Environment

The End of Nature

The End of Nature

  • Downloads：9211
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-10-17 09:54:00
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Bill McKibben
  • ISBN：0812976088
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

Reissued on the tenth anniversary of its publication， this classic work on our environmental crisis features a new introduction by the author， reviewing both the progress and ground lost in the fight to save the earth。

This impassioned plea for radical and life-renewing change is today still considered a groundbreaking work in environmental studies。 McKibben's argument that the survival of the globe is dependent on a fundamental， philosophical shift in the way we relate to nature is more relevant than ever。 McKibben writes of our earth's environmental cataclysm， addressing such core issues as the greenhouse effect， acid rain， and the depletion of the ozone layer。 His new introduction addresses some of the latest environmental issues that have risen during the 1990s。 The book also includes an invaluable new appendix of facts and figures that surveys the progress of the environmental movement。

More than simply a handbook for survival or a doomsday catalog of scientific prediction， this classic， soulful lament on Nature is required reading for nature enthusiasts， activists， and concerned citizens alike。

Download

Reviews

Head2wall ，

It’s crazy to think this book is 30 years old and things are only worse than what was talked about in it and really nothing has been done that need to be。

Eve Kay ，

Reading slump， got to page 85

Kaitlin Baumgarten ，

Honestly， this book was written with very little science and mostly commentary。 I think it was redundant， he could've written the entire content of the book in just a couple sentences。 I also disagreed with the overall point he was making。 I'm don't even have my environmental studies degree quite yet， and I know enough to know he's making a really faulty argument。 I give it 2 stars instead of 1 just because he was relatively ahead of his time， and he made some people aware of environmental issue Honestly， this book was written with very little science and mostly commentary。 I think it was redundant， he could've written the entire content of the book in just a couple sentences。 I also disagreed with the overall point he was making。 I'm don't even have my environmental studies degree quite yet， and I know enough to know he's making a really faulty argument。 I give it 2 stars instead of 1 just because he was relatively ahead of his time， and he made some people aware of environmental issues。 。。。more

Carol Turner ，

Scary。 And reading it from a distance of more than 30 years， all too true。

Stephani ，

I really enjoyed this book。 It was not overly scientific， but weaved facts in with the author's narrative。 Seeing that this book was written in 1988， the year I was born， it's frighteningly sad that not much has changed since then。 It is a wake up call that is accessible to anyone。 I really enjoyed this book。 It was not overly scientific， but weaved facts in with the author's narrative。 Seeing that this book was written in 1988， the year I was born， it's frighteningly sad that not much has changed since then。 It is a wake up call that is accessible to anyone。 。。。more

Tim ，

This book is quite old now， and in many ways it is outdated。 The End of Nature is still relevant， however， because McKibben talks about the end of an idea， of an attitude， in addition to talking about the end of a set of physical circumstances and possibilities。Nature is ending because it no longer functions independently of human influence。 Nature is no longer natural。 McKibben's main interest is global warming。 Our climate is no longer itself; the burning of fossil fuels has altered its course This book is quite old now， and in many ways it is outdated。 The End of Nature is still relevant， however， because McKibben talks about the end of an idea， of an attitude， in addition to talking about the end of a set of physical circumstances and possibilities。Nature is ending because it no longer functions independently of human influence。 Nature is no longer natural。 McKibben's main interest is global warming。 Our climate is no longer itself; the burning of fossil fuels has altered its course irrevocably。 Solutions to this problem vary and McKibben considers several， but his main thrust is to compare solutions depend on our reflex of "defiance" to solutions that find their source in "humility。" Defiance is here understood as the homocentric view that humans can use science to solve any problem。 Yes， science led to our current problem， but we can harness its power and solve anything。 Humility is here understood as the view that human life is but one form of many on a planet of abundance。 We need to stop seeing ourselves as the highest achievement of evolution and cease using science to sustain the idea of progress that has harmed our environment: we need to want less， long for less， expend less， strive less。Defiance is a dead end in McKibben's view。 Perhaps science can solve global warming， but that won't resurrect nature。 Taking this path will mean that wilderness will gradually cease to exist。 Nature "management" will be all that remains。McKibben strongly urges for humility and biocentrism， but he acknowledges （as he must） that it is not in human nature to limit itself。 He does not fall into despair。 His proposals are idealistic， but he retains a sense of sobriety。 。。。more

Dillon ，

A good book that clearly explains our understanding of the climate crisis in 1989。 McKibben's thesis is that all natural phenomena， climate and the weather， have been tainted by the work of man and we no longer live in a completely unaltered natural state。 It is also supposedly the first work that sought to explain the greenhouse effect and anthropogenic climate change to a general audience。 I found it interesting to get an overview of what people at the time generally thought， what leaders thou A good book that clearly explains our understanding of the climate crisis in 1989。 McKibben's thesis is that all natural phenomena， climate and the weather， have been tainted by the work of man and we no longer live in a completely unaltered natural state。 It is also supposedly the first work that sought to explain the greenhouse effect and anthropogenic climate change to a general audience。 I found it interesting to get an overview of what people at the time generally thought， what leaders thought， where the research was at， and what the modelling was predicting。 For a short book it does this well。 It was also a good reminder of how little we have come in 30 years （if you really want to spiral into despair a good contemporary companion piece would be David Wallace-Wells' The Uninhabitable Earth）。I chose to read this book after McKibben came to speak in one of my classes （virtually）。 I subscribe to his newsletter， but I had not read any of his books nor heard him speak at length。 He spoke much like he writes: condensing large complicated topics into plain English while inserting small jokes and pithy wisdom。 He told our class that most of the time it is better to "screw in the senator before you screw in the light bulb。" In an email or listening to him speak it is entertaining， but by halfway through this book I just found it tiring。 Nonetheless， it was interesting to read some of McKibben's earliest work and compare it to where he is now。 In The End of Nature his tone is neutral to disappointed， but not quite admonishing。 He also ends the book on a pretty positive note。 Yet， in class he was pretty blunt in his assessment of where we are as a society。 Which was disappointed， to say the least。 When asked how he deals with despair， he responded that he tries not to ruminate for long and then continues to plot the downfall of Big Oil and their financial backers。 I would like to read one or two of his more recent books to see how this anger comes through at length。If you desire to dive deeper into the the canon of environmental writing or even just McKibben's personal work， the book is worth reading。 However， if you want a book that gives a more up-to-date assessment of the climate crisis I would check out the Wallace-Wells' （mentioned above） or just look elsewhere。 Ones on my list for the year include: Merchants of Doubt， Rising， Don't Even Think About It， & Windfall。 。。。more

Chiara Figari ，

An excellent encapsulation of the problems facing our planet but a really dark way to start the year。 Best breakdown of stodgy research and upper level scientific findings。

Mimi ，

This book was written in 1989 making it even more depressing as things have only gotten worse。 I enjoyed much if it， but sometimes felt it got bogged down 3。4

Tom Kammerer ，

Noble in scope but still a bit blah

Sean Estelle ，

McKibben is certainly a talented writer， but I can’t help but wonder what different path the climate movement would be on if it had had a Jeremiah who was drawing more from Marx and the social ecologists than Erhlich and the deep ecologists。“Perhaps the the ten thousand years of our encroaching， defiant civilization， an eternity to us and a yawn to the rocks around us， could give way to ten thousand years of humble civilization when we choose to pay more for the benefits of nature， when we rebui McKibben is certainly a talented writer， but I can’t help but wonder what different path the climate movement would be on if it had had a Jeremiah who was drawing more from Marx and the social ecologists than Erhlich and the deep ecologists。“Perhaps the the ten thousand years of our encroaching， defiant civilization， an eternity to us and a yawn to the rocks around us， could give way to ten thousand years of humble civilization when we choose to pay more for the benefits of nature， when we rebuild the sense of wonder and sanctity that could protect the natural world。” 。。。more

Graeme McGuire ，

sort of a high 3。5 but benefit of the doubt i guess。 relatively succinct and sobering in an appropriate balance; leans more toward the worst-case scenarios but justifies itself in proffering those as the primary set of assumptions to make。 the central thesis （referred to by the title） is actually not super convincing but that doesn't really mitigate the impact of the book， it's more just a middling rhetorical choice。also the lack of any really coherent/broad-view economic analysis （e。g。 any actu sort of a high 3。5 but benefit of the doubt i guess。 relatively succinct and sobering in an appropriate balance; leans more toward the worst-case scenarios but justifies itself in proffering those as the primary set of assumptions to make。 the central thesis （referred to by the title） is actually not super convincing but that doesn't really mitigate the impact of the book， it's more just a middling rhetorical choice。also the lack of any really coherent/broad-view economic analysis （e。g。 any actual treatment of corporations as extractive entities rather than just a nebulous "we" who are collectively responsible for CC） is a bit wack。 oh well， you should still read this book 。。。more

Isabel ，

I found this to be more engaging than I expected。 It was a bit dated as it was originally written in '89， however， it was interesting to read his predictions on what will happen， and what needs to happen。 We haven't improved much in our care for the environment since the '80s， and it's a bit depressing to see， especially after hearing that the 2010 climate agreement achieved nothing because not a single goal was hit。The introduction was written back in 2005 with his updates and his view on the c I found this to be more engaging than I expected。 It was a bit dated as it was originally written in '89， however， it was interesting to read his predictions on what will happen， and what needs to happen。 We haven't improved much in our care for the environment since the '80s， and it's a bit depressing to see， especially after hearing that the 2010 climate agreement achieved nothing because not a single goal was hit。The introduction was written back in 2005 with his updates and his view on the climate 16 years after originally publishing his work， but I'm curious to see what his reaction is now， another 15 years later。 。。。more

Chris Meads ，

This book came out in 1989-1990 and already the author was predicting the event of global warming and the over use of the greenhouse gases， mainly CO2 and coal。 Most of his predictions are slowly coming true with the disappearance of nature as we know it with the growth of the human population and the wilderness slowly disappearing as buildings are put up。 Even today farmland is disappearing， the economy is not good so farmers are having to sell out only to have housing developments taking over。

Marie Evanston ，

This book was not what I was expecting。 I was expecting it to be about the various ways humans are disrupting ecosystems， causing mass extinctions， polluting natural resources， and generally destroying the planet – the end of nature in this sense。 There is some of this， certainly， but it’s not McKibbons main point。 McKibbon defines “nature” in a different sense。 （Thankfully， he makes this clear on page 5 of the text）。 He is talking about a certain idea of nature， a particular meaning which natur This book was not what I was expecting。 I was expecting it to be about the various ways humans are disrupting ecosystems， causing mass extinctions， polluting natural resources， and generally destroying the planet – the end of nature in this sense。 There is some of this， certainly， but it’s not McKibbons main point。 McKibbon defines “nature” in a different sense。 （Thankfully， he makes this clear on page 5 of the text）。 He is talking about a certain idea of nature， a particular meaning which nature/natural places have to people。 This idea holds that what is most essential and defining of nature is that it is separate from us。 “Nature’s independence of us is its meaning; without it， there is nothing but us。” It is this loss， this “death”， which McKibbon argues for – convincingly， I think， since climate change leaves nothing untouched。 However， I think McKibbon is worrying about the wrong thing。 It’s worth mentioning that I read The End of Nature after reading Braiding Sweetgrass， and the perspectives of Robin Wall Kimmerer informed my judgment of TEoN。 In short， I do not think McKibbon’s definition of nature is a helpful one。 In fact， I think that it is a symptom of a larger mindset which itself is the real problem。 It is the mindset that humans and nature are fundamentally at odds， that the only way for nature to exist is to be pristine and untouched by humans。 Don’t get me wrong， there are certainly grounds for this idea in reality！ Humans have done immeasurable and irreversible harm to the natural world。 But my point is that this does not need to be the case; it is not an essential part of humanity that we are necessarily at odds with nature。 Rather， the destruction of nature at human hands is based on a mindset that devalues nature， and this is based on a still deeper mindset that believes people and nature are fundamentally at odds。 It is this idea of separateness that leads humans to believe that we owe nature nothing， that at worst we need to conquer nature， and at best we can use nature for our own purposes。 But of course this mindset is not inherent to human nature; it is cultural， and therefore changeable。 It is this mindset which needs to be changed。 Ultimately， I think our goal should not be mourning the loss of a nature which is separate from and untainted by people; our goal should be to realize that humans and nature were never really separate in the first place， that we need each other， and that our relationship can be harmonious and mutually enriching。 It is this relationship which needs fixing， and the idea that nature is “separate” from humans is a symptom of this broken relationship。McKibbon begins chapter 2 （also called “The End of Nature”） by describing how modern notions of nature （in his sense of the word） were informed by the experience of the American frontier as a pristine， unblemished land。 Already， we can see his definition of “nature” unravelling。 The America Europeans found was surely more “pristine” than it is today， but it was not because there weren’t any humans there to ruin it – there were people there！ The relevant difference was not the presence or absence of people， but how the people related to and treated the land。 In other words， the American wilderness was still “wild”， still “natural”， not because no one had touched it， but because they had touched it gently。 McKibbons talks about European explorers feeling （emphasis on “feeling”） like they were the first to see American lands， and the particular joy that came from seeing truly “wild” land。 Again， this reveals the mindset that any contact with humans is inherently corrupting。 All we have to do is once again remember that there were in fact people living in America to realize that this mindset is false。 The land was “wild” not because it has been separate from humans， but because humans had a particular relationship with it。 With all this said， of course climate change is a category all its own。 None of what I am saying is denying the damage we have done， or the scale on which we have done it。 My point is rather that I think part of the solution will be changing how we relate to nature， and this fundamentally involves realizing that we are not separate from nature。 And climate change demonstrates this better than anything。 Everything we do has an impact。 I do understand， at least partly， why McKibbons mourns the idea of “nature” in his sense of the term。 There is something humbling， even sublime， about experiencing raw forces of nature， and knowing that these are forces that you cannot control， forces which you can only be swept up in。 But recognizing that we are always intertwined with nature does not need to undermine this。 After all， part of being in a relationship means that you are not totally in control。 （And certainly， we are not totally in control of climate change！ We have impacted the earth， but we are still at her mercy。） Recognizing the reciprocity of humans and nature， and being more actively and consciously involved in that reciprocity， can be richly rewarding。 Climate change forces us to recognize the reciprocity， to be involved with nature in this way， and it forces us to confront the fact that we were never really separate in the first place。 。。。more

Ashley ，

This is not an easy book to read。 It's not that it's dense or overly technical。 In fact， it's admirably brief and succinct。 Closer to a long essay than a full-fledged nonfiction book。 It's the experience of reading it that's so tough。 The context of McKibben's classic is key--it was written in 1989 by a young man （28）。 So it was both prophetic and ahead of its time， while also being the work of a writer who had not yet reached maturity。 （This latter point is acknowledged by McKibben in the intro This is not an easy book to read。 It's not that it's dense or overly technical。 In fact， it's admirably brief and succinct。 Closer to a long essay than a full-fledged nonfiction book。 It's the experience of reading it that's so tough。 The context of McKibben's classic is key--it was written in 1989 by a young man （28）。 So it was both prophetic and ahead of its time， while also being the work of a writer who had not yet reached maturity。 （This latter point is acknowledged by McKibben in the introduction to this edition。） The first section of this book （The Present， containing "The New Atmosphere" and "The End of Nature"） is probably the most emotionally difficult to read for anyone who thinks about climate， nature， and the future of this planet。 It is stark in outlining what we've done， as carbon users， to the natural world around us。 Along with climate change， McKibben spend a great deal of time on the ozone hole （remember that！？）。 At the time this book was published， this was of grave concern: like climate change， it had been a disaster caused by humans， and like climate change， it could have adverse effects。 However， we know， reading this， that humans acted and these disasters were averted。 But what sits with you is knowing that climate change cannot be solved in the same way。 Its complexity， its maturity as a problem， its touches-every-living-thing character， and the unlikeliness that we will change any of the habits that created it makes is distressingly different from a hole in the ozone。 So there's a weird irony to reading the book， along with the way it stimulates climate grief， shame， and hopelessness。 Know this going in: there's little to no hope in this book。 And if McKibben had no hope in 1989， you can imagine how that reads now。 Yes， some of the worst of the predictions have not yet come true by the time he thought they might， but as you look around you now， you can see that being off by a matter of a couple decades really matters little。 Another area he explores is genetic engineering， something that I feel is a bit of a red herring， though we only recognize that now， all these years later。 So McKibben's fear that we'll have robot rabbits in the forest or chicken farms consisting only of living chicken torsos were not realized and seem a little silly in retrospect。 I give this book four stars because of its importance in terms of being the first work of popular nonfiction to address climate change frankly。 But in terms of the argument， I have many quibbles。 I don't like the premise of "the end of Nature。" I don't think it works。 McKibben argues that because we have altered Nature， via many means but mainly through things like climate change， insidious chemicals in our air and soil， and （I'm adding this because it wasn't an issue in 1989 bus now） microplastics in our oceans， fish， the bodies of animals， Nature is dead。 Because it has interfaced with humanity and been altered by it， it no longer exists。 And the reason it no longer exists， according to McKibben， is because it can no longer be separate。 That is the premise of Nature to him--something wholly apart from us。 I disagree with this idea entirely and consider it weirdly hubristic。 That's because Nature cannot end。 Nature can end us， and at the moment， it certainly looks like that's what it is justly trying to do。 But at the same time， our strengths as a species also makes us uniquely poised to aid and help Nature。 McKibben takes a very dark view of the efforts to set aside vast tracts of wilderness in the U。S。--in this book he says that it's a selfish motive， because the tracts were set aside so humans could enter them and experience solitude。 I think that's reductionist and wrongheaded。 There are countless people who agree with him that Nature should exist for its own sake， not just for what it can offer human beings in terms of resources （physical or emotional）。 But what I see in that is the possibilities in the human mind and in human hands to correct， to heal， to help。 One example of this is in the efforts of a former Texas businessman to restore a degraded landscape （David Bamberger ， video here ）。 Here is someone who took a natural environment that had been nearly killed by human beings， and restored it using the human ingenuity that caused its destruction in the first place。 McKibben quotes Walter Truett Anderson: "We find now that the human predicament is not quite so devoid of inherent purpose after all。 To be caretakers of a planet， custodians of all its life forms and shapers of its （and our own） future is certainly purpose enough。" McKibben ridicules this idea， saying it "depresses me more deeply than I can say。" His argument is that by being custodians of what he calls a "managed world" we strip the mystery from the natural world。 Yes， if we do this on some sort of sci-fi global scale， sure。 But is this how he would characterize what David Bamberger is doing？ What I'm doing with my own forest， growing trees from pinecones and seedlings and then transplanting them around my property in order to create shelter for my animal neighbors？ Picking up a pinecone on a walk and then bringing it back to your yard and planting it--how is that any different than what a squirrel does with an acorn？ What a bee does with pollen。 Are squirrels and bees "custodians"？ Yes， they are。 Just like the many different animals that work within their ecosystem to propagate other species。 That is management--that is custodianship。 And I think that idea is a key to getting people to act。 I found it interesting that McKibben， a religious man， found this idea so odious， when the Bible instructs human beings to be custodians of their world。More and more I realize that it is that feeling of separateness from Nature that McKibben extols in this book that keeps people from doing anything about this looming catastrophe。 If we could figure out a way to get people to understand that they are part of Nature， that we owe it to the natural world to try to restore it， to protect it， to love it so that we don't harm it， then maybe people would act。 Maybe they wouldn't build drain the marsh and build the enormous megamansion。 Maybe they'd consider the electric car when their old car breaks down。 So when McKibben says it would be better to adhere to Sartre's "neutral purposeless" than to caretake the planet， it falls flat for me。 And that is what I mean when I say that this is not the work of a totally mature writer。 And frankly， it made me angry because it felt like a very privileged world view。 That all being said， I suspect much of his ire about caretaking came from his concern about genetic engineering， a subject that distresses him and which did not seem to unfold in the ways he feared。 I don't consider that caretaking Nature。 And it's not a great fit in this book。 I found it to be a distraction。 Whew。 So anyway--this is written by someone who admires McKibben greatly， considers him a prophet of sorts， an important science communicator。 I admire his willingness to tell us the uncomfortable truth。 I've followed the way he's changed over time。 One thing that hasn't changed is in the dire threat climate change poses to the world and the fact that we seem to be unwilling to change。 We're going to follow this ship all the way down， aren't we？ We'll take some of the natural world with us。 But the natural world will survive us， even if we won't。 It will shake us off， like the parasites we've become， and it will reinvent itself。 There is the end of species， perhaps us， but there is no end of nature。 。。。more

Gemma Field ，

Starts off strong but quickly degenerates into reactionary hysteria。 One extra star to Bill McKibben for making global climate change all about him

Maddy ，

Some points are much more compelling than others。 I think the organization could have been much better。 It did succeed in making me very emotional and angry at myself for the ignorance with which I have walked and interacted with my own forms of nature。 The questions we are left with afterwards are questions of the viability of any change。 The looming issue I faced while reading the book was that it was published in the 80's， and just how little has truly changed to face the issues of climate ch Some points are much more compelling than others。 I think the organization could have been much better。 It did succeed in making me very emotional and angry at myself for the ignorance with which I have walked and interacted with my own forms of nature。 The questions we are left with afterwards are questions of the viability of any change。 The looming issue I faced while reading the book was that it was published in the 80's， and just how little has truly changed to face the issues of climate change。 。。。more

Rashi Gupta ，

This book combines extraordinary level of scientific detail with hints of philosophy。 It tries to make the man of 2005 see reason and the future of his actions detailing how one cannot postpone taking radical decisions in context of nature to their future gens。 Reading this book in 2020 hits differently - an year which is a constant reminder of wrath of nature with pandemic， wildfires， floods， droughts and what not。 It allures me to imagine indigenous， unadulterated forests of the past and detai This book combines extraordinary level of scientific detail with hints of philosophy。 It tries to make the man of 2005 see reason and the future of his actions detailing how one cannot postpone taking radical decisions in context of nature to their future gens。 Reading this book in 2020 hits differently - an year which is a constant reminder of wrath of nature with pandemic， wildfires， floods， droughts and what not。 It allures me to imagine indigenous， unadulterated forests of the past and details how we have left our imprint now on every inch of it。 I could not help gazing out of my window every now and then， wondering if the trees and birds outside were sick and the polluted rain making them sicker。The book however is based on the experiences of US and UK and the "we" therefore is a Western man。 。。。more

CO ，

Sad to see， the present is worse than the predictions in this book。

Emily ，

It's interesting to realize that this book launched the climate change movement 30 years ago。 McKibben really got a lot of people to pay attention - although not， alas， enough attention to stop emitting carbon 30 years ago。i'm finding the author's unconscious privilege off-putting。 his assumption that the Americas were "wild" before the Europeans arrived is not true; the Natives managed things before that， just with a lot more respect and gentleness。 And when he says that "we don't believe" that It's interesting to realize that this book launched the climate change movement 30 years ago。 McKibben really got a lot of people to pay attention - although not， alas， enough attention to stop emitting carbon 30 years ago。i'm finding the author's unconscious privilege off-putting。 his assumption that the Americas were "wild" before the Europeans arrived is not true; the Natives managed things before that， just with a lot more respect and gentleness。 And when he says that "we don't believe" that humans should be a part of nature， blended together - well， i don't。 i don't like the royal we。 it goes back to his misconceptions about native Americans and indigenous ways of life。 humans being integrated into the landscape does not have to be creepy or weird or unnatural。 。。。more

Hannah Gersen ，

It was pretty depressing to read this knowing it was published 30 years ago。 Everything he warned about has come to pass。 If had taken action to protect the environment back then， we could have made a huge difference。

Rob ，

This book gets right to the heart of the ecological problems we're grappling with today， talking about all we stand to lose in the face of a changing climate and collapsing biosphere。Thing is， it was published in 1989。The result: Reading this now is a heartbreaking experience。 Everything laid out clearly， lining up pretty darn close to the projections of today， only our leaders squandered decades and have brought us even closer to ruin。If that's the kind of read that gets you up in the morning， This book gets right to the heart of the ecological problems we're grappling with today， talking about all we stand to lose in the face of a changing climate and collapsing biosphere。Thing is， it was published in 1989。The result: Reading this now is a heartbreaking experience。 Everything laid out clearly， lining up pretty darn close to the projections of today， only our leaders squandered decades and have brought us even closer to ruin。If that's the kind of read that gets you up in the morning， I heartily recommend checking out this book。 It's great。 You'll even get a glimmer of hope when you see "solved" problems like acid rain and the ozone layer talked about in some depth。 But if you can't handle the grim truth that our the darkest fears of today were also the darkest fears of people who first encountered them long ago， give this one a pass for now。 。。。more

Bettie ，

Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary | Directed by Jeff Gibbs Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary | Directed by Jeff Gibbs 。。。more

Kyle Manley ，

An interesting point of view on the environmental crises we face/faced and even more interesting to read 30 years post-publish。 McKibben argues his point that nature has ended， in the sense that there is no longer any natural aspect of our world that still exists without any human signature。 For example， the most remote parts of the world now experience weather that is influenced by our greenhouse gas emissions， or by the anthropogenically increased acidity of rain。 I disagreed with Bill at many An interesting point of view on the environmental crises we face/faced and even more interesting to read 30 years post-publish。 McKibben argues his point that nature has ended， in the sense that there is no longer any natural aspect of our world that still exists without any human signature。 For example， the most remote parts of the world now experience weather that is influenced by our greenhouse gas emissions， or by the anthropogenically increased acidity of rain。 I disagreed with Bill at many points， but overall the message was thoughtful， poignant and articulated well by McKibben。 Although this book was designed to be the “Silent Spring” of climate change， and although it is beyond its time， it evidently did not hit its marks。 A fantastic book， would definitely recommend。 。。。more

Aurélien Thomas ，

We have by now pumped out so much toxic gases into the atmosphere that a significant increase in temperature and its effect upon 'Nature' is inevitable。 And？Published in 1990， this book is interesting for more than a reason。 First， written at a time when climate change and its expected dramatic consequences were not as mediatised as now， you have to salute the author for its foresight: he here predicts all the toxic effects to come of our industrial societies; effects that we can clearly see all We have by now pumped out so much toxic gases into the atmosphere that a significant increase in temperature and its effect upon 'Nature' is inevitable。 And？Published in 1990， this book is interesting for more than a reason。 First， written at a time when climate change and its expected dramatic consequences were not as mediatised as now， you have to salute the author for its foresight: he here predicts all the toxic effects to come of our industrial societies; effects that we can clearly see all around （unpredictable and dangerous weather， natural catastrophes not only multiplying themselves but being more and more intense， increase in some medical conditions -allergies， asthmas， cancers。。。）。 Then， and most importantly， because he advances here an original and striking theory: we have in fact affected our environment in such a dramatic way， that the concept of 'nature' itself as we knew it will be on its way out。 Indeed， if our ancestor defined nature as 'savage'， 'wild'， 'virgin'， in a word free from the interferences of human civilisation， for younger generations and the ones that will follow such concepts will be meaningless and anything but true。 Echoing Rachel Carson who had made the point before him， he is here stating the now well-acknowledged fact that even in the most remote corners of the globe the impact of human activities can be deeply felt - you don't need to have human beings actually living in those parts for their ecosystems to be out of balance。 So much， then， for 'wild' and 'virgin'！Now， being of a different generation， he， of course， regrets such redefining and loss。 Well。。。 I personally confess， though， to have found him here uselessly dabbling with rampant sentimentalism （maybe readers of my generation or being younger will have the same attitude as mine？）。 Who cares indeed for a Walden-type of life？ I don't。I don't， yet it doesn't mean his argument is irrelevant to me。 In fact， as always when concepts are being redefined， the consequences can be massive， and in that case they talk to us all。 'Nature' is indeed more than a word， and as a metamorphosing idea it brings to the fore a few questions we will all have to face。 Natural 'cycles' becoming more and more meaningless， then how are we are going to cope？ What will be the impact of a weather now being so deregulated that it has turned unreliable; for example on agriculture？ The author strikes here another chord: like it or not， most of the solutions will be brought about by science and technologies。。。 and it thus close his point very nicely by nailing it even further！ Our reliance on science and technologies will indeed makes what is perceived as 'natural' even more obsolete too （don't we see this increasingly happening with our food？）。 Here's a fascinating read。 Yes， I was a tat annoyed by his over-sentimentalism and nostalgic outlook towards a past now way gone。 He certainly is right about climate change and the fact that nature has been affected beyond repair， but then it's time to get on with it！ Being sorrowful should no longer be on the agendas。 Yet， and this is what makes it such a necessary read， this is not a condemnation or an indictment。 Here's just a statement of fact: as a result of climate change， the concept of 'nature' itself is changing， and such a change has consequences on how we should deal with our environment。 You could be excused to have questioned him thirty years ago; but， now， such rethinking has become quite urgent and necessary。Here's an interesting and insightful argument。 。。。more

Brandon Pytel ，

This is a reread for me， from when I read it back in high school， but this time， working in the environmental feel， I’m blown away by how some of McKibben’s talking points are still relevant， 30 years on。 McKibben argues that we have ended nature， in the sense that man has infected everything around it through not just pollution but greenhouse gases， fundamentally altering more than a lake or stream but the entire planet。 What once was so large it could never be moved is now turning into somethi This is a reread for me， from when I read it back in high school， but this time， working in the environmental feel， I’m blown away by how some of McKibben’s talking points are still relevant， 30 years on。 McKibben argues that we have ended nature， in the sense that man has infected everything around it through not just pollution but greenhouse gases， fundamentally altering more than a lake or stream but the entire planet。 What once was so large it could never be moved is now turning into something artificial。Looking at this 30 years later is really upsetting， mostly because of how accurate McKibben’s reporting is and how we failed to do anything after the Hansen testimony。 But McKibben’s strongest arguments lie within how he approaches nature: this certain way of thinking that we feel the need for pristine places， places substantially unaltered by man。 Humans’ quest to control the land has made everything manmade and the result has been this loss of beauty and a sadness we must face for knowing but not acting to prevent this。 As we try to solve this predicament through technology， we only move further and further away from nature， eventually losing our memory of what nature was and all that it used to mean for us。 Unless we swallow our human pride to change our lifestyles， we will never return to that which we most crave: That which is inhuman。 And that’s the paradox of the ever-progressing and polluting industrialism within our rapidly degrading planet。 。。。more

John Newton ，

I think it might be hard for a book that is based in large part on current scientific research to stand the test of time。 This book isn't that old （it was first published in 1989）， but many of the forecasts of what may happen by 2000 or 2020 didn't take place while there were other developments that McKibben didn't foresee。 Even the introduction to the updated edition， written in 2005， feels dated at this point。 His discussion of obstacles to climate change obviously don't include the Paris Acco I think it might be hard for a book that is based in large part on current scientific research to stand the test of time。 This book isn't that old （it was first published in 1989）， but many of the forecasts of what may happen by 2000 or 2020 didn't take place while there were other developments that McKibben didn't foresee。 Even the introduction to the updated edition， written in 2005， feels dated at this point。 His discussion of obstacles to climate change obviously don't include the Paris Accords or the Trump presidency。 Given that there are plenty of newer books， including others by McKibben， this is not the best one to get an overview of the latest science on climate change， even if it was ground-breaking in its day。 Other sections of the book are timeless。 The grim prognosis overall still remains true， even if the likely timing has changed， as does the discussion about the uncertainty we face。 Adapting to a changing climate is harder than it might sound， as every change brings about other unimagined ones。 A hotter summer may alter the migration of a certain bird or allow a certain fungus to flourish， and then that change cascades throughout the ecosystem。 That said， even while this is a slim volume， he could have made those arguments in even fewer words。 I would give the last chapter， "A Path of More Resistance，" five stars， however。 A question it posits—are we （in the West） ready to live lifestyles in which we consume half or even better a fifth of the resources we currently do？—is one that we still must answer。 Can we truly break the habits of consumption that we have developed？ Likewise are we interested in putting the health of the earth first， even if that means checking development that may improve the lives of many of the world's poorest people。 Thirty years after the first publication of The End of Nature， those are choices we still must ponder。 。。。more

Rachel ，

I follow Bill McKibben on twitter and much of what he says there is also said in this book。 Except now it's 30 years later and almost nothing has changed。 He says near the end: "The choice of doing nothing - of continuing to burn ever more oil and coal - is not a choice， in other words。 It will lead us， if not straight to hell， then straight to a place with a similar temperature。" That was published in 1989 and yet I still feel like that's true today。 We're continuing to burn oil and coal and so I follow Bill McKibben on twitter and much of what he says there is also said in this book。 Except now it's 30 years later and almost nothing has changed。 He says near the end: "The choice of doing nothing - of continuing to burn ever more oil and coal - is not a choice， in other words。 It will lead us， if not straight to hell， then straight to a place with a similar temperature。" That was published in 1989 and yet I still feel like that's true today。 We're continuing to burn oil and coal and somehow people are still fighting about IF climate change is real （it is） or IF they "believe" in it （except science isn't a belief system）。 Which is all absurd to me。 It's long past the time where action should have begun yet we're still bickering over if we should do something， or the cost of doing something。 The cost of NOT doing something outweighs it all。 We do nothing and like Bill McKibben says - we go "if not straight to hell， then straight to a place with a similar temperature"。 As in， a future where the climate has changed and the earth is warmer and hotter and it's a future we've built for ourselves and are somehow slow to repair。 I'm rambling a bit but the point is I think Bill McKibben laid out everything cleanly and with imperative in 1989 and the world still didn't change。 2019 is different， for sure - there's more green energy， more fuel efficient vehicles - but it's also the same。 We have to demand climate action now。 And it's heartening to see the younger generation below mine demanding that action， striking for the future， and being educated about the problem and speaking up。 。。。more

Tina Miller ，

Foreshadowing the present day all too well。

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The End of Nature

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The End of Nature&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The End of Nature&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0