles leading to the collapse of our ecosystem(s), and the definition of Gaia in slightly anthropomorphic terms as 'a self-governing Earth, and all the chemical, physical and biological processes within it, including human life' was troublesome for me. I understand our actions will probably have significant impact on ourselves, other organisms and the planet, it just seems a bit strange to disconnect this from a basic, fatalist Darwinism where mass extinctions wouldn't lead to a feedback 'solving' many problems - or even where a future Earth robbed of human life would 'necessarily' be a bad thing. Lovelock's warning that we must change to survive is very real, but I can't help thinking there is a lot in the future unanticipated in this book.
I was however rather less enamoured by the central 'Gaia' hypothesis, and by a number of other slightly nonsensical analogies used by an author - to me these simplifications added little and in fact raised numerous questions which weakened his generally reasonable points. The conflict between writing such a 'human-centric' (and oft 'Britain-centric') book warning against our current lifestyles leading to the collapse of our ecosystem(s), and the definition of Gaia in slightly anthropomorphic terms as 'a self-governing Earth, and all the chemical, physical and biological processes within it, including human life' was troublesome for me. I understand our actions will probably have significant impact on ourselves, other organisms and the planet, it just seems a bit strange to disconnect this from a basic, fatalist Darwinism where mass extinctions wouldn't lead to a feedback 'solving' many problems - or even where a future Earth robbed of human life would 'necessarily' be a bad thing. Lovelock's warning that we must change to survive is very real, but I can't help thinking there is a lot in the future unanticipated in this book.
January 17, 2022
I've read probably a half dozen of Lovelock's book over the last couple of years, and the man is truly his own worst enemy. He simply cannot help himself from inserting highly suspect ideas of Society-Writ-Large into his texts, and going on endless tangents, and relitigating old scientific feuds. It's all enormously frustrating, because his books have, at least to some extent, opened my mind to seeing the world somewhat differently than I had previously, but you REALLY have to work to strain the useful stuff from the rest of it.
This is one of his books that I was looking forward to the most since it appeared to deal with global warming directly. Much of his earlier work pre-dated global warming as a well-understood phenomenon and dealt with it only in sidebars. While there is increased discussion of it here, I'm still not satisfied that it is the real topic of the book, which maddeningly meanders from one area to the next.
Lovelock is now a very old person, over 100 yet still alive. Like all of us, he's brought his own experiences as well the prevailing conventional wisdom of his time with him across his life. I just wish he could have kept more of it out these books. If that man had ever worked with a good editor I think he might have produced a real classic. As it stands, it will be up to someone else to continue popularizing his concepts about the way that life impacts the environment in a way that allows them to co-evolve and create self-sustaining habitats.
This is one of his books that I was looking forward to the most since it appeared to deal with global warming directly. Much of his earlier work pre-dated global warming as a well-understood phenomenon and dealt with it only in sidebars. While there is increased discussion of it here, I'm still not satisfied that it is the real topic of the book, which maddeningly meanders from one area to the next.
Lovelock is now a very old person, over 100 yet still alive. Like all of us, he's brought his own experiences as well the prevailing conventional wisdom of his time with him across his life. I just wish he could have kept more of it out these books. If that man had ever worked with a good editor I think he might have produced a real classic. As it stands, it will be up to someone else to continue popularizing his concepts about the way that life impacts the environment in a way that allows them to co-evolve and create self-sustaining habitats.
May 16, 2015
The Revenge of Gaia is really not all that different from Lovelock’s later book The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning. In both, he warns about a coming climate catastrophe that he believes will be sudden and devastating to life on earth (particularly to humans after civilization collapses).
With regards to climate change, Lovelock is pretty pessimistic to say the least. He expects melting glaciers to have a devastating effect on the planet by the end of this century. By way of evidence he points in particular to the way that feedback loops can have a multiplicative effect on temperatures. White ice reflects sunlight back into space, as it melts, more dark land and water are exposed increasing light absorption. Life in the ocean cannot survive above certain temperatures, as the surface of the ocean warms, algae, which converts CO2 into O2 will die, causing CO2 emissions to increase. As permafrost melts, trapped methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) will be released. And depressingly … there are more, many of which are poorly understood.
While Lovelock’s assessment of the mechanisms of global warming are in line with that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the severity and timeline of his predictions go beyond scientist’s current best understanding. With a complex system in which so many variables are unknown, predictions can prove to be inaccurate. With that said, given that global warming is a fact and is expected to have a tremendous negative impact on the planet under most scenarios, his warnings are not without warrant. And if much of the world's land becomes uninhabitable and unsuitable for farming by 2050, Lovelock will look like a wise sage who was foolishly unheeded. It’s a shame, therefore, that the roving bands of hunter/gatherers that constitute the remains of our civilization will be unlikely, and unable to erect a statue.
The book also goes into some detail regarding Lovelock’s theory of Gaia, which proposes that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. The hypothesis is really a metaphor, and sometimes metaphors can offer new ways of thinking about a problem that lend insight (Richard Dawkins “selfish gene” is one such example). While I think the idea is intriguing, I’m unconvinced that the Earth as Gaia idea is a particularly accurate, or useful concept. The body provides homeostasis because it is an interrelated agglomeration of cells, each of which carries identical DNA and is controlled by a central nervous system. The Earth simply does not behave in this fashion, and certainly did not evolve the same way our bodies did. It’s possible the idea is a useful one, but I remain unconvinced.
Finally, a review would be incomplete without acknowledging the fact that Lovelock is a rather idiosyncratic person. He poo-poos wind and solar energy, yet is a big proponent of nuclear fusion. Yes … fusion, the same energy that powers the sun! While fusion does indeed produce energy, the state of the technology at present is completely unproven and faces huge engineering hurdles that have yet to be resolved. Compare this with wind and solar, two energy forms that are already used in wide practice. Another example of Lovelock’s eccentric thinking can be found his idea to dispose of nuclear waste by spreading it throughout natural areas (he specifically mentions the Amazon) as a radioactive barrier to keep people out. While this actually might work, perhaps it’s a bit heavy handed (or completely freaking insane)?
After two books, my impression of Lovelock is that he’s a smart guy with ideas that range the gamut from good to completely off the wall, and he’s completely convinced every single one of them is absolutely right.
With regards to climate change, Lovelock is pretty pessimistic to say the least. He expects melting glaciers to have a devastating effect on the planet by the end of this century. By way of evidence he points in particular to the way that feedback loops can have a multiplicative effect on temperatures. White ice reflects sunlight back into space, as it melts, more dark land and water are exposed increasing light absorption. Life in the ocean cannot survive above certain temperatures, as the surface of the ocean warms, algae, which converts CO2 into O2 will die, causing CO2 emissions to increase. As permafrost melts, trapped methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) will be released. And depressingly … there are more, many of which are poorly understood.
While Lovelock’s assessment of the mechanisms of global warming are in line with that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the severity and timeline of his predictions go beyond scientist’s current best understanding. With a complex system in which so many variables are unknown, predictions can prove to be inaccurate. With that said, given that global warming is a fact and is expected to have a tremendous negative impact on the planet under most scenarios, his warnings are not without warrant. And if much of the world's land becomes uninhabitable and unsuitable for farming by 2050, Lovelock will look like a wise sage who was foolishly unheeded. It’s a shame, therefore, that the roving bands of hunter/gatherers that constitute the remains of our civilization will be unlikely, and unable to erect a statue.
The book also goes into some detail regarding Lovelock’s theory of Gaia, which proposes that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. The hypothesis is really a metaphor, and sometimes metaphors can offer new ways of thinking about a problem that lend insight (Richard Dawkins “selfish gene” is one such example). While I think the idea is intriguing, I’m unconvinced that the Earth as Gaia idea is a particularly accurate, or useful concept. The body provides homeostasis because it is an interrelated agglomeration of cells, each of which carries identical DNA and is controlled by a central nervous system. The Earth simply does not behave in this fashion, and certainly did not evolve the same way our bodies did. It’s possible the idea is a useful one, but I remain unconvinced.
Finally, a review would be incomplete without acknowledging the fact that Lovelock is a rather idiosyncratic person. He poo-poos wind and solar energy, yet is a big proponent of nuclear fusion. Yes … fusion, the same energy that powers the sun! While fusion does indeed produce energy, the state of the technology at present is completely unproven and faces huge engineering hurdles that have yet to be resolved. Compare this with wind and solar, two energy forms that are already used in wide practice. Another example of Lovelock’s eccentric thinking can be found his idea to dispose of nuclear waste by spreading it throughout natural areas (he specifically mentions the Amazon) as a radioactive barrier to keep people out. While this actually might work, perhaps it’s a bit heavy handed (or completely freaking insane)?
After two books, my impression of Lovelock is that he’s a smart guy with ideas that range the gamut from good to completely off the wall, and he’s completely convinced every single one of them is absolutely right.
October 20, 2018
BRUTAL. Es el primer libro que leo acerca de la tierra, el calentamiento global, la teoría de Gaia, que nos espera en el futuro, entre otros temas, y realmente me gustó mucho. Sinceramente solo sabía nociones básicas por lo que casi todo lo escrito en el libro me pareció interesante. Lo único que no me agradó mucho fue el uso de muchos tecnicismos en algunas partes, pues al no ser mi área de estudio se me dificultaba un poco y tenía que estar investigando o tratando de recordar mis clases del colegio de química y biología jajaja.
No sé si en algún futuro cercano, pero espero en otra oportunidad leer otros libros parecidos... si no es que terminamos con Gaia primero.
No sé si en algún futuro cercano, pero espero en otra oportunidad leer otros libros parecidos... si no es que terminamos con Gaia primero.
October 18, 2012
Oh dear. James Lovelock is largely rehashing what he's said before but a couple of disturbing aspects of his thinking also come to light. One: in terms of energy, civilisation must continue business as usual, hence his support of nuclear power. Two, and what made me stop at his take on DDT: humans still take precedence over all other creatures. So DDT is good and sod all the birds who die or can't breed because of it.
This book seems to be all over the place too, with no central narrative thrust. Unless that be the author's continual return to his defence of nuclear. OK, James, we get it. It could be safer than any other source but it ain't going to happen. The industry's continual own goals ensure that.
Amongst the rehashing I gleaned one new piece of information: life on the planet has seen higher CO2 concentrations and survived. I did know that: indeed, around 20 times higher at the start of the Phanaerozoic, i.e. about the start of animal life. But the Sun was weaker back then and the planet probably needed it. Not so now, nor into the future.
Lovelock's parting thought is: “to write a guidebook for our survivors to help them rebuild civilisation without repeating too many of our mistakes.” Trouble is: the guidebook already exists; it's in our archaeological record. Decoding that has revealed the errors of previous failed civilisations, which we are repeating now. So, no-one's going to read such a book. And The Revenge of Gaia ain’t it either.
June 1, 2009
Lovelock brings Gaia theory up to date by explaining the positive feedback mechanisms that have led us into a runaway greenhouse effect. Best if you have some rudimentary familiarity with science, and earth science in particular -- but not necessary. Lovelock explains how the models work -- and concludes that it's likely too late to avoid the coming heat age. Gaia -- the effectively self-regulating quasi-organism/system that stretches from where the lithosphere meets the mantle to the very fringe of space, and includes volcanic gases, rock, oceans, biota, and the atmosphere -- will have her way with us. Still, he says, we must try. He's not down with the hippie stuff at this point. He thinks we need to go nuclear, because it (fission, for now, and soon, he says, fusion) is the only energy source capable of meeting humanity's needs while we wind down our 6 billion population to something the earth's resources can carry, and switch then to renewables like solar and wind. A note: He doesn't want windmills on the ridge near his cottage in the English countryside -- but he doesn't mind storing all the world's spent nuclear waste (a 16 meter cube each year versus a mountain twelve miles around and a mile high for all the CO2 we'd have to "sequester" in a carbon sequestration system for our current energy sources) in a concrete bunker in his backyard. Brilliant man. He suggests those who can move to the arctic and restart civilization from scratch while the billions who don't make it fight it out. The scariest part is, he's no crank.
November 20, 2014
Wasn't always easy to pin down where Lovelock was going. Is his Gaia theory meant to be a strong metaphor? Does he really believe the Earth is truly 'living?' Has civilization reached a tipping point for society as we know it with environmental damage? Or is there a way out yet?
I think the reason he may have kept such questions and more ambiguous is because he is quite convinced that there is a crisis related to how humanity has acted to impact Earth/Gaia, and that urgency to act doesn't leave room for feel-good half-efforts. Towards the end I felt the message became a little more clearer. This is not new age-y eco-mystical trash, nor is it afraid to introduce controversial ideas back to the green movement (e.g., nuclear energy.) I appreciated this book a lot because Lovelock and I seem to share a lot of the same criticisms-from-within about ecology and its movements.
I think the reason he may have kept such questions and more ambiguous is because he is quite convinced that there is a crisis related to how humanity has acted to impact Earth/Gaia, and that urgency to act doesn't leave room for feel-good half-efforts. Towards the end I felt the message became a little more clearer. This is not new age-y eco-mystical trash, nor is it afraid to introduce controversial ideas back to the green movement (e.g., nuclear energy.) I appreciated this book a lot because Lovelock and I seem to share a lot of the same criticisms-from-within about ecology and its movements.
April 5, 2008
While Lovelock's Gaia Theory is still in my opinion flawed because he isn't careful enough to define what he means by Mother Earth having a goal, I do think that anyone wanting to understand life on earth as a big interconnected system would benefit from this relatively quick read. And read some of the references as well. I understand that you might be better served to read "The Ages of Gaia" than this, which I will.
June 9, 2020
From the founder of the Gaia Hypothesis, comes an impassioned and enlightening 3 part book, aptly titled The Revenge of Gaia.
The first part desribes planetary homeostasis, how the earth is (or rather, was) a self-regulating system. He shows how this self-regulation *was* achieved through interactions between lifeforms and the physical environment. In doing so, Lovelock (who is now 101 years old), also describes the positive feedbacks loops we approach that could hasten the climate disaster. 5/5 stars.
The second part is a defense of Nuclear energy. Given this book was published in 2005, some of the technological capacities and costs of climate friendly energy options are very out of date (especially solar). However, we should have acted then, and had we acted then, he is absolutely right that Nuclear would have the best option for the provision of the baseline electricity our society thrives on. Today, without good batteries, Nuclear energy still has a role to play, especially in countries without the mountainous regions required to 'store' hydroelectric energy and thus provide said baseline power. 4/5 in 2005, 3/5 today.
The third and final part is a critique of romantic environmentalism, with it's absolutes, and approaches that ultimately damage the environment or human civilisaiton (see large scale biofuels). In it's place he pleas for the clear communication of scientific information, trust in science, and action. 3/5 stars.
These pleas could still be made today. We must act.
The first part desribes planetary homeostasis, how the earth is (or rather, was) a self-regulating system. He shows how this self-regulation *was* achieved through interactions between lifeforms and the physical environment. In doing so, Lovelock (who is now 101 years old), also describes the positive feedbacks loops we approach that could hasten the climate disaster. 5/5 stars.
The second part is a defense of Nuclear energy. Given this book was published in 2005, some of the technological capacities and costs of climate friendly energy options are very out of date (especially solar). However, we should have acted then, and had we acted then, he is absolutely right that Nuclear would have the best option for the provision of the baseline electricity our society thrives on. Today, without good batteries, Nuclear energy still has a role to play, especially in countries without the mountainous regions required to 'store' hydroelectric energy and thus provide said baseline power. 4/5 in 2005, 3/5 today.
The third and final part is a critique of romantic environmentalism, with it's absolutes, and approaches that ultimately damage the environment or human civilisaiton (see large scale biofuels). In it's place he pleas for the clear communication of scientific information, trust in science, and action. 3/5 stars.
These pleas could still be made today. We must act.
August 21, 2022
Un libro esclarecedor. Es muy importante que nos enteremos bien de lo que está pasando y por qué. Leer acerca de la energía nuclear y la necesidad de pasar a ella mientras seguimos el camino hacia una retirada sostenible (no hay viabilidad de un desarrollo sostenible, eso pudo haber sido en 1840 pero no fue) fue un descubrimiento. Me había dejado llevar por el terror que causa la energía nuclear, soy hija de la guerra fría. Ahora tengo claro, con esta lectura y las lecturas laterales de otros escritos científicos que he estado haciendo a la par, que la quema de combustibles fósiles tienen los peores efectos secundarios- dióxido de carbono- incomparable con el uso de energía nuclear que es muy limpia en comparación y la única alternativa para cubrir las necesidades de la civilización actual.
March 23, 2020
The central thesis of this book (global warming and the impact on the planet) is still relevant and impactful, but the author mixes it with rants about how good nuclear energy is, and whines about how eolic generators destroyed the view from his metaphoric backyard. In the end, the book made me more mad about the idiosyncrasies and hypocrisies of the author than about climate change and the inevitable destruction of our planet. Also, f*** his views on DDTs.
August 19, 2019
Fascinating. A lot of perspectives and ideas that were new to me, go against the prevailing environmentalist viewpoint, or that I disagree with. Gave me lots to think about
August 8, 2020
2006 aastast on maa heaolus niiii palju muutunud. Gaia kättemaks on "ajast ja arust"
February 13, 2023
Aunque sea un libro escrito hace casi 2 décadas, sigue bastante actualizado. Me ha gustado mucho.
October 20, 2021
James Lovelock is a well-known inventor and scientist (chemistry, medicine, earth science). He has written more than 200 peer reviewed papers and he is famous for inventing the electron capture detector which was used in the discovery of the role CFCs played in stratospheric ozone depletion. However, he is probably most known for putting forth the Gaia hypothesis, that the earth’s surface is a self-regulating system with the goal of sustaining life. In a sense Gaia functions as a large super organism.
According to James Lovelock the living earth, including the biosphere, the atmosphere, and the top layer of the earth’s crust form a self regulating system of which we all are part of. This self regulating system has kept our planet hospitable to life for three billion years. When the sun was too cold it warmed the biosphere. Now when the sun is too hot it cools the biosphere.
Human civilization has been very successful, in fact too successful. Our numbers have swelled from a few million to seven billion and we live longer and healthier lives than ever before. However, our success has taken a great toll on Gaia and soon we will have to face grave consequences which very well might mean the end of human civilization, perhaps even the end of the human race.
This book is about the Gaia hypothesis as well as the peril that our planet is facing. In my opinion these are two interesting and related but different topics. James Lovelock may not agree with that statement, I don’t know. However, whether the Gaia hypothesis is true or not, our planet is still in peril, but James Lovelock’s assessment and suggestions are equally valid in both cases. I am not sure I believe his Gaia hypothesis but, in any case, it brings life and useful metaphors to the discussion.
The human race has reshaped the surface of earth via agriculture, cattle herding, and by building cities and roads. We are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which changes the carbon cycle, the temperature, oceans, and the climate. The combination of our prosperity and large numbers has had a major impact on Gaia. 55 millions years ago the world saw a sharp rise in temperatures which caused a major extinction at the time. The earth remained in an overheated state for 100,000 years. The same pattern is being repeated today, however, a lot of green forests that could moderate the effects 55 million years ago are gone today. James Lovelock is particularly worried about catastrophic climate change. Things we do not yet know about. He believes that it may already be too late. We may already have set the planet on an unstoppable death march.
Lovelock believes that we have a lot of options available to mitigate the effects and to prevent disaster. Unfortunately the people standing in the way are often his fellow environmentalists. What is typically referred to as renewable energy is too expensive and too destructive to Gaia. It is not able to sustain our advanced civilization and unfortunately we need our advanced civilization to sustain the existence of 7 billion people without completely ravaging Gaia. Even though it has improved a lot solar energy is still ineffective. According to James Lovelock the only realistic energy source is Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power is clean, safe, and perfectly natural and it does not harm Gaia. According to James Lovelock, the belief that Nuclear Power is dangerous to us and the natural world is the greatest misunderstanding of our time. I do agree with him that we need nuclear power, but I think he underestimates wind power as well as other ways to reduce carbon emissions such as a carbon fee.
He also discusses various ways to ameliorate the damage done by fossil fuels, for example, by extracting green house gases from the atmosphere, and by using Geo engineering. He discusses cooling the atmosphere using solar panels in space (100 million dollars project), and by using aerosols. He also envisions us producing artificial food using Nuclear Power as an energy source. By doing that we could to a large extent heal Gaia quickly.
James Lovelock loves the living earth. His love for our natural world and for Gaia is the thread that goes through this book as well as his life. You can really feel his Gaia love pouring through the pages of this book. Unlike so many environmentalists whom I have interacted with or listened to in the past he does not have any other agendas. He is not anti-capitalist, or anti-western, or anti-technology, or anti-science, he loves Gaia and he is well educated. If we die Gaia lives. If Gaia dies we die. Gaia comes before the human race and still he really cares about his fellow man and future generations. When it is about saving Gaia all options are on the table and ideologies have to wait. This makes him remarkably honest, remarkably thoughtful, and remarkably relevant.
James Lovelock says that in general we aren’t bad people intentionally polluting our world. Modern man is not worse or better than ancient man or the Stone Age man. He describes how the Australian aborigines probably turned the great ancient Australian forests into deserts via their hunting techniques (putting things on fire). We are like the aborigines, not any better, not any worse; it is just a lot more of us. Now when we understand the situation, we need to be sensible.
I believe that people who are suspicious of greens are typically not suspicious of greens because they don’t care about our natural environment. On the contrary, it is because they see other agendas and pig headed ideologies that do not help the environment. In my opinion James Lovelock’s ideas could really reach all kinds of people both conservatives and liberals, despite the fact that he is a global warming alarmist and the greenest green scientist you will ever meet. He even criticizes the indiscriminate banning of DDT which saved millions of lives until it was banned. This is something you normally only hear from right wing circles and it also happens to be true. People have a lot of misconceptions about the natural world and our health which he corrects in this book. Many natural substances are a lot more dangerous to your health than artificial substances. He criticizes alternative medicine as being bogus medicine and he criticizes people’s irrational fear of radiation and artificially created chemicals. Our obsession with the natural is killing what is natural.
I should say that he also opened my eyes in regards to how I am living. I assumed that I was doing pretty well using wind power generated electricity to heat my home. Then I see that it might not be much better than fossil fuels. What I need to do more than anything else to help Mother Nature is to argue for the use of Nuclear Power and reduce the amount of energy that I am consuming and plant trees. Lush and green is better.
This book touched on some extremely important subjects and it was interesting reading. The book was written for laymen and did not go into depth. It had very few references and very little scientific language. He is not trying to prove anything scientifically in this book. He is just trying to give the average man some insights into what he believes. I should add that I have read quite a bit of books and articles in Scientific American and Nature that go into more depth on the subjects that he is discussing. In my opinion, except a few paragraphs of garbage on page 37, he is quite accurate and his polemic stays thoughtful and tempered. The book is also well written and easy to read and it contains a lot of interesting ideas.
According to James Lovelock the living earth, including the biosphere, the atmosphere, and the top layer of the earth’s crust form a self regulating system of which we all are part of. This self regulating system has kept our planet hospitable to life for three billion years. When the sun was too cold it warmed the biosphere. Now when the sun is too hot it cools the biosphere.
Human civilization has been very successful, in fact too successful. Our numbers have swelled from a few million to seven billion and we live longer and healthier lives than ever before. However, our success has taken a great toll on Gaia and soon we will have to face grave consequences which very well might mean the end of human civilization, perhaps even the end of the human race.
This book is about the Gaia hypothesis as well as the peril that our planet is facing. In my opinion these are two interesting and related but different topics. James Lovelock may not agree with that statement, I don’t know. However, whether the Gaia hypothesis is true or not, our planet is still in peril, but James Lovelock’s assessment and suggestions are equally valid in both cases. I am not sure I believe his Gaia hypothesis but, in any case, it brings life and useful metaphors to the discussion.
The human race has reshaped the surface of earth via agriculture, cattle herding, and by building cities and roads. We are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which changes the carbon cycle, the temperature, oceans, and the climate. The combination of our prosperity and large numbers has had a major impact on Gaia. 55 millions years ago the world saw a sharp rise in temperatures which caused a major extinction at the time. The earth remained in an overheated state for 100,000 years. The same pattern is being repeated today, however, a lot of green forests that could moderate the effects 55 million years ago are gone today. James Lovelock is particularly worried about catastrophic climate change. Things we do not yet know about. He believes that it may already be too late. We may already have set the planet on an unstoppable death march.
Lovelock believes that we have a lot of options available to mitigate the effects and to prevent disaster. Unfortunately the people standing in the way are often his fellow environmentalists. What is typically referred to as renewable energy is too expensive and too destructive to Gaia. It is not able to sustain our advanced civilization and unfortunately we need our advanced civilization to sustain the existence of 7 billion people without completely ravaging Gaia. Even though it has improved a lot solar energy is still ineffective. According to James Lovelock the only realistic energy source is Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power is clean, safe, and perfectly natural and it does not harm Gaia. According to James Lovelock, the belief that Nuclear Power is dangerous to us and the natural world is the greatest misunderstanding of our time. I do agree with him that we need nuclear power, but I think he underestimates wind power as well as other ways to reduce carbon emissions such as a carbon fee.
He also discusses various ways to ameliorate the damage done by fossil fuels, for example, by extracting green house gases from the atmosphere, and by using Geo engineering. He discusses cooling the atmosphere using solar panels in space (100 million dollars project), and by using aerosols. He also envisions us producing artificial food using Nuclear Power as an energy source. By doing that we could to a large extent heal Gaia quickly.
James Lovelock loves the living earth. His love for our natural world and for Gaia is the thread that goes through this book as well as his life. You can really feel his Gaia love pouring through the pages of this book. Unlike so many environmentalists whom I have interacted with or listened to in the past he does not have any other agendas. He is not anti-capitalist, or anti-western, or anti-technology, or anti-science, he loves Gaia and he is well educated. If we die Gaia lives. If Gaia dies we die. Gaia comes before the human race and still he really cares about his fellow man and future generations. When it is about saving Gaia all options are on the table and ideologies have to wait. This makes him remarkably honest, remarkably thoughtful, and remarkably relevant.
James Lovelock says that in general we aren’t bad people intentionally polluting our world. Modern man is not worse or better than ancient man or the Stone Age man. He describes how the Australian aborigines probably turned the great ancient Australian forests into deserts via their hunting techniques (putting things on fire). We are like the aborigines, not any better, not any worse; it is just a lot more of us. Now when we understand the situation, we need to be sensible.
I believe that people who are suspicious of greens are typically not suspicious of greens because they don’t care about our natural environment. On the contrary, it is because they see other agendas and pig headed ideologies that do not help the environment. In my opinion James Lovelock’s ideas could really reach all kinds of people both conservatives and liberals, despite the fact that he is a global warming alarmist and the greenest green scientist you will ever meet. He even criticizes the indiscriminate banning of DDT which saved millions of lives until it was banned. This is something you normally only hear from right wing circles and it also happens to be true. People have a lot of misconceptions about the natural world and our health which he corrects in this book. Many natural substances are a lot more dangerous to your health than artificial substances. He criticizes alternative medicine as being bogus medicine and he criticizes people’s irrational fear of radiation and artificially created chemicals. Our obsession with the natural is killing what is natural.
I should say that he also opened my eyes in regards to how I am living. I assumed that I was doing pretty well using wind power generated electricity to heat my home. Then I see that it might not be much better than fossil fuels. What I need to do more than anything else to help Mother Nature is to argue for the use of Nuclear Power and reduce the amount of energy that I am consuming and plant trees. Lush and green is better.
This book touched on some extremely important subjects and it was interesting reading. The book was written for laymen and did not go into depth. It had very few references and very little scientific language. He is not trying to prove anything scientifically in this book. He is just trying to give the average man some insights into what he believes. I should add that I have read quite a bit of books and articles in Scientific American and Nature that go into more depth on the subjects that he is discussing. In my opinion, except a few paragraphs of garbage on page 37, he is quite accurate and his polemic stays thoughtful and tempered. The book is also well written and easy to read and it contains a lot of interesting ideas.
March 14, 2009
Two things I learned from this book: 1) the #1 cause of cancer is Oxygen, a person has a 30% chance of dying from cancer before they reach the expected life span of 70 years, and the only things that enhance the risk are smoking and multiple sun burns, but otherwise, we all have the same chance just from breathing; 2) using wind power, a top contender amongst environmentalists as a renewable energy source, could be more destructive to the Earth than we think.
I liked this book, and I like Lovelock's ideas. The theory of Gaia is that the Earth is a living, self-regulating system. This book warns that if we don't take care of Gaia, especially as she is aging and weakening, Gaia will "self-regulate" humans into extinction to save itself. Lovelock doesn't hold back in suggesting drastic actions which are hard or me to accept, such as the mass manufacturing of a "fake" food in factories to keep our bodies functioning without the need to use up the land for farming and cattle (personally, I like my "real" food, and I'm sure most of us do), and in situations like this he doesn't suggest ways to "please" the people, but then again his focus is not on people, it's on the Earth. And sociologically, I can't help but think that fake food, and some of his other ideas about changing city life may actually improve the human condition, maybe even eliminate hunger and homelessness all together.
Basically, Lovelock's goal is to communicate that drastic action is needed, and fast, and even then it will only give us a little extra time to completely change our lifestyles. One idea of this book is that even "green" thinkers are more worried about human needs than the needs of the Earth, and scientists have been cultured to be focused on the small picture, and more conservative in their ideas and what they push onto the public. And even in our best intentions, we often cause more harm than good. We all need to adapt a big picture vision of the living system of which we are a part or else the Earth is going to become a place unsuitable for human life. He offers a lot of ideas, some that have been developed but not implemented, and others that are still in the realm of science fiction, but may be realistic if adapted accordingly. Even though some of the ideas seem over the top, I strongly recommend this book for anyone (especially those in positions of power and ability to change) who wants to "save the world" or who considers themself "green," "organic," or an "environmentalist."
I liked this book, and I like Lovelock's ideas. The theory of Gaia is that the Earth is a living, self-regulating system. This book warns that if we don't take care of Gaia, especially as she is aging and weakening, Gaia will "self-regulate" humans into extinction to save itself. Lovelock doesn't hold back in suggesting drastic actions which are hard or me to accept, such as the mass manufacturing of a "fake" food in factories to keep our bodies functioning without the need to use up the land for farming and cattle (personally, I like my "real" food, and I'm sure most of us do), and in situations like this he doesn't suggest ways to "please" the people, but then again his focus is not on people, it's on the Earth. And sociologically, I can't help but think that fake food, and some of his other ideas about changing city life may actually improve the human condition, maybe even eliminate hunger and homelessness all together.
Basically, Lovelock's goal is to communicate that drastic action is needed, and fast, and even then it will only give us a little extra time to completely change our lifestyles. One idea of this book is that even "green" thinkers are more worried about human needs than the needs of the Earth, and scientists have been cultured to be focused on the small picture, and more conservative in their ideas and what they push onto the public. And even in our best intentions, we often cause more harm than good. We all need to adapt a big picture vision of the living system of which we are a part or else the Earth is going to become a place unsuitable for human life. He offers a lot of ideas, some that have been developed but not implemented, and others that are still in the realm of science fiction, but may be realistic if adapted accordingly. Even though some of the ideas seem over the top, I strongly recommend this book for anyone (especially those in positions of power and ability to change) who wants to "save the world" or who considers themself "green," "organic," or an "environmentalist."
June 3, 2010
I am a bit of a tree hugger but on the other hand its become blatantly obvious that the globalist scumbags who cause most of the environmental problems have co-opted much of the environmental movement. It totally makes sense that they would do this because those of us with a clue know how they always try to control both sides. I know that most of the major environmental activist groups recieve funding from people like Exxon, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, etc. If any of these groups can do some good they have my support but how can they be trusted when they are being financially propped up by the people that cause the problems to begin with?
I am open minded on the subject but I think man made global warming is debatable. I've grown much more suspicious recently because of the leaked emails where the two scientists were discussing falsifying data to over dramaticize global warming. I'm more concerned with deforestation, chemicals in the food and oil spills because these are things that absolutely are undebatable.
This guy Lovelock is obviously in the new world order camp of environmentalism. Its pretty strange the way he beats the mantra of man made global warming without weighing both sides of the argument but refers to the fears of nuclear energy as "nonsensical hype" even saying "no harm done" when referring to Three Mile Island and that only 25 people died after the Chernobyl accident then grudgingly admits that some people living in Belarus and the Ukraine may have lost several WEEKS of their life expectancy because of Chernobyl!
Probably the most telling thing is Lovelock talks about how after Rachel Carsons Silent Spring came out exposing how DDT pesticide was killing people he talks glowingly of the reaction of "Lord" Victor Rothschild, one of whose corporations was one of the worlds biggest manufacturers of DDT. He talks of Rothschilds "agonized" reaction, painting a sympathetic picture of a prominent member of what is possibly world histories most evil family. That in itself lets me know who Lovelock is working for.
I am open minded on the subject but I think man made global warming is debatable. I've grown much more suspicious recently because of the leaked emails where the two scientists were discussing falsifying data to over dramaticize global warming. I'm more concerned with deforestation, chemicals in the food and oil spills because these are things that absolutely are undebatable.
This guy Lovelock is obviously in the new world order camp of environmentalism. Its pretty strange the way he beats the mantra of man made global warming without weighing both sides of the argument but refers to the fears of nuclear energy as "nonsensical hype" even saying "no harm done" when referring to Three Mile Island and that only 25 people died after the Chernobyl accident then grudgingly admits that some people living in Belarus and the Ukraine may have lost several WEEKS of their life expectancy because of Chernobyl!
Probably the most telling thing is Lovelock talks about how after Rachel Carsons Silent Spring came out exposing how DDT pesticide was killing people he talks glowingly of the reaction of "Lord" Victor Rothschild, one of whose corporations was one of the worlds biggest manufacturers of DDT. He talks of Rothschilds "agonized" reaction, painting a sympathetic picture of a prominent member of what is possibly world histories most evil family. That in itself lets me know who Lovelock is working for.
August 2, 2015
เคยอ่านที่คนรีวิวข้อเสนออื่นๆ ของ Lovelock มา เล่มนี้แกเขียนขึ้นหลังจากเสนอ Gaia hypothesis ร่วมกับ Lynn Margulis ได้เกือบ 40 ปี คงตกผลึกมากพอสมควร มีหลายจุดที่แกพูดถึงประเด็นที่ถูกวิจารณ์ เช่น เรื่องที่แกเสนอให้มองโลกว่าคล้ายสิ่งมีชีวิต แกย้ำว่าแกไม่ได้เขาใจว่าโลกมันมีชีวิตจริงๆ ซึ่งแน่นอนว่าผิดหลักวิทยาศาสตร์ แต่การมองโลกว่าคล้ายสิ่งมีชีวิตเป็นการเปรียบเปรยเพื่อให้เห็นว่าเรากำลังอาศัยอยู่ในสภาพแวดล้อมที่ประกอบด้วยการทำงานของสิ่งต่างๆ ตั้งแต่สสารใต้ดินไปจนถึงชั้นบรรยากาศ เพื่อรักษาสมดุลให้โลกเอื้อต่อสิ่งมีชีวิตในปัจจุบันมากที่สุด อย่างไรก็ตาม โลกกำลังเปลี่ยนไปตลอดเวลา ไม่ได้อยู่นิ่งๆ เฉยๆ และไม่ได้เอื้อต่อการอาศัยอยู่ของเราตลอดเวลาเช่นกัน เราคิดว่าถ้าเปรียบมนุษย์และสิ่งมีชีวิตอื่นๆ เป็นปรสิตของโลกก็พอได้ แต่มนุษย์คงต้องเป็นปรสิตที่มีศักยภาพในการดูดกลืนพลังงานของโลกมากกว่าสิ่งอื่น และผลกระทบที่ Lovelock เสนอไว้หลายทศวรรษก็คือ อาจจะช้าเกินที่เราจะแก้ไขเปลี่ยนแปลงตัวเองเพื่อคืนสมดุลให้โลกแล้ว วิกฤตของระบบนิเวศ รวมถึงเหตุการณ์ภัยพิบัติ เป็นเหตุผลให้เขาตั้งชื่อหนังสือเล่มนี้ว่า การแก้แค้นของไกอา/กายา โลกกำลังเอาคืน
ทางออกคืออะไร? สิ่งที่ Lovelock ดูน่าหดหู่ แต่ก็พอมีความหวัง เขาบอกว่า ยากเกินไปแล้วที่คนรุ่นเราจะเปลี่ยนแปลงวิถีชีวิต ในพลังงานอย่างเข้าใจถึงผลกระทบต่อธรรมชาติ Lovelock บอกว่าสิ่งที่เราต้องการคือหนังสือที่เรียบง่าย ตรงไปตรงมา และเขียนอย่างชัดเจนถึงการดำรงอยู่ของไกอา/กายา หรือ โลกในฐานะสิ่งมีชีวิต รวมถึงผลกระทบที่มนุษย์มีต่อโลก เขาเสนอว่าหนังสือเล่มนี้หรือหนังสือเหล่านี้ต้องถูกบรรจุอยู่ในระบบการศึกษาให้ต่อรุ่นต่อไปได้เรียนรู้ Lovelock ฝากความหวังไว้กับคนรุ่นใหม่ กับเด็กๆ ที่กำลังจะเติบโตขึ้นมา ซึ่งเป็นกลุ่มคนที่มีโอกาสจะเปลี่ยนแปลง
ทางออกคืออะไร? สิ่งที่ Lovelock ดูน่าหดหู่ แต่ก็พอมีความหวัง เขาบอกว่า ยากเกินไปแล้วที่คนรุ่นเราจะเปลี่ยนแปลงวิถีชีวิต ในพลังงานอย่างเข้าใจถึงผลกระทบต่อธรรมชาติ Lovelock บอกว่าสิ่งที่เราต้องการคือหนังสือที่เรียบง่าย ตรงไปตรงมา และเขียนอย่างชัดเจนถึงการดำรงอยู่ของไกอา/กายา หรือ โลกในฐานะสิ่งมีชีวิต รวมถึงผลกระทบที่มนุษย์มีต่อโลก เขาเสนอว่าหนังสือเล่มนี้หรือหนังสือเหล่านี้ต้องถูกบรรจุอยู่ในระบบการศึกษาให้ต่อรุ่นต่อไปได้เรียนรู้ Lovelock ฝากความหวังไว้กับคนรุ่นใหม่ กับเด็กๆ ที่กำลังจะเติบโตขึ้นมา ซึ่งเป็นกลุ่มคนที่มีโอกาสจะเปลี่ยนแปลง
February 4, 2023
The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis & The Fate of Humanity: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity
This was a very good, eye-opening, and sad book. This 2006 book is much more pessimistic than his 2019 book, Novacene: the coming age of hyperintelligence (reviewed earlier), where he suggests our evolution with technology may help us find a solution. In this book, he outlines the older earth's inability to regulate itself as well as it could have previously and the grievous harm humans are doing to the planet's ability for self-regulation. He continues to emphasize that humans MUST stop acting as if human welfare is all that matters. Here he seems to be emphasizing our necessary interdependency with all other living things, including Gaia, the living earth. As in his other books, he promotes the use of nuclear energy as our only way to bridge until we have unlimited fusion power can be used. He also condemns our insolent use of stored carbon that Gaia locked away to enable oxygen to remain at proper levels for life. Once again, my novice view suggests his science is sound, and his call for action is refreshing.
This was a very good, eye-opening, and sad book. This 2006 book is much more pessimistic than his 2019 book, Novacene: the coming age of hyperintelligence (reviewed earlier), where he suggests our evolution with technology may help us find a solution. In this book, he outlines the older earth's inability to regulate itself as well as it could have previously and the grievous harm humans are doing to the planet's ability for self-regulation. He continues to emphasize that humans MUST stop acting as if human welfare is all that matters. Here he seems to be emphasizing our necessary interdependency with all other living things, including Gaia, the living earth. As in his other books, he promotes the use of nuclear energy as our only way to bridge until we have unlimited fusion power can be used. He also condemns our insolent use of stored carbon that Gaia locked away to enable oxygen to remain at proper levels for life. Once again, my novice view suggests his science is sound, and his call for action is refreshing.
November 28, 2012
As much as I thoroughly enjoyed Lovelock's previous books, and respect his contribution to a better understanding of global biogeochemical cycles to say the least, I found his most recent Revenge of Gaia very disappointing. There's nothing wrong with the writing or the subjects he explores, but the conclusions he comes to and the opinions he holds, are to me the signs of an older scientist gone cynical and conservative, and who is clearly out of touch with much of the larger social and global debate concerning agricultural and energetic sustainability. I understand the point he makes about some of the overly emotional reaction concerning nuclear energy, and Lovelock does a good job of explaing the science behind it, but I think his arguments are a bit simplistic. His proposal for concentrated factory farms to leave more of earth's area over to nature is just plainly ridiculous, and shows Lovelock is not very savvy when it comes to sustainable food prodcution, which does him no credit unfortunately. Shame.
July 27, 2017
Some of the reviews of this book puzzle me. People are slating it because they're picking up on particular issues: he supports nuclear power (scandal!) or he presents an overly British perspective on things (he's an elderly British guy, who'd a thunk it!).
The book is about the importance of having a holistic view of the world and how it works and how our neglect of this viewpoint is leading us to ruin and chaos. Criticising the author for his thoughts (he's allowed to have them and has earned the right given his background) on strands of his overall theory is wonderfully ironic.
It's a fairly concise book that brings home the stark reality of the damage we're doing to planet Earth really well. There are plenty of interesting facts along the way and the author is a passionate advocate of changing how we live to safeguard our future.
Why say it's a crap book because you disagree with his solutions? It's this kind of narrow minded attitude to others ideas that means we'll never come to the consensus needed to get out of this mess.
The book is about the importance of having a holistic view of the world and how it works and how our neglect of this viewpoint is leading us to ruin and chaos. Criticising the author for his thoughts (he's allowed to have them and has earned the right given his background) on strands of his overall theory is wonderfully ironic.
It's a fairly concise book that brings home the stark reality of the damage we're doing to planet Earth really well. There are plenty of interesting facts along the way and the author is a passionate advocate of changing how we live to safeguard our future.
Why say it's a crap book because you disagree with his solutions? It's this kind of narrow minded attitude to others ideas that means we'll never come to the consensus needed to get out of this mess.
October 11, 2010
It’s great to read a book written by someone with a scientific mind. The whole flow and timing of the words, the thoughts, are different. Stately, measured, calm. Reading such writing actually slows you down. I couldn’t rush through this book; it’s rhythm dictated mine; I couldn’t speed read and skip descriptive words and sentences like I do with non-fiction books. There was elegance.
Makes a convincing argument for nuclear power. In the face of what might come which he sees as a threat to civilization as we know it, radiation risk seems minor. Besides he says we breathe oxygen which is a carcinogen every day.
Ends with thoughts about a book that will hold the dark ages at bay, a reservoir of human knowledge so we won’t have to start again. Sobering shit.
Makes a convincing argument for nuclear power. In the face of what might come which he sees as a threat to civilization as we know it, radiation risk seems minor. Besides he says we breathe oxygen which is a carcinogen every day.
Ends with thoughts about a book that will hold the dark ages at bay, a reservoir of human knowledge so we won’t have to start again. Sobering shit.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 142 reviews