Scan barcode
dabow's review against another edition
2.0
Bland, though that matches the genre. Doesn't really say much we didn't already know -- those who agree that climate change is a disastrous problem receive a pat on the back, and those that don't feel condescended to, presumably.
dennesseewilliams's review against another edition
5.0
Well, that was interesting! Naomi Oreskes combines scientific facts and fiction to envision a world in the 24th century. From this future perspective, Oreskes, who is a historian of science at Harvard, is able to take an outside view on Western society to show how it has failed to prevent human-induced climate change which consequently resulted in the demise of Western civilization as the dominating power on the world stage.
Oreskes uses a multitude of scientific, political, and historical facts to show how the Anthropocene started, and how we, in the 21st century, bafflingly fail to prevent the harm we are causing to ourselves.
Oreskes uses a multitude of scientific, political, and historical facts to show how the Anthropocene started, and how we, in the 21st century, bafflingly fail to prevent the harm we are causing to ourselves.
tome15's review against another edition
4.0
This essay make some sensible arguments on the possible disasters if we don't respond appropriately to climate change. It is in the tradition of Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward."
adiaz777's review against another edition
4.0
Brief, plausible, and finally brutal, Oreskes and Conway's "view from the future" should terrify: over the next hundred fifty years, the greenhouse effect unleashed by today's carbon pollution heats average global temperatures 5 degrees centigrade, scalding heat waves become routine, desertification overtakes vast swaths of the planet, the West Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets crumble, sea levels rise eight meters, 70% of the species alive on earth go extinct, while our humanity's numbers--that is, our children and grandchildren--dwindle under the pressures of starvation, habitat loss, and disease.
But the authors haven't written another Hollywood apocalypse. The narrative doesn't follow specific refugees struggling to survive. Rather, its characters are a) a Chinese historian in a barely-sketched, necessarily diminished world of the far future, wondering how this all happened b) a few historical figures she sketches, individuals whose ideas or actions contributed to Western civilization's slow, awful slide toward an epochal extinction event.
So, how *do* we get our whole society off of burning carbon, as quickly as possible ...?
But the authors haven't written another Hollywood apocalypse. The narrative doesn't follow specific refugees struggling to survive. Rather, its characters are a) a Chinese historian in a barely-sketched, necessarily diminished world of the far future, wondering how this all happened b) a few historical figures she sketches, individuals whose ideas or actions contributed to Western civilization's slow, awful slide toward an epochal extinction event.
So, how *do* we get our whole society off of burning carbon, as quickly as possible ...?
davidr's review against another edition
4.0
Not really a book, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have written a historical essay from the point of view of a future Chinese historian. The history recounts the scientific, political, and social events during the years 1988 to 2093. The essay shows how, even though scientists predicted the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions on the earth's climate, politicians and corporations weaseled out of the implications, rationalizing their actions (or inactions), and shrugged off responsibility for the ensuing catastrophes. The authors coined an interesting phrase, the carbon-industrial complex, to mean the industries that have big economic stake in continuing our burning of fossil fuels, even when other sources of energy may be cheaper and cleaner. In the history, global warming brought a large rise in sea level, leading to disastrous permanent flooding of all coastal regions around the world.
The essay is followed by a glossary and an interview with the authors. The authors maintain that by writing their essay from the perspective of a future historian, it would not seem like so much "scolding". Even though I agree with virtually everything in the essay, I found it to be off-putting--it did seem like scolding. Just not from a person living during our own age, but from someone living in the future.
Some reviewers of this book find it to be too "technical." I suggest that they put their thinking caps on--politicians are hiding behind technicalities, because they think they are smarter than experts. They are not. They are just louder.
The essay is followed by a glossary and an interview with the authors. The authors maintain that by writing their essay from the perspective of a future historian, it would not seem like so much "scolding". Even though I agree with virtually everything in the essay, I found it to be off-putting--it did seem like scolding. Just not from a person living during our own age, but from someone living in the future.
Some reviewers of this book find it to be too "technical." I suggest that they put their thinking caps on--politicians are hiding behind technicalities, because they think they are smarter than experts. They are not. They are just louder.
dianacarmel's review against another edition
5.0
“Indeed, the most startling aspect of this story is just how much these people knew, and how unable they were to act upon what they knew. Knowledge did not translate into power.”
This book is unsettlingly realistic. I’m hopeful that the future it’s set in does not come to fruition, but I’m realistic in expecting something similar.
This book is unsettlingly realistic. I’m hopeful that the future it’s set in does not come to fruition, but I’m realistic in expecting something similar.
mburnamfink's review against another edition
3.0
Naomi Oreskes is *pissed*. She has a right to be, after writing of Merchants of Doubt and seeing the same damn thing happen again and again. The framing for this book is a Chinese historian writing about the collapse of Western civilization due to climate change from the year 2300, but the frame is really weak. What this essay actually about is recent events in climate change policies, such as the collapse of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, and a cold, clinical future history of ice sheets melting, mass migration, plague, famine, geoengineering disasters, and as the title would suggest, the end of Western civilization. The first part, about recent developments, is well-documented with footnotes. The speculation is backed up by scientific papers, but is distant and far from compelling as literature.
Oreskes takes out most of her ire on two groups. The first is the neoliberal carbon-combustion complex, a political, financial, and technological assemblage that profits off of burning fossil fuels, and uses it's ideological muscle to prevent even the slightest preparation for the oncoming disaster. The second group are Baconian reductionist scientists, who's cult-like love of objectivity prevented them from understanding human and planetary systems together, or speaking in the proper tone to alert the rest of humanity. For what it's worth, I think Oreskes is mostly right about the neoliberal carbon-combustion complex as dangerously short-sighted wreckers driving our political system, but Oreskes is a historian of science (and I'm one too, sorta), and slamming reductionism and specialization in science seems very abstruse. It's not even a particularly interesting or heated contribution to the never-ending argument on epistemology and scientific methods.
So yeah, this book is short, angry, oddly balanced, and not particularly literary. It's well researched, but unlikely to be enjoyable or interesting to anyone who doesn't already agree with Oreskes.
Oreskes takes out most of her ire on two groups. The first is the neoliberal carbon-combustion complex, a political, financial, and technological assemblage that profits off of burning fossil fuels, and uses it's ideological muscle to prevent even the slightest preparation for the oncoming disaster. The second group are Baconian reductionist scientists, who's cult-like love of objectivity prevented them from understanding human and planetary systems together, or speaking in the proper tone to alert the rest of humanity. For what it's worth, I think Oreskes is mostly right about the neoliberal carbon-combustion complex as dangerously short-sighted wreckers driving our political system, but Oreskes is a historian of science (and I'm one too, sorta), and slamming reductionism and specialization in science seems very abstruse. It's not even a particularly interesting or heated contribution to the never-ending argument on epistemology and scientific methods.
So yeah, this book is short, angry, oddly balanced, and not particularly literary. It's well researched, but unlikely to be enjoyable or interesting to anyone who doesn't already agree with Oreskes.
gwenaelle_vandendriessche's review
3.0
Ce livre m'a été recommandé par un professeur d'écologie.
Présenté comme un livre de science-fiction, ce livre serait l'analyse de l'époque actuelle (21e siècle) faite en 2393 par un historien chinois. Tel un livre d'histoire, il raconte les faits marquants et les mouvements idéologiques majeurs de l'époque. Tel un cours d'histoire, je l'ai trouvé assez ennuyeux... L'idée est excellente, mais je m'attendais à un peu plus de science-fiction qui aurait pu attirer le lecteur moins préoccupé par l'état de environnement.
Présenté comme un livre de science-fiction, ce livre serait l'analyse de l'époque actuelle (21e siècle) faite en 2393 par un historien chinois. Tel un livre d'histoire, il raconte les faits marquants et les mouvements idéologiques majeurs de l'époque. Tel un cours d'histoire, je l'ai trouvé assez ennuyeux... L'idée est excellente, mais je m'attendais à un peu plus de science-fiction qui aurait pu attirer le lecteur moins préoccupé par l'état de environnement.
sogarfi's review against another edition
Interesting, but not super engaging. I wish it had been more.
Hopefully will not be used to much in Smith
Hopefully will not be used to much in Smith